Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Everyone hates Citizens United ruling
BooMan points to Jonathan Chait in New York magazine, Jim Worth in the Huffington Post and the continued viability of the Newt Gingrich for President train-wreck and concludes Republicans are rethinking their elation over the Citizens United ruling:
Republicans and Democrats hate the Citizens United ruling for different reasons, but it's important that they both hate it. It means there might be some hope of doing something about it. Now, the easiest way to change the law is to replace one of the five conservative Supreme Court Justicies (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, or Thomas) with a Justice who thinks they ruled incorrectly. If the president gets a second term in office, there is a decent actuarial chance that he'll get that opportunity. However, as long as the ruling remains the law of the land, the only way to change it is to pass a constitutional amendment. Organizations like Public Citizen and Common Cause are already organizing events to build support for an amendment-drive. Democracy for America has collected over 100,000 signatures in support of overturning Citizens United through a constitutional amendment. DFA's members are in the process of delivering these signatures to their U.S Senators in the coming weeks. These efforts paint a clear picture. The ruling is unpopular with the public. It has created a system that the candidates don't like. If, say, Newt Gingrich wins the GOP nomination and then loses the election very badly, the Republican Establishment may become amenable to the idea that Citizens United was wrongly decided.
It's undeniable Gingrich would be out were it not for a single large donor and SuperPAC support, and that has Republicans seeing a problem with SuperPAC money, what with him being Newt and all. But public disapproval or not I don't see Republicans joining in any effort to curtail the speeding train of money the Supremes set in motion with the ruling. The potential payoff for them is just too sweet. Their efforts to avoid a "Newt" problem in the future will be focused on dissolving the already weak divisions between candidates and their SuperPACs. Newbie Utah Senator Mike Lee's request for his own SuperPAC met with hysterical laughter at the FEC hearing, but it's not the last we'll about it. Lee's own lawyer in that FEC case, Dan Backer, seems to be making a career out of similar court challenges. They will exploit every vaguery and loophole before they'll sign onto any amendment or legislative shackle of the ruling.
Countering Citzens United is going to require massive public education, post facto, on the election we're about to see play out. 2012 will be the first highly visible test of SuperPAC influence and money. And public approval/disapproval of the ruling may shift. The money being spent is influencing voters, which might translate into voters feeling more informed (stranger things have happened). More likely, the barrage of SuperPAC messaging will be digested with skepticism, even irritation, giving Democrats enough leverage to move a vote or two in a second attempt at the DISCLOSE Act.
Republicans and Democrats hate the Citizens United ruling for different reasons, but it's important that they both hate it. It means there might be some hope of doing something about it. Now, the easiest way to change the law is to replace one of the five conservative Supreme Court Justicies (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, or Thomas) with a Justice who thinks they ruled incorrectly. If the president gets a second term in office, there is a decent actuarial chance that he'll get that opportunity. However, as long as the ruling remains the law of the land, the only way to change it is to pass a constitutional amendment. Organizations like Public Citizen and Common Cause are already organizing events to build support for an amendment-drive. Democracy for America has collected over 100,000 signatures in support of overturning Citizens United through a constitutional amendment. DFA's members are in the process of delivering these signatures to their U.S Senators in the coming weeks. These efforts paint a clear picture. The ruling is unpopular with the public. It has created a system that the candidates don't like. If, say, Newt Gingrich wins the GOP nomination and then loses the election very badly, the Republican Establishment may become amenable to the idea that Citizens United was wrongly decided.
It's undeniable Gingrich would be out were it not for a single large donor and SuperPAC support, and that has Republicans seeing a problem with SuperPAC money, what with him being Newt and all. But public disapproval or not I don't see Republicans joining in any effort to curtail the speeding train of money the Supremes set in motion with the ruling. The potential payoff for them is just too sweet. Their efforts to avoid a "Newt" problem in the future will be focused on dissolving the already weak divisions between candidates and their SuperPACs. Newbie Utah Senator Mike Lee's request for his own SuperPAC met with hysterical laughter at the FEC hearing, but it's not the last we'll about it. Lee's own lawyer in that FEC case, Dan Backer, seems to be making a career out of similar court challenges. They will exploit every vaguery and loophole before they'll sign onto any amendment or legislative shackle of the ruling.
Countering Citzens United is going to require massive public education, post facto, on the election we're about to see play out. 2012 will be the first highly visible test of SuperPAC influence and money. And public approval/disapproval of the ruling may shift. The money being spent is influencing voters, which might translate into voters feeling more informed (stranger things have happened). More likely, the barrage of SuperPAC messaging will be digested with skepticism, even irritation, giving Democrats enough leverage to move a vote or two in a second attempt at the DISCLOSE Act.
President Obama Announces New White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs David Agnew
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the White House announced that current Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs David Agnew will now serve as the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. Agnew will oversee the Obama Administration’s relationship with state, county, local, and tribal officials across the country.
“I’m pleased to announce David Agnew as the new Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. A strong nation requires strong partnerships with our state, local, and tribal officials and I am confident that David will bring their voices and the voices of the people they represent into the White House,” said President Obama.
Since January 2009, Mr. Agnew served as Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, working to strengthen the partnership with our nation’s mayors, county leaders, and other local officials.
Prior to joining the White House, Agnew was a businessman and community leader in Charleston, South Carolina. He has served as a top deputy to Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., a Special Assistant in the Office of U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and a management consultant at Price Waterhouse. Mr. Agnew has been active in public affairs and urban policy throughout his career, and has served in leadership roles for numerous non-profit organizations, including the South Carolina Trust for Public Land, the Charleston Parks Conservancy, and the College of Charleston Riley Center. Mr. Agnew received his Master’s Degree in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He is a Harry S. Truman Scholar, a European Union Visiting Fellow, and a Liberty Fellow.
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the White House announced that current Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs David Agnew will now serve as the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. Agnew will oversee the Obama Administration’s relationship with state, county, local, and tribal officials across the country.
“I’m pleased to announce David Agnew as the new Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. A strong nation requires strong partnerships with our state, local, and tribal officials and I am confident that David will bring their voices and the voices of the people they represent into the White House,” said President Obama.
Since January 2009, Mr. Agnew served as Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, working to strengthen the partnership with our nation’s mayors, county leaders, and other local officials.
Prior to joining the White House, Agnew was a businessman and community leader in Charleston, South Carolina. He has served as a top deputy to Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., a Special Assistant in the Office of U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and a management consultant at Price Waterhouse. Mr. Agnew has been active in public affairs and urban policy throughout his career, and has served in leadership roles for numerous non-profit organizations, including the South Carolina Trust for Public Land, the Charleston Parks Conservancy, and the College of Charleston Riley Center. Mr. Agnew received his Master’s Degree in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He is a Harry S. Truman Scholar, a European Union Visiting Fellow, and a Liberty Fellow.
Presidential Memorandum to Congress -- Requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
February 28, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: Delegation of Waiver Authority under Section 1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the authority conferred upon the President by section 1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, to waive certain requirements of the Act. You shall exercise this authority in consultation with other senior national security officials, including the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as any other official I may designate.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
For Immediate Release
February 28, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: Delegation of Waiver Authority under Section 1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the authority conferred upon the President by section 1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, to waive certain requirements of the Act. You shall exercise this authority in consultation with other senior national security officials, including the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as any other official I may designate.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
WEEKLY ADDRESS: An All-Of-The-Above Approach to American Energy
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON, DC—In this week’s address, President Obama spoke to the American people about the importance of taking an all-of-the-above approach to addressing our nation’s energy challenges. With only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we cannot simply drill our way to lower gas prices, as some in Washington have suggested. Americans understand that we must have a long-term strategy that uses every available source of energy—including oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, and more. We also cannot fail to recognize the important role that increasing the efficiency of our cars and trucks can play in both reducing our dependence on oil and saving consumers money at the pump. Finally, at a time when oil companies are making record profits and American families are paying record prices, we must end, once and for all, the $4 billion a year in tax breaks oil companies receive. There are no quick fixes to this problem, but together we can make a serious effort to overcome our energy challenges and help create American jobs.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
The White House
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Hello, everybody.
In the State of the Union, I laid out three areas we need to focus on if we’re going to build an economy that lasts: new American manufacturing, new skills and education for American workers, and new sources of American-made energy.
These days, we’re getting another painful reminder why developing new energy is so important to our future. Just like they did last year, gas prices are starting to climb. Only this time, it’s happening earlier. And that hurts everyone – everyone who owns a car; everyone who owns a business. It means you have to stretch your paycheck even further. Some folks have no choice but to drive a long way to work, and high gas prices are like a tax straight out of their paychecks.
Now, some politicians always see this as a political opportunity. And since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. We hear the same thing every year.
Well the American people aren’t stupid. You know that’s not a plan – especially since we’re already drilling. It’s a bumper sticker. It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. It’s a strategy to get politicians through an election.
You know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices. If we’re going to take control of our energy future and avoid these gas price spikes down the line, then we need a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, and more. We need to keep developing the technology that allows us to use less oil in our cars and trucks; in our buildings and plants. That’s the strategy we’re pursuing, and that’s the only real solution to this challenge.
Now, we absolutely need safe, responsible oil production here in America. That’s why under my Administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. In 2010, our dependence on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in more than a decade. And while there are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices, I’ve directed my administration to look for every single area where we can make an impact and help consumers in the months ahead, from permitting to delivery bottlenecks to what’s going on in the oil markets.
But over the long term, an all-of-the-above energy strategy means we have to do more. It means we have to make some choices.
Here’s one example. Right now, four billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. Four billion dollars.
Imagine that. Maybe some of you are listening to this in your car right now, pulling into a gas station to fill up. As you watch those numbers rise, know that oil company profits have never been higher. Yet somehow, Congress is still giving those same companies another four billion dollars of your money. That’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And it has to stop.
A century of subsidies to the oil companies is long enough. It’s time to end taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, and use that money to reduce our deficit and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Because of the investments we’ve already made, the use of wind and solar energy in this country has nearly doubled – and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. And because we put in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history, our cars will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade – something that, over time, will save the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump. Now Congress needs to keep that momentum going by renewing the clean energy tax credits that will lead to more jobs and less dependence on foreign oil.
Look, we know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight. But what we can do is get our priorities straight, and make a sustained, serious effort to tackle this problem. That’s the commitment we need right now. And with your help, it’s a commitment we can make. Thank you.
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON, DC—In this week’s address, President Obama spoke to the American people about the importance of taking an all-of-the-above approach to addressing our nation’s energy challenges. With only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we cannot simply drill our way to lower gas prices, as some in Washington have suggested. Americans understand that we must have a long-term strategy that uses every available source of energy—including oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, and more. We also cannot fail to recognize the important role that increasing the efficiency of our cars and trucks can play in both reducing our dependence on oil and saving consumers money at the pump. Finally, at a time when oil companies are making record profits and American families are paying record prices, we must end, once and for all, the $4 billion a year in tax breaks oil companies receive. There are no quick fixes to this problem, but together we can make a serious effort to overcome our energy challenges and help create American jobs.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
The White House
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Hello, everybody.
In the State of the Union, I laid out three areas we need to focus on if we’re going to build an economy that lasts: new American manufacturing, new skills and education for American workers, and new sources of American-made energy.
These days, we’re getting another painful reminder why developing new energy is so important to our future. Just like they did last year, gas prices are starting to climb. Only this time, it’s happening earlier. And that hurts everyone – everyone who owns a car; everyone who owns a business. It means you have to stretch your paycheck even further. Some folks have no choice but to drive a long way to work, and high gas prices are like a tax straight out of their paychecks.
Now, some politicians always see this as a political opportunity. And since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. We hear the same thing every year.
Well the American people aren’t stupid. You know that’s not a plan – especially since we’re already drilling. It’s a bumper sticker. It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. It’s a strategy to get politicians through an election.
You know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices. If we’re going to take control of our energy future and avoid these gas price spikes down the line, then we need a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, and more. We need to keep developing the technology that allows us to use less oil in our cars and trucks; in our buildings and plants. That’s the strategy we’re pursuing, and that’s the only real solution to this challenge.
Now, we absolutely need safe, responsible oil production here in America. That’s why under my Administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. In 2010, our dependence on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in more than a decade. And while there are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices, I’ve directed my administration to look for every single area where we can make an impact and help consumers in the months ahead, from permitting to delivery bottlenecks to what’s going on in the oil markets.
But over the long term, an all-of-the-above energy strategy means we have to do more. It means we have to make some choices.
Here’s one example. Right now, four billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. Four billion dollars.
Imagine that. Maybe some of you are listening to this in your car right now, pulling into a gas station to fill up. As you watch those numbers rise, know that oil company profits have never been higher. Yet somehow, Congress is still giving those same companies another four billion dollars of your money. That’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And it has to stop.
A century of subsidies to the oil companies is long enough. It’s time to end taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, and use that money to reduce our deficit and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Because of the investments we’ve already made, the use of wind and solar energy in this country has nearly doubled – and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. And because we put in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history, our cars will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade – something that, over time, will save the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump. Now Congress needs to keep that momentum going by renewing the clean energy tax credits that will lead to more jobs and less dependence on foreign oil.
Look, we know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight. But what we can do is get our priorities straight, and make a sustained, serious effort to tackle this problem. That’s the commitment we need right now. And with your help, it’s a commitment we can make. Thank you.
The View gubernatorial candidate Howard Dean ethics charges washington bureaucrats
Congressmen Battle Over Koch Brothers Keystone Pipeline
Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman got an angry response from Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield over the idea that the right wing billionaire Koch brothers should be subpoenaed over their financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down.
�
Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office Michael Steele John Boehner Speaker Pelosi
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
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."
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Biltmore Hotel
Coral Gables, Florida
4:03 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Miami! (Applause.) It is good to see all of you. Thank you so much. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you.
First of all, I just want you to know that I am resentful I'm not going to the game tonight. (Laughter.) I am mad about that. It's not right. It's not fair. (Laughter.) But I wish you guys all the best.
I want to, first of all, acknowledge a couple of people who are in the audience. First of all, you just heard from somebody who I don't know where she gets her energy from -- (laughter) -- but is just doing a remarkable job as our DNC chair -- Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Give her a big round of applause. (Applause.) Your senior senator who I expect you will send back to Washington, Bill Nelson is in the house. (Applause.) And my great friend and Florida finance chair, Kirk Wager is here. (Applause.)
And of course, all of you are here. And this is a good-looking crowd. (Laughter.) You, especially. (Laughter.) You're all raising your hand -- "yeah, that's me." (Laughter.)
Miami, I am here today not just because I need your help, although I do. But I'm here because your country needs your help. There was a reason that so many of you got involved in the campaign back in 2008 -- and it wasn’t because Barack Obama was a sure thing in the campaign. When you're named Barack Hussein Obama the odds are not in your favor in any election campaign. (Laughter.) The reason you got involved was not because of me.
The reason you got involved was because we had a shared vision about what America could be, what America should be. We had an idea of a shared vision of an America in which everybody who works hard, everybody who has a vision of where they want to take their life, they can succeed. It doesn’t matter where you come from, it doesn’t matter what you look like, doesn’t matter what your name is. That idea that if you worked hard and took responsibility, that you could buy a home, and send your kids to college, and retire with dignity and respect, put a little bit away -- that core American Dream felt like it was slipping away for too many people all across the country.
And we shared a vision in which we started making good decisions about energy and health care and education. And instead of trying to divide the country, we tried to bring it together -- and that we could assure that America for the next generation and generations to come. That's why you got involved, because of that shared vision we had for America.
Now, three years later, I'm a little grayer -- (laughter) -- I'm a little dinged up here and there. But the message I have for you is that, because of you, that change that you believed in has begun to happen. As tough as these last three years have been, think about everything that we've accomplished together.
Because of you, we averted a Great Depression. When I took office, 750,000 jobs were being lost every month. Last month we gained 250,000 jobs. We are moving the economy in the right direction. (Applause.) That's because of you.
Because of you, there are millions of people around the country who didn’t have health care and either already have health care or will soon have health care, and will never again have to think about going bankrupt just because they get sick. That happened because of you. (Applause.)
Because of you, we were able to take $60 billion that was going to subsidize banks in the student loan program, and we said why aren’t we sending that money directly to students? And as a consequence, we now have millions of young people all across the country who are getting higher Pell grants, or are eligible for Pell grants for the first time, or are seeing their student loan interest rates lower, have access to college and the keys to the American Dream. That happened because of you. (Applause.) That's what change is.
Change is the decision to rescue the American auto industry from collapse. (Applause.) You remember there were a lot of people who didn’t believe in that. Even when some politicians said we should just let Detroit go bankrupt, we stepped up. And as a consequence, probably a million jobs were saved, and the American auto industry has come roaring back, and GM is now once again the number-one automaker in the world. (Applause.) That happened because of you.
Change is the decision we made to start doing something about our oil addiction -- not waiting for Congress. And so, in a historic step even without legislation, we doubled fuel-efficiency standards on cars, applied them to light trucks, heavy trucks for the first time. It will save consumers billions of dollars. It will help our environment. It puts us at the forefront of the electric car industry, at the forefront of the clean-energy industry. That all happened because of you.
Because of you, people across the country are going to still be able to serve the country they love, regardless of whom they love -- "don't ask, don't tell" is history. That happened because of you. (Applause.)
Change is keeping another promise that I made back in 2008. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. We have refocused our efforts on those who carried out 9/11. Al Qaeda is being dismantled and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of the Earth. And that happened because of you. (Applause.)
So a lot has happened in three years. And none of this has been easy. None of this was automatic. Oftentimes we face enormous opposition. And obviously we’re still recovering from the worst recession that we’ve had in our lifetimes. So we’ve got so much more work to do. But as I said, the good news is we’re moving in the right direction.
Over the last two years, the private sector has created about 3.7 million new jobs -- 3.7 million new jobs. (Applause.) Our manufacturers are creating jobs for the first time since the 1990s. Our economy is getting stronger. The recovery is accelerating. America is coming back -- which means the last thing we can afford to do is to go back to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place. (Applause.) That’s what we can’t afford. (Applause.)
Now, that’s what the other candidates want to do. I don’t know if you guys have been watching the Republican primary debates, in case you need an incentive. (Laughter.) They make no secret about what they want to do. They want to go back to the days when Wall Street played by its own rules. They want to go back to the days when insurance companies could deny you coverage or jack up your premiums without reason. They want to spend trillions more on tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals, for people like me, who don’t need it, weren’t even asking for it -- even if it means adding to the deficit, even if it means gutting our investments in education or clean energy, or making it harder for seniors on Medicare. Their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves, everybody makes their own rules, a few do very well at the top and everybody else is struggling to get by. That’s their core vision for America.
We’ve got a different vision. We see America as a bigger, bolder place. I’m here to tell them they are wrong about America. Because in America, we understand, yes, we’re rugged individuals, yes, we don’t expect a handout, we are going to do everything we can to make it and fulfill our dreams -- but we also understand we are greater together than we are on our own. We’re better off when we keep that basic American promise that if you work hard, you can do well, you can succeed, that you can own that home and send your kids to college and put away something for retirement.
And that’s the choice in this election. This is not just a political debate. This goes to who we are as a people, because we are in a make-or-break moment for the middle class and people who are trying to get in the middle class. We can go back to an economy that is built on outsourcing and bad debt and phony financial profits. Or we can build an economy that lasts. An economy that’s built on American manufacturing, skills and education for American workers, and American-made energy, and, most importantly, the values that have always made America great: Hard work, fair play, shared responsibility.
We’ve got to make sure that the next generation of manufacturing ideas take place right here in the United States of America. Not in factories in Europe or China, but in Detroit, and Pittsburgh and Cleveland. I don’t want this nation to be known just for buying and consuming things. I want us to be selling our products and making our products, inventing products, all around the world. That’s who we are. (Applause.) It’s time for us to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas. We need to reward companies that are investing and hiring right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)
We need to make our schools the envy of the world. And that starts with the man or woman at the front of the classroom. (Applause.) A study recently showed a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by $250,000. A great teacher can help a child escape poor circumstances and achieve their dreams.
So I don't want to hear folks in Washington bash teachers, I don't want them defending the status quo. I want to give schools the resources they need to keep good teachers on the job. Reward the best ones, give schools flexibility to teach with creativity, stop teaching to the test. (Applause.) Replace teachers who aren’t helping our kids. We can do those things. (Applause.) We got some teachers in the house. (Applause.)
When kids graduate, I want them to be able to afford to go to college. If they've been working hard, if they've gotten the grades to go to college, I don't want them to cut their dreams short because they don't think they can afford it.
Right now Americans owe more in tuition debt than they do in credit card debt. And that means Congress is going to have to stop the interest rates on student loans from going up. They're scheduled to go up in July right now. Colleges and universities are going to have to do their part. I've said to them -- and I've met with university and college presidents -- we're going to keep on helping students afford to go to college. You've got to do your job in terms of keeping tuition down, because taxpayers can't fund this stuff forever. Higher education can't be a luxury; it's an economic necessity, an economic imperative for every family in America. And they should be able to afford it. (Applause.)
An America built to last is one where we're supporting scientists and researchers trying to find the next breakthrough in clean energy, making sure that happens right here in the United States. You know, we've subsidized oil companies for a century. It's time to end a hundred years of subsidies for an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and make sure that we're doubling down on clean energy that's never been more promising -- solar power and wind power, biofuels. (Applause.) They can break our addiction to foreign oil, create jobs here in America. And it's good for our national security, it's good for our economy, it's good for your pocketbook.
We need to build our infrastructure. I'm a chauvinist. I want America to have the best stuff. I want us to have the best airports and the best roads and the best ports right here in Miami that can create more jobs. (Applause.)
So what I've said is, let's take the money we're no longer spending on war, let's use half of it to reduce the deficit, let's spend the other half to do some nation-building right here at home. (Applause.) Let's put folks to work.
And we've got to make sure that everybody is doing their fair share. Everybody needs a fair shot; everybody has got to play by the same set of rules; everybody has got to do their fair share.
And when it comes to paying for our government and making sure the investments are there so that future generations can succeed, everybody has got to do their part. Which is why I put forward the Buffett Rule: If you make more than a million dollars a year you should not pay a lower tax rate than your secretary. (Applause.) That's common sense. We've said if you make $250,000 a year or less, you don't need your taxes going up right now. But folks like me, we can afford to do a little bit more.
That's not class warfare. That's not envy. It has to do with simple math. If somebody like me gets a tax break that the country can't afford, then one of two things happen: Either the deficit goes up, which is irresponsible -- or we're taking it out of somebody else -- that student who is now suddenly having to pay a higher student loan rate, or that senior who's having to pay more for Medicare, or that veteran who's not getting the help they need after having served our country.
That's not right. That's not who we are. Everybody in this room, we are here, successful, because somebody down the road was not just thinking about themselves, they were taking responsibility for the country as a whole. They we're thinking about their future. The American story has never been about what we just do by ourselves; it's about what we do together. We're not going to win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we're responding to today's challenges with the same old, tired, worn-out, "you're on your own" economics that hasn’t worked.
What these other guys are peddling has not worked. It didn’t work in the decade before the Great Depression. It did not work in the decade before I became President. It will not work now. (Applause.)
And this is not just a matter of economics. Look, we all have a stake in everybody's success. If we attract an outstanding teacher by giving her the pay that she deserves and giving her the training that she needs, and she goes on to teach the next Steve Jobs, we all benefit. If we provide faster Internet service so that some storeowner in rural America suddenly can sell their products all around the world, or if we build a new bridge that saves a shipping company time and money, workers, consumers, all of us benefit. We all do better.
This has never been a Democratic or Republican idea. This is an American idea. It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who launched a Transcontinental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, the first land-grant colleges, all in the middle of the Civil War. Think about that. I'm sure there were some folks at the time who were saying, "Why are we doing all that? I don't want to pay for that." But that laid the groundwork for a national economy.
A Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, called for a progressive income tax. Dwight Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System. Republicans supported FDR when he gave millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill.
Everybody here has a similar story. I mean, think about Florida, think about Miami -- it’s a microcosm of the country, people from all over the world coming here, seeking opportunity. And the reason people came here, the reason people continue to come to America, is because there is a recognition that in America we will create the platform for people to succeed if they work hard. That’s what is at stake in this election.
And I have to tell you that that sense of common purpose that binds us together regardless of our backgrounds, that still exists today. It may not exist in Washington, but out in the country it’s there. You talk to folks on Main Streets, town hall meetings, you go to a VFW hall, you go to a coffee shop -- it’s there. You talk to the incredible members of our Armed Forces, the men and women in uniform -- it’s there. If you go to places of worship, that sense of a bond to something larger -- it’s there.
So our politics may be divided -- and, obviously, the media loves to portray conflict -- but most Americans, they understand that we’re in this together; that no matter who we are, where we come from -- whether you are black or white or Latino or Asian or Native American, gay, straight, disabled or not -- that we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. And that’s what’s at stake right now. That’s what we are fighting for. That’s what we’ve been fighting for, for the last three years.
And so the main message I have to all of you is, as tough as these last three years have been, that that vision you had that led you to get involved, you’re not alone in that vision.
I know the changes we fought for in 2008 sometimes hasn’t come as fast as we want it. There have been setbacks. There have been controversies. And with everything that’s happened in Washington, sometimes it’s tempting to believe that, well, maybe that change we hoped for isn’t completely possible. But remember what I said during the last campaign. People don’t remember. People have a revisionist history. They remember the time from Grant Park until the inauguration. They don’t remember how hard it was to get to Grant Park. (Laughter.)
But I told you then, I said real change, big change is hard and it’s going to take time. It takes more than a single term. It takes more than a single President. Most of all, what it requires is individual citizens like you who are committed to keeping up the fight, to pushing and struggling and nudging the country so that it slowly inches closer and closer and closer to our highest ideals.
The other thing I told you in 2008 was I’m not a perfect man. If you hadn’t talked to Michelle -- (laughter) -- in the interest of full disclosure, I told you I’m not perfect and I won’t be a perfect President. But you know what I promised? I said I’d always tell you what I thought, I’d always tell you where I stood, and I’d wake up every single day fighting as hard as I can for you. (Applause.) I’ve kept that promise. I've kept that promise. (Applause.)
So if you’re willing to keep pushing with me, if you’re willing to keep struggling with me, if you’re continuing to reach out for that vision of America that we all share, I promise you change will come. (Applause.) If you are willing to get just as involved and engaged and motivated in 2012 as you were in 2008, I promise you we’re going to finish what we started. (Applause.) If you stick with me, if you press with me, we will remind the world once again just why it is that America is the greatest country on Earth.
Thank you, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.) Thank you. God bless America.
END
4:28 P.M. EST
For Immediate Release
Biltmore Hotel
Coral Gables, Florida
4:03 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Miami! (Applause.) It is good to see all of you. Thank you so much. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you.
First of all, I just want you to know that I am resentful I'm not going to the game tonight. (Laughter.) I am mad about that. It's not right. It's not fair. (Laughter.) But I wish you guys all the best.
I want to, first of all, acknowledge a couple of people who are in the audience. First of all, you just heard from somebody who I don't know where she gets her energy from -- (laughter) -- but is just doing a remarkable job as our DNC chair -- Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Give her a big round of applause. (Applause.) Your senior senator who I expect you will send back to Washington, Bill Nelson is in the house. (Applause.) And my great friend and Florida finance chair, Kirk Wager is here. (Applause.)
And of course, all of you are here. And this is a good-looking crowd. (Laughter.) You, especially. (Laughter.) You're all raising your hand -- "yeah, that's me." (Laughter.)
Miami, I am here today not just because I need your help, although I do. But I'm here because your country needs your help. There was a reason that so many of you got involved in the campaign back in 2008 -- and it wasn’t because Barack Obama was a sure thing in the campaign. When you're named Barack Hussein Obama the odds are not in your favor in any election campaign. (Laughter.) The reason you got involved was not because of me.
The reason you got involved was because we had a shared vision about what America could be, what America should be. We had an idea of a shared vision of an America in which everybody who works hard, everybody who has a vision of where they want to take their life, they can succeed. It doesn’t matter where you come from, it doesn’t matter what you look like, doesn’t matter what your name is. That idea that if you worked hard and took responsibility, that you could buy a home, and send your kids to college, and retire with dignity and respect, put a little bit away -- that core American Dream felt like it was slipping away for too many people all across the country.
And we shared a vision in which we started making good decisions about energy and health care and education. And instead of trying to divide the country, we tried to bring it together -- and that we could assure that America for the next generation and generations to come. That's why you got involved, because of that shared vision we had for America.
Now, three years later, I'm a little grayer -- (laughter) -- I'm a little dinged up here and there. But the message I have for you is that, because of you, that change that you believed in has begun to happen. As tough as these last three years have been, think about everything that we've accomplished together.
Because of you, we averted a Great Depression. When I took office, 750,000 jobs were being lost every month. Last month we gained 250,000 jobs. We are moving the economy in the right direction. (Applause.) That's because of you.
Because of you, there are millions of people around the country who didn’t have health care and either already have health care or will soon have health care, and will never again have to think about going bankrupt just because they get sick. That happened because of you. (Applause.)
Because of you, we were able to take $60 billion that was going to subsidize banks in the student loan program, and we said why aren’t we sending that money directly to students? And as a consequence, we now have millions of young people all across the country who are getting higher Pell grants, or are eligible for Pell grants for the first time, or are seeing their student loan interest rates lower, have access to college and the keys to the American Dream. That happened because of you. (Applause.) That's what change is.
Change is the decision to rescue the American auto industry from collapse. (Applause.) You remember there were a lot of people who didn’t believe in that. Even when some politicians said we should just let Detroit go bankrupt, we stepped up. And as a consequence, probably a million jobs were saved, and the American auto industry has come roaring back, and GM is now once again the number-one automaker in the world. (Applause.) That happened because of you.
Change is the decision we made to start doing something about our oil addiction -- not waiting for Congress. And so, in a historic step even without legislation, we doubled fuel-efficiency standards on cars, applied them to light trucks, heavy trucks for the first time. It will save consumers billions of dollars. It will help our environment. It puts us at the forefront of the electric car industry, at the forefront of the clean-energy industry. That all happened because of you.
Because of you, people across the country are going to still be able to serve the country they love, regardless of whom they love -- "don't ask, don't tell" is history. That happened because of you. (Applause.)
Change is keeping another promise that I made back in 2008. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. We have refocused our efforts on those who carried out 9/11. Al Qaeda is being dismantled and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of the Earth. And that happened because of you. (Applause.)
So a lot has happened in three years. And none of this has been easy. None of this was automatic. Oftentimes we face enormous opposition. And obviously we’re still recovering from the worst recession that we’ve had in our lifetimes. So we’ve got so much more work to do. But as I said, the good news is we’re moving in the right direction.
Over the last two years, the private sector has created about 3.7 million new jobs -- 3.7 million new jobs. (Applause.) Our manufacturers are creating jobs for the first time since the 1990s. Our economy is getting stronger. The recovery is accelerating. America is coming back -- which means the last thing we can afford to do is to go back to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place. (Applause.) That’s what we can’t afford. (Applause.)
Now, that’s what the other candidates want to do. I don’t know if you guys have been watching the Republican primary debates, in case you need an incentive. (Laughter.) They make no secret about what they want to do. They want to go back to the days when Wall Street played by its own rules. They want to go back to the days when insurance companies could deny you coverage or jack up your premiums without reason. They want to spend trillions more on tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals, for people like me, who don’t need it, weren’t even asking for it -- even if it means adding to the deficit, even if it means gutting our investments in education or clean energy, or making it harder for seniors on Medicare. Their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves, everybody makes their own rules, a few do very well at the top and everybody else is struggling to get by. That’s their core vision for America.
We’ve got a different vision. We see America as a bigger, bolder place. I’m here to tell them they are wrong about America. Because in America, we understand, yes, we’re rugged individuals, yes, we don’t expect a handout, we are going to do everything we can to make it and fulfill our dreams -- but we also understand we are greater together than we are on our own. We’re better off when we keep that basic American promise that if you work hard, you can do well, you can succeed, that you can own that home and send your kids to college and put away something for retirement.
And that’s the choice in this election. This is not just a political debate. This goes to who we are as a people, because we are in a make-or-break moment for the middle class and people who are trying to get in the middle class. We can go back to an economy that is built on outsourcing and bad debt and phony financial profits. Or we can build an economy that lasts. An economy that’s built on American manufacturing, skills and education for American workers, and American-made energy, and, most importantly, the values that have always made America great: Hard work, fair play, shared responsibility.
We’ve got to make sure that the next generation of manufacturing ideas take place right here in the United States of America. Not in factories in Europe or China, but in Detroit, and Pittsburgh and Cleveland. I don’t want this nation to be known just for buying and consuming things. I want us to be selling our products and making our products, inventing products, all around the world. That’s who we are. (Applause.) It’s time for us to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas. We need to reward companies that are investing and hiring right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)
We need to make our schools the envy of the world. And that starts with the man or woman at the front of the classroom. (Applause.) A study recently showed a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by $250,000. A great teacher can help a child escape poor circumstances and achieve their dreams.
So I don't want to hear folks in Washington bash teachers, I don't want them defending the status quo. I want to give schools the resources they need to keep good teachers on the job. Reward the best ones, give schools flexibility to teach with creativity, stop teaching to the test. (Applause.) Replace teachers who aren’t helping our kids. We can do those things. (Applause.) We got some teachers in the house. (Applause.)
When kids graduate, I want them to be able to afford to go to college. If they've been working hard, if they've gotten the grades to go to college, I don't want them to cut their dreams short because they don't think they can afford it.
Right now Americans owe more in tuition debt than they do in credit card debt. And that means Congress is going to have to stop the interest rates on student loans from going up. They're scheduled to go up in July right now. Colleges and universities are going to have to do their part. I've said to them -- and I've met with university and college presidents -- we're going to keep on helping students afford to go to college. You've got to do your job in terms of keeping tuition down, because taxpayers can't fund this stuff forever. Higher education can't be a luxury; it's an economic necessity, an economic imperative for every family in America. And they should be able to afford it. (Applause.)
An America built to last is one where we're supporting scientists and researchers trying to find the next breakthrough in clean energy, making sure that happens right here in the United States. You know, we've subsidized oil companies for a century. It's time to end a hundred years of subsidies for an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and make sure that we're doubling down on clean energy that's never been more promising -- solar power and wind power, biofuels. (Applause.) They can break our addiction to foreign oil, create jobs here in America. And it's good for our national security, it's good for our economy, it's good for your pocketbook.
We need to build our infrastructure. I'm a chauvinist. I want America to have the best stuff. I want us to have the best airports and the best roads and the best ports right here in Miami that can create more jobs. (Applause.)
So what I've said is, let's take the money we're no longer spending on war, let's use half of it to reduce the deficit, let's spend the other half to do some nation-building right here at home. (Applause.) Let's put folks to work.
And we've got to make sure that everybody is doing their fair share. Everybody needs a fair shot; everybody has got to play by the same set of rules; everybody has got to do their fair share.
And when it comes to paying for our government and making sure the investments are there so that future generations can succeed, everybody has got to do their part. Which is why I put forward the Buffett Rule: If you make more than a million dollars a year you should not pay a lower tax rate than your secretary. (Applause.) That's common sense. We've said if you make $250,000 a year or less, you don't need your taxes going up right now. But folks like me, we can afford to do a little bit more.
That's not class warfare. That's not envy. It has to do with simple math. If somebody like me gets a tax break that the country can't afford, then one of two things happen: Either the deficit goes up, which is irresponsible -- or we're taking it out of somebody else -- that student who is now suddenly having to pay a higher student loan rate, or that senior who's having to pay more for Medicare, or that veteran who's not getting the help they need after having served our country.
That's not right. That's not who we are. Everybody in this room, we are here, successful, because somebody down the road was not just thinking about themselves, they were taking responsibility for the country as a whole. They we're thinking about their future. The American story has never been about what we just do by ourselves; it's about what we do together. We're not going to win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we're responding to today's challenges with the same old, tired, worn-out, "you're on your own" economics that hasn’t worked.
What these other guys are peddling has not worked. It didn’t work in the decade before the Great Depression. It did not work in the decade before I became President. It will not work now. (Applause.)
And this is not just a matter of economics. Look, we all have a stake in everybody's success. If we attract an outstanding teacher by giving her the pay that she deserves and giving her the training that she needs, and she goes on to teach the next Steve Jobs, we all benefit. If we provide faster Internet service so that some storeowner in rural America suddenly can sell their products all around the world, or if we build a new bridge that saves a shipping company time and money, workers, consumers, all of us benefit. We all do better.
This has never been a Democratic or Republican idea. This is an American idea. It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who launched a Transcontinental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, the first land-grant colleges, all in the middle of the Civil War. Think about that. I'm sure there were some folks at the time who were saying, "Why are we doing all that? I don't want to pay for that." But that laid the groundwork for a national economy.
A Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, called for a progressive income tax. Dwight Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System. Republicans supported FDR when he gave millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill.
Everybody here has a similar story. I mean, think about Florida, think about Miami -- it’s a microcosm of the country, people from all over the world coming here, seeking opportunity. And the reason people came here, the reason people continue to come to America, is because there is a recognition that in America we will create the platform for people to succeed if they work hard. That’s what is at stake in this election.
And I have to tell you that that sense of common purpose that binds us together regardless of our backgrounds, that still exists today. It may not exist in Washington, but out in the country it’s there. You talk to folks on Main Streets, town hall meetings, you go to a VFW hall, you go to a coffee shop -- it’s there. You talk to the incredible members of our Armed Forces, the men and women in uniform -- it’s there. If you go to places of worship, that sense of a bond to something larger -- it’s there.
So our politics may be divided -- and, obviously, the media loves to portray conflict -- but most Americans, they understand that we’re in this together; that no matter who we are, where we come from -- whether you are black or white or Latino or Asian or Native American, gay, straight, disabled or not -- that we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. And that’s what’s at stake right now. That’s what we are fighting for. That’s what we’ve been fighting for, for the last three years.
And so the main message I have to all of you is, as tough as these last three years have been, that that vision you had that led you to get involved, you’re not alone in that vision.
I know the changes we fought for in 2008 sometimes hasn’t come as fast as we want it. There have been setbacks. There have been controversies. And with everything that’s happened in Washington, sometimes it’s tempting to believe that, well, maybe that change we hoped for isn’t completely possible. But remember what I said during the last campaign. People don’t remember. People have a revisionist history. They remember the time from Grant Park until the inauguration. They don’t remember how hard it was to get to Grant Park. (Laughter.)
But I told you then, I said real change, big change is hard and it’s going to take time. It takes more than a single term. It takes more than a single President. Most of all, what it requires is individual citizens like you who are committed to keeping up the fight, to pushing and struggling and nudging the country so that it slowly inches closer and closer and closer to our highest ideals.
The other thing I told you in 2008 was I’m not a perfect man. If you hadn’t talked to Michelle -- (laughter) -- in the interest of full disclosure, I told you I’m not perfect and I won’t be a perfect President. But you know what I promised? I said I’d always tell you what I thought, I’d always tell you where I stood, and I’d wake up every single day fighting as hard as I can for you. (Applause.) I’ve kept that promise. I've kept that promise. (Applause.)
So if you’re willing to keep pushing with me, if you’re willing to keep struggling with me, if you’re continuing to reach out for that vision of America that we all share, I promise you change will come. (Applause.) If you are willing to get just as involved and engaged and motivated in 2012 as you were in 2008, I promise you we’re going to finish what we started. (Applause.) If you stick with me, if you press with me, we will remind the world once again just why it is that America is the greatest country on Earth.
Thank you, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.) Thank you. God bless America.
END
4:28 P.M. EST
Palin Sarah Palin Chelsa Clinton Michelle Obama Sean Hannity
Presidential Memorandum to Congress -- Requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
February 28, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: Delegation of Waiver Authority under Section 1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the authority conferred upon the President by section 1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, to waive certain requirements of the Act. You shall exercise this authority in consultation with other senior national security officials, including the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as any other official I may designate.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
For Immediate Release
February 28, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: Delegation of Waiver Authority under Section 1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the authority conferred upon the President by section 1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, to waive certain requirements of the Act. You shall exercise this authority in consultation with other senior national security officials, including the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as any other official I may designate.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
putin Blagojevich financial regulations Tony Hayward bill clinton
Poverty, Opportunity, and the 2012 Presidential Election
A recent forum in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, provided an in-depth discussion into the level of concern in the United States about�poverty and opportunity, particularly concerning children.Spotlight on Poverty�also looked at whether or not these issues will be factors in the upcoming presidential election. Overall, people believe strongly that equal opportunity for children of all races is very important; that not all children currently have full access to opportunity; and that presidential candidates? views on poverty are very important. But, many think that neither the candidates nor the media are discussing poverty enough.
Interestingly, there were substantial numbers of Republicans who agreed with Democrats and Independents in several of the poll?s questions. (The corresponding�national poll�of likely voters undertaken at the end of last year highlighted several key points; all graphics are from this poll's report.)�
Most importantly,�88 percent�of respondents said that ?candidates? positions on equal opportunity for�children�of all races are important in deciding their vote for President,? and 55 percent said that they were�very�important. �
Among Democrats, 70 percent agreed that candidates? views in this area arevery�important (and an additional 25 percent said they are somewhat important). Fifty-five percent of Independents said that candidates? views arevery�important (and an additional 28 percent said they are somewhat important). �Among Republicans, 44 percent agreed that candidates? views in this area are�very�important (and 42 percent said they were somewhat important). Agreeing that they are�very�important were 85 percent of African Americans, 62 percent of Hispanics, and 51 percent of Whites.
But, despite the level of belief in equal opportunity for children, many voters do not believe that all children have full access to it as of yet. Over half of the respondents say that ?children of different races tend to face unequal barriers to opportunity.?�
In this question, researchers pointed out significant differences in the breakdowns: ?By party, 70 percent of Democratic voters said children face unequal barriers, compared to 50 percent of Independents, and only 38 percent of Republicans. By race, 50 percent of white voters said children face unequal barriers, compared to a solid majority (62 percent) of non-white voters who said so as well. Nearly three-fourths (72 percent) of African American voters said children of different races face unequal barriers. Somewhat surprisingly, only 48 percent of Hispanic participants agreed.?
There was strong feedback from the public that�candidates? views on poverty�matter in deciding on their vote for president. Almost�nine in ten respondents�said that this was�very�(45 percent) or�somewhat�(42 percent) important.
Within specific demographics, 61 percent of Democrats, 42 percent of Independents, and 33 percent of Republicans agreed that candidates? views on poverty are�very�important. (Another 35 percent, 40 percent, and 51 percent, respectively, agreed that candidates' views are�somewhat�important). Agreeing that candidates' views are�very�important were 76 percent of African Americans, 57 percent of Hispanics and 39 percent of Whites.�
Despite the importance of this topic to voters, almost half of the respondents said that ?they have not heard enough from�presidential candidates�about reducing poverty.? This includes four in ten Republicans, just under half of Independents, and six in ten Democrats. Half of both Whites and African Americans agree with this opinion, along with more than four in ten Hispanics.
When asked if the�media�has adequately covered poverty reduction during this campaign, half said no, while four in ten thought they had (10 percent didn?t know or didn?t answer). By party, six in ten Democrats said that the media hadn?t covered this issue enough, as did half of Independents and four in ten Republicans. By race, this opinion was expressed by about half of Whites and Hispanics, and by almost six in ten African Americans.
Childhood poverty�can have severe, long-lasting results. The Urban Institute found the�following:�
Sixty-three percent of children enter adulthood without experiencing poverty, but 10 percent of children are persistently poor, spending at least half their childhoods living in poverty.
Black children are roughly 2.5 times more likely than white children to ever experience poverty and 7 times more likely to be persistently poor.
Children who experience poverty tend to cycle into and out of poverty, and most persistently poor children spend intermittent years living above the poverty threshold.
Being poor at birth is a strong predictor of future poverty status. Thirty-one percent of white children and 69 percent of black children who are poor at birth go on to spend at least half their childhoods living in poverty.
Children who are born into poverty and spend multiple years living in poor families have worse adult outcomes than their counterparts in higher-income families.
A recent�report�from the Annie E. Casey Foundation revealed that, ?over the last decade there has been a significant decline in economic well-being for low income children and families. The official child poverty rate, which is a conservative measure of economic hardship, increased 18 percent between 2000 and 2009, essentially returning to the same level as the early 1990s. This increase means that 2.4 million more children are living below the federal poverty line.?�
These statistics and others illustrate the ongoing need for presidential candidates, other politicians, the media, social service providers, and everyone else, to stay focused on this issue and work to alleviate poverty in the United States.
Interestingly, there were substantial numbers of Republicans who agreed with Democrats and Independents in several of the poll?s questions. (The corresponding�national poll�of likely voters undertaken at the end of last year highlighted several key points; all graphics are from this poll's report.)�
Most importantly,�88 percent�of respondents said that ?candidates? positions on equal opportunity for�children�of all races are important in deciding their vote for President,? and 55 percent said that they were�very�important. �
Among Democrats, 70 percent agreed that candidates? views in this area arevery�important (and an additional 25 percent said they are somewhat important). Fifty-five percent of Independents said that candidates? views arevery�important (and an additional 28 percent said they are somewhat important). �Among Republicans, 44 percent agreed that candidates? views in this area are�very�important (and 42 percent said they were somewhat important). Agreeing that they are�very�important were 85 percent of African Americans, 62 percent of Hispanics, and 51 percent of Whites.
But, despite the level of belief in equal opportunity for children, many voters do not believe that all children have full access to it as of yet. Over half of the respondents say that ?children of different races tend to face unequal barriers to opportunity.?�
In this question, researchers pointed out significant differences in the breakdowns: ?By party, 70 percent of Democratic voters said children face unequal barriers, compared to 50 percent of Independents, and only 38 percent of Republicans. By race, 50 percent of white voters said children face unequal barriers, compared to a solid majority (62 percent) of non-white voters who said so as well. Nearly three-fourths (72 percent) of African American voters said children of different races face unequal barriers. Somewhat surprisingly, only 48 percent of Hispanic participants agreed.?
There was strong feedback from the public that�candidates? views on poverty�matter in deciding on their vote for president. Almost�nine in ten respondents�said that this was�very�(45 percent) or�somewhat�(42 percent) important.
Within specific demographics, 61 percent of Democrats, 42 percent of Independents, and 33 percent of Republicans agreed that candidates? views on poverty are�very�important. (Another 35 percent, 40 percent, and 51 percent, respectively, agreed that candidates' views are�somewhat�important). Agreeing that candidates' views are�very�important were 76 percent of African Americans, 57 percent of Hispanics and 39 percent of Whites.�
Despite the importance of this topic to voters, almost half of the respondents said that ?they have not heard enough from�presidential candidates�about reducing poverty.? This includes four in ten Republicans, just under half of Independents, and six in ten Democrats. Half of both Whites and African Americans agree with this opinion, along with more than four in ten Hispanics.
When asked if the�media�has adequately covered poverty reduction during this campaign, half said no, while four in ten thought they had (10 percent didn?t know or didn?t answer). By party, six in ten Democrats said that the media hadn?t covered this issue enough, as did half of Independents and four in ten Republicans. By race, this opinion was expressed by about half of Whites and Hispanics, and by almost six in ten African Americans.
Childhood poverty�can have severe, long-lasting results. The Urban Institute found the�following:�
Sixty-three percent of children enter adulthood without experiencing poverty, but 10 percent of children are persistently poor, spending at least half their childhoods living in poverty.
Black children are roughly 2.5 times more likely than white children to ever experience poverty and 7 times more likely to be persistently poor.
Children who experience poverty tend to cycle into and out of poverty, and most persistently poor children spend intermittent years living above the poverty threshold.
Being poor at birth is a strong predictor of future poverty status. Thirty-one percent of white children and 69 percent of black children who are poor at birth go on to spend at least half their childhoods living in poverty.
Children who are born into poverty and spend multiple years living in poor families have worse adult outcomes than their counterparts in higher-income families.
A recent�report�from the Annie E. Casey Foundation revealed that, ?over the last decade there has been a significant decline in economic well-being for low income children and families. The official child poverty rate, which is a conservative measure of economic hardship, increased 18 percent between 2000 and 2009, essentially returning to the same level as the early 1990s. This increase means that 2.4 million more children are living below the federal poverty line.?�
These statistics and others illustrate the ongoing need for presidential candidates, other politicians, the media, social service providers, and everyone else, to stay focused on this issue and work to alleviate poverty in the United States.
Unchecked Corporate Power Threatening Right To Sue And The Very Bones Of The Internet
Two kind of totally unrelated stories here but they both illustrate the way corporate power in the U.S. is completely out of hand.
First up, the pox that calls itself "tort reform" but is really a hugely successful attempt to choke off access to the courts for ordinary citizens. Here's an op-ed by filmmaker Susan Saladoff about her new documentary "Hot Coffee":
Taking away people’s rights to access the courts is not that new for corporations. It has been going on for more than 25 years. It has been done through legislation, judicial elections, contractually and supported by a massive, corporate-funded public relations campaign.
Most Americans, however, have no idea – and, again, don’t seem to care — until something bad happens to them personally. Then, people understand, usually for the first time, how their constitutional rights — which stem from the 7th Amendment — have been taken away.
And after the jump is some info on the new corporate assault on ICANN, the entity that manages top level domain names on the Internet.
First up, the pox that calls itself "tort reform" but is really a hugely successful attempt to choke off access to the courts for ordinary citizens. Here's an op-ed by filmmaker Susan Saladoff about her new documentary "Hot Coffee":
Taking away people’s rights to access the courts is not that new for corporations. It has been going on for more than 25 years. It has been done through legislation, judicial elections, contractually and supported by a massive, corporate-funded public relations campaign.
Most Americans, however, have no idea – and, again, don’t seem to care — until something bad happens to them personally. Then, people understand, usually for the first time, how their constitutional rights — which stem from the 7th Amendment — have been taken away.
And after the jump is some info on the new corporate assault on ICANN, the entity that manages top level domain names on the Internet.
From Rand Paul to Barbara Boxer: The Cliches of Campaign Debates
Round-Up of Senate, Governor Races in Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin14 days ago
Monday, February 27, 2012
From Rand Paul to Barbara Boxer: The Cliches of Campaign Debates
Round-Up of Senate, Governor Races in Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin14 days ago
gubernatorial candidate Howard Dean ethics charges washington bureaucrats John Kerry
The Point (Sexism, Lesbians, & Chris Brown Grammys Controversy)
�
�
�
�
Rob Delaney (comedian, writer) explains that reducing sexism and misogyny can help the world, and Mollie Thomas explains why she decided to be the first openly lesbian Miss California competitor. Finally, is there an issue with Chris Brown performing at the Grammys 3 years after his infamous assault of his then girlfriend Rihanna? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur leads this week's panel discussion on The Point with guests Kelly Carlin (host of The Kelly Carlin Show on Sirius XM Radio, and daughter of George Carlin), Andrea Meyerson (producer, director, and president of StandOut Productions), and James Golden (author and journalist).
�
�
�
Rob Delaney (comedian, writer) explains that reducing sexism and misogyny can help the world, and Mollie Thomas explains why she decided to be the first openly lesbian Miss California competitor. Finally, is there an issue with Chris Brown performing at the Grammys 3 years after his infamous assault of his then girlfriend Rihanna? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur leads this week's panel discussion on The Point with guests Kelly Carlin (host of The Kelly Carlin Show on Sirius XM Radio, and daughter of George Carlin), Andrea Meyerson (producer, director, and president of StandOut Productions), and James Golden (author and journalist).
Jesus & Republicans, LGBT, & Whitney Houston Death In Context (The Point) ft. John Fugelsang
Gary Kamiya (Salon.com) shares a point about Jesus and the Republican Presidential candiates, and Dave Holmes (comedian) makes a point on if President Obama's record on gay rights is enough to make the LGBT community single issue voters. Finally, what are the more substantive takeaways from the death of Whitney Houston relating to celebrity in America, consumerism and (legal) prescription drugs versus illegal drugs? Guest host John Fugelsang (Sexy Liberal Comedy Tour) leads the discussion with panelists Diane Winston (USC Professor of Media and Religion), Rabbi Lisa Edwards (Beth Chayim Chadashim Synagogue), and comedian Paul Gilmartin (Mental Illness Happy Hour).
�
Statement by the Press Secretary on Presidential Elections in Senegal
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
As Senegal’s citizens go to the polls on February 26, we call on Senegalese authorities to uphold internationally-recognized electoral standards to ensure that these elections reflect the will of the Senegalese people.
We encourage all registered Senegalese voters to make their voices heard by casting their ballot, and to do so peacefully. We urge all political party leaders to lead by example, and encourage their supporters to respect the rights of their neighbors to express their will. We also call on all Senegalese, including security forces, to exercise restraint, and refrain from any violence. We regret the loss of life that has occurred, and we offer our condolences to the families and friends of those who have been lost.
We and others in the international community stand together in calling for free, fair, transparent, and peaceful elections in Senegal. The Senegalese people have come to deserve – and expect – nothing less.
For Immediate Release
As Senegal’s citizens go to the polls on February 26, we call on Senegalese authorities to uphold internationally-recognized electoral standards to ensure that these elections reflect the will of the Senegalese people.
We encourage all registered Senegalese voters to make their voices heard by casting their ballot, and to do so peacefully. We urge all political party leaders to lead by example, and encourage their supporters to respect the rights of their neighbors to express their will. We also call on all Senegalese, including security forces, to exercise restraint, and refrain from any violence. We regret the loss of life that has occurred, and we offer our condolences to the families and friends of those who have been lost.
We and others in the international community stand together in calling for free, fair, transparent, and peaceful elections in Senegal. The Senegalese people have come to deserve – and expect – nothing less.
Obama?s Wrong Note on Foreclosures
As Election Day nears, President Obama is regaining his populist mojo. His�State of the Union speech�was mostly pitch perfect, evoking core American themes of opportunity and optimism, and calling for ?an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.?
But the President has repeatedly hit a wrong note in talking about the foreclosure crisis. Not only is his story inaccurate, but he is promoting a harmful narrative that will make it harder to fix the problem.
The President said in his State of the Union address that ?we?ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn?t afford them and buyers who knew they couldn?t afford them.? He repeated that theme a week later at a�speech�in Falls Church, VA, contending that people who did the ?right and the responsible thing? were hurt by ?lenders who sold loans to people who they knew couldn?t afford the mortgages; and buyers who bought homes they knew they couldn?t afford; and banks that packaged those mortgages up and traded them to reap phantom profits, knowing that they were building a house of cards.?
According to the President?s narrative, then, large numbers of Americans who are struggling beneath unsustainable mortgages willfully chose that fate and deserve roughly equal blame as do the lending and financial giants who cooked up the subprime scheme, targeted vulnerable communities, engaged in�deceptive and discriminatory practices, chopped up and distributed faulty loans, and forced fraudulent foreclosures. A different class of ?innocent, hard-working? people are the only ones paying the price in this narrative.
Let?s be clear. The foreclosure crisis was caused by reckless misconduct by the lending and financial industries, inadequate rules and enforcement, and staggering long-term unemployment. America?s long history of overwhelmingly successful homeownership went to pot because regulators looked the other way and unscrupulous corporations took advantage, not because working Americans suddenly became wildly irresponsible. Indeed, conscientious lenders like Self-Help Credit Union in North Carolina successfully made loans to the same group of working Americans over the same period with negligible default rates.
Am I saying that no American homeowner ever applied for a mortgage without a realistic plan to repay it? Of course not. A key purpose of proper underwriting standards and regulations is to help lenders and buyers determine what?s mutually sustainable. But to divide American homeowners into ?responsible? ones who?ve managed to stay current on their payments and supposedly ?irresponsible? ones who?ve fallen behind is inaccurate and harmful.
After confessing that he and the First Lady?two Harvard-trained lawyers?had trouble deciphering their own first mortgage, the President has nonetheless failed to convey how many Americans were victimized by deceptive and predatory practices; how many families sacrificed all to pay the mortgage after one or both parents lost a job; and how many people facing foreclosure today would be successful homeowners if fair rules and vigilant regulators had been in place. He also leaves out how much each of us benefits when we help our neighbors avoid foreclosure, even if we?ve personally managed to stay current on our own mortgages.
The President?s flawed story erodes the public will to aid struggling homeowners and bolsters those who say that the foreclosure crisis should be allowed to ?run its course??why rally to help people you?ve told us are irresponsible? Yet, without a more ambitious policy agenda than we have now, we?ll see millions more Americans lose their economic security, families uprooted from schools and communities, senior citizens thrown into uncertainty or destitution, and the economy in continued chaos.
The President?s current story is also deepening the feelings of shame that keep too many Americans from seeking the advice that could help them save their homes or, at least, make a successful transition. Housing counselors say the stigma attached to foreclosure keeps many people in the shadows instead of accessing the services that exist. It doesn?t help when the Commander in Chief labels them irresponsible.
It?s time for a new, accurate story about homeownership, opportunity, and the American Dream. It?s a story that places blame where it belongs while recognizing that we each have economic and moral responsibilities. It?s a story about the solutions to the crisis that exist, including many that the Administration can take without any action from Congress. And it?s a story about why, in this crisis as in so many others, we are all in it together. As communicator-in-chief, the President should take the lead in telling that story.
Read also:
Compact for Home Opportunity: What America Can Do to Stop Foreclosures and Fulfill the American Dream
But the President has repeatedly hit a wrong note in talking about the foreclosure crisis. Not only is his story inaccurate, but he is promoting a harmful narrative that will make it harder to fix the problem.
The President said in his State of the Union address that ?we?ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn?t afford them and buyers who knew they couldn?t afford them.? He repeated that theme a week later at a�speech�in Falls Church, VA, contending that people who did the ?right and the responsible thing? were hurt by ?lenders who sold loans to people who they knew couldn?t afford the mortgages; and buyers who bought homes they knew they couldn?t afford; and banks that packaged those mortgages up and traded them to reap phantom profits, knowing that they were building a house of cards.?
According to the President?s narrative, then, large numbers of Americans who are struggling beneath unsustainable mortgages willfully chose that fate and deserve roughly equal blame as do the lending and financial giants who cooked up the subprime scheme, targeted vulnerable communities, engaged in�deceptive and discriminatory practices, chopped up and distributed faulty loans, and forced fraudulent foreclosures. A different class of ?innocent, hard-working? people are the only ones paying the price in this narrative.
Let?s be clear. The foreclosure crisis was caused by reckless misconduct by the lending and financial industries, inadequate rules and enforcement, and staggering long-term unemployment. America?s long history of overwhelmingly successful homeownership went to pot because regulators looked the other way and unscrupulous corporations took advantage, not because working Americans suddenly became wildly irresponsible. Indeed, conscientious lenders like Self-Help Credit Union in North Carolina successfully made loans to the same group of working Americans over the same period with negligible default rates.
Am I saying that no American homeowner ever applied for a mortgage without a realistic plan to repay it? Of course not. A key purpose of proper underwriting standards and regulations is to help lenders and buyers determine what?s mutually sustainable. But to divide American homeowners into ?responsible? ones who?ve managed to stay current on their payments and supposedly ?irresponsible? ones who?ve fallen behind is inaccurate and harmful.
After confessing that he and the First Lady?two Harvard-trained lawyers?had trouble deciphering their own first mortgage, the President has nonetheless failed to convey how many Americans were victimized by deceptive and predatory practices; how many families sacrificed all to pay the mortgage after one or both parents lost a job; and how many people facing foreclosure today would be successful homeowners if fair rules and vigilant regulators had been in place. He also leaves out how much each of us benefits when we help our neighbors avoid foreclosure, even if we?ve personally managed to stay current on our own mortgages.
The President?s flawed story erodes the public will to aid struggling homeowners and bolsters those who say that the foreclosure crisis should be allowed to ?run its course??why rally to help people you?ve told us are irresponsible? Yet, without a more ambitious policy agenda than we have now, we?ll see millions more Americans lose their economic security, families uprooted from schools and communities, senior citizens thrown into uncertainty or destitution, and the economy in continued chaos.
The President?s current story is also deepening the feelings of shame that keep too many Americans from seeking the advice that could help them save their homes or, at least, make a successful transition. Housing counselors say the stigma attached to foreclosure keeps many people in the shadows instead of accessing the services that exist. It doesn?t help when the Commander in Chief labels them irresponsible.
It?s time for a new, accurate story about homeownership, opportunity, and the American Dream. It?s a story that places blame where it belongs while recognizing that we each have economic and moral responsibilities. It?s a story about the solutions to the crisis that exist, including many that the Administration can take without any action from Congress. And it?s a story about why, in this crisis as in so many others, we are all in it together. As communicator-in-chief, the President should take the lead in telling that story.
Read also:
Compact for Home Opportunity: What America Can Do to Stop Foreclosures and Fulfill the American Dream
Statement by the President
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
In my State of the Union, I laid out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last -- where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone pays their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. That includes a tax code that rewards companies who invest and create jobs in the United States of America.
Our current corporate tax system is outdated, unfair, and inefficient. It provides tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas and hits companies that choose to stay in America with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It is unnecessarily complicated and forces America’s small businesses to spend countless hours and dollars filing their taxes. It’s not right, and it needs to change.
That’s why my administration released a framework for reform that simplifies the tax code, eliminates dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, and promotes job creation right here at home. It’s a framework that lowers the corporate tax rate and broadens the tax base in order to increase competitiveness for companies across the nation. It cuts tax rates even further for manufacturers that are creating new products and manufacturing goods here in America. Finally, because no company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas, this framework includes a basic minimum tax for every multinational company. This reform is fully paid for, and it won’t add a dime to the deficit.
As I said in the State of the Union, it is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.
For Immediate Release
In my State of the Union, I laid out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last -- where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone pays their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. That includes a tax code that rewards companies who invest and create jobs in the United States of America.
Our current corporate tax system is outdated, unfair, and inefficient. It provides tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas and hits companies that choose to stay in America with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It is unnecessarily complicated and forces America’s small businesses to spend countless hours and dollars filing their taxes. It’s not right, and it needs to change.
That’s why my administration released a framework for reform that simplifies the tax code, eliminates dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, and promotes job creation right here at home. It’s a framework that lowers the corporate tax rate and broadens the tax base in order to increase competitiveness for companies across the nation. It cuts tax rates even further for manufacturers that are creating new products and manufacturing goods here in America. Finally, because no company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas, this framework includes a basic minimum tax for every multinational company. This reform is fully paid for, and it won’t add a dime to the deficit.
As I said in the State of the Union, it is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.
Charlie Crist Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office Michael Steele John Boehner
Sunday, February 26, 2012
President Obama Announces New White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs David Agnew
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the White House announced that current Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs David Agnew will now serve as the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. Agnew will oversee the Obama Administration’s relationship with state, county, local, and tribal officials across the country.
“I’m pleased to announce David Agnew as the new Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. A strong nation requires strong partnerships with our state, local, and tribal officials and I am confident that David will bring their voices and the voices of the people they represent into the White House,” said President Obama.
Since January 2009, Mr. Agnew served as Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, working to strengthen the partnership with our nation’s mayors, county leaders, and other local officials.
Prior to joining the White House, Agnew was a businessman and community leader in Charleston, South Carolina. He has served as a top deputy to Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., a Special Assistant in the Office of U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and a management consultant at Price Waterhouse. Mr. Agnew has been active in public affairs and urban policy throughout his career, and has served in leadership roles for numerous non-profit organizations, including the South Carolina Trust for Public Land, the Charleston Parks Conservancy, and the College of Charleston Riley Center. Mr. Agnew received his Master’s Degree in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He is a Harry S. Truman Scholar, a European Union Visiting Fellow, and a Liberty Fellow.
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the White House announced that current Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs David Agnew will now serve as the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. Agnew will oversee the Obama Administration’s relationship with state, county, local, and tribal officials across the country.
“I’m pleased to announce David Agnew as the new Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. A strong nation requires strong partnerships with our state, local, and tribal officials and I am confident that David will bring their voices and the voices of the people they represent into the White House,” said President Obama.
Since January 2009, Mr. Agnew served as Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, working to strengthen the partnership with our nation’s mayors, county leaders, and other local officials.
Prior to joining the White House, Agnew was a businessman and community leader in Charleston, South Carolina. He has served as a top deputy to Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., a Special Assistant in the Office of U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and a management consultant at Price Waterhouse. Mr. Agnew has been active in public affairs and urban policy throughout his career, and has served in leadership roles for numerous non-profit organizations, including the South Carolina Trust for Public Land, the Charleston Parks Conservancy, and the College of Charleston Riley Center. Mr. Agnew received his Master’s Degree in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He is a Harry S. Truman Scholar, a European Union Visiting Fellow, and a Liberty Fellow.
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.
Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt of Denmark after a Bilateral Meeting
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
The Oval Office
3:41 P.M. EST
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I want to welcome Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt to the White House and to the Oval Office. This is the first time that we've had a chance to meet, but obviously we've been very impressed with the first five months of her prime ministership. I shared with her how much Michelle and I appreciated the extraordinary hospitality that was shown to Michelle and I when I visited Copenhagen in the past. And I also wanted to just say how much we appreciate the great alliance and partnership that we have with the Danish people on a whole range of international issues.
Obviously, most recently, the operations in Libya could not have been as effective had it not been for the precision and the excellence of the Danish armed forces and their pilots. But that's fairly typical of the way that Danes have punched above their weight in international affairs.
In Afghanistan, I thanked the Prime Minister for the extraordinary contributions of Danish troops in the Helmand area. They operate without caveat, have taken significant casualties, for which obviously all of us extend our condolences to the families that have been affected. But because of the outstanding work that's been done by Danish soldiers in Afghanistan, we're seeing great progress in the areas where they operate.
We had a chance to talk about the economy. As we were exchanging notes, it turns out that, like folks here in the United States, everybody in Denmark wants to talk about the economy all the time, and jobs and growth. And we agreed that there has been some progress in resolving the sovereign debt issues, that there has been some progress with respect to the agreements between the EU and the IMF and Greece, the new government in Italy, new governments in Spain and Portugal are all making significant progress, but that there's a lot more work to do. And we will be consulting closely with Denmark.
And we exchanged ideas on how we can ensure not only economic stability in Europe but also growth in Europe, because if Europe is growing then that benefits the U.S. economy as well. And we emphasized other additional ways that we can encourage trade and reduce economic frictions between the two sides of the transatlantic relationship.
In preparation for our meeting in Chicago, at NATO, in my hometown, we talked about the transition that was already agreed to in Lisbon, when it comes to putting Afghans in the lead in security over the next several years. And we are going to be consulting with not only Denmark but our other allies in making sure that that is a smooth transition and one that is sustained, where we continue to help the Afghan government to support its own sovereignty and effectively control its borders.
We also discussed the extraordinary counterterrorism cooperation that's taking place between our two countries. And I thanked the Prime Minister for the excellent work that her intelligence team has done. We are in constant communication on a whole host of issues. The Danes are very much one of the leaders when it comes to counterterrorism, and are obviously familiar with the significant threats that are posed by terrorism. So we appreciate that very much.
And we had a chance to talk about a wide range of international issues, including the situation in Syria. And I have to say that all of us who've been seeing the terrible pictures coming out of Syria and Homs recently recognize it is absolutely imperative for the international community to rally, and send a clear message to President Assad that it is time for a transition, it is time for that regime to move on, and it is time to stop the killing of Syrian citizens by their own government.
And I'm encouraged by the international unity that we are developing -- the meetings that took place in Tunisia that Secretary Clinton attended. And we are going to continue to keep the pressure up, and are looking for every tool available to prevent the slaughter of innocents in Syria. And this is an area where I think the Prime Minister and I deeply agree -- it's important that we not be bystanders during these extraordinary events.
At the same time, there are other threats in the region, including the situation in Iran. And I thanked the Prime Minister and the Danish government for their leadership role in applying the toughest sanctions we've ever seen coming out of the EU. Difficult sanctions to apply, but we both agree that we're making progress and they are working in sending a message to Iran that it needs to take a different path if it wants to rejoin the international community, and that there is a expectation on the part of the world that they abide by their international obligations when it comes to their nuclear program.
So the final thing we talked about was the fact that we both have two daughters; they're roughly the same ages. (Laughter.) We traded notes. The Prime Minister's daughters are slightly older than Malia and Sasha. She assures me that they continue to behave themselves, even well into their teenage years. So I'm encouraged by the report.
PRIME MINISTER THORNING-SCHMIDT: Good. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And I thank you very much. I hope that you have a wonderful stay while you're here, and we look forward to working with you again in the near future.
PRIME MINISTER THORNING-SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you so much for your kind words. And the Danish people have a very strong sense of closeness to the United States, and we always have had that sense. We have close economic, political ties with each other. But not only that, we exchange tourism, students, ideas, and culture. But perhaps most important of all, we have -- we share common values. And I think in a turbulent time, this is very, very important.
So basically, the friendship and the alliance between our two countries is in very good shape right now. And I thank you for that.
As you said, we discussed the current situation. Denmark holds the presidency of the EU right now, and we talk about the debt situation most of the time, in Europe. I conveyed the message to the President that I am convinced that we will see ourselves through this crisis. We have now put some very important measures in place. We have fiscal conservation, we have reforms, and we have focus on growth and jobs right now.
In doing that, in this endeavor, I think a closer transatlantic relationship will be important. We are dependent on each other and we should have closer trade with each other, and I think that would be part of creating sustainable growth in our own countries.
As you were saying, Mr. President, we also have close ties in terms of security. It is clear -- it has been for a long time -- that Danish soldiers are serving alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan, and I used the opportunity today to thank you and the American people for the great effort you have put in Afghanistan. It is greatly appreciated worldwide. And I know that the Danish people really appreciate the global leadership that you and your people have taken also within that context.
I look forward, of course, to coming back to the States, to your hometown, Chicago, to participate in the NATO summit. And what we will be discussing there is Afghanistan, of course. One of the major issues there is transition to the next phase in Afghanistan, and where -- what we want to see is the Afghans taking responsibility for their own security. And we are, in Europe, with all the Danish leadership, trying to gather donors in this -- in securing that the Afghans are capable of taking over their own security.
We have some great samples of our alliance. We have worked together, again, in Libya, where we made sure that Libya came out on a path of democracy. And I think, again, the Americans showed leadership in that context.
Another area that we discussed, as you’ve said, was Syria, which is quite the opposite situation. It is horrendous what we see in Syria right now. But I think it is also very, very true that we have worked together in that area. We must continue that endeavor, and just today we have seen that, of the leadership of the League of Arab States, there has been a step forward in trying to put pressure on Syria, which is very, very important. The same goes for Iran.
Another area in security where we work together is in terms of piracy, and I used the opportunity of thanking sincerely the President for the courageous operation that led to the freeing of two aid workers that worked for the Danish Refugee Council. They are now safe because of the Americans. Thank you for that.
So basically our security -- our cooperation in terms of security are very great indeed.
I will finish here just by saying that I think our meeting here today has confirmed the friendship and the alliance between our two countries. There’s a lot we can do that -- you're always welcome to come to Denmark -- and I think it is very, very important that we have these kind of meetings to renew the friendship, and this is what you’ve done today.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much, everybody.
END
3:51 P.M. EST
For Immediate Release
The Oval Office
3:41 P.M. EST
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I want to welcome Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt to the White House and to the Oval Office. This is the first time that we've had a chance to meet, but obviously we've been very impressed with the first five months of her prime ministership. I shared with her how much Michelle and I appreciated the extraordinary hospitality that was shown to Michelle and I when I visited Copenhagen in the past. And I also wanted to just say how much we appreciate the great alliance and partnership that we have with the Danish people on a whole range of international issues.
Obviously, most recently, the operations in Libya could not have been as effective had it not been for the precision and the excellence of the Danish armed forces and their pilots. But that's fairly typical of the way that Danes have punched above their weight in international affairs.
In Afghanistan, I thanked the Prime Minister for the extraordinary contributions of Danish troops in the Helmand area. They operate without caveat, have taken significant casualties, for which obviously all of us extend our condolences to the families that have been affected. But because of the outstanding work that's been done by Danish soldiers in Afghanistan, we're seeing great progress in the areas where they operate.
We had a chance to talk about the economy. As we were exchanging notes, it turns out that, like folks here in the United States, everybody in Denmark wants to talk about the economy all the time, and jobs and growth. And we agreed that there has been some progress in resolving the sovereign debt issues, that there has been some progress with respect to the agreements between the EU and the IMF and Greece, the new government in Italy, new governments in Spain and Portugal are all making significant progress, but that there's a lot more work to do. And we will be consulting closely with Denmark.
And we exchanged ideas on how we can ensure not only economic stability in Europe but also growth in Europe, because if Europe is growing then that benefits the U.S. economy as well. And we emphasized other additional ways that we can encourage trade and reduce economic frictions between the two sides of the transatlantic relationship.
In preparation for our meeting in Chicago, at NATO, in my hometown, we talked about the transition that was already agreed to in Lisbon, when it comes to putting Afghans in the lead in security over the next several years. And we are going to be consulting with not only Denmark but our other allies in making sure that that is a smooth transition and one that is sustained, where we continue to help the Afghan government to support its own sovereignty and effectively control its borders.
We also discussed the extraordinary counterterrorism cooperation that's taking place between our two countries. And I thanked the Prime Minister for the excellent work that her intelligence team has done. We are in constant communication on a whole host of issues. The Danes are very much one of the leaders when it comes to counterterrorism, and are obviously familiar with the significant threats that are posed by terrorism. So we appreciate that very much.
And we had a chance to talk about a wide range of international issues, including the situation in Syria. And I have to say that all of us who've been seeing the terrible pictures coming out of Syria and Homs recently recognize it is absolutely imperative for the international community to rally, and send a clear message to President Assad that it is time for a transition, it is time for that regime to move on, and it is time to stop the killing of Syrian citizens by their own government.
And I'm encouraged by the international unity that we are developing -- the meetings that took place in Tunisia that Secretary Clinton attended. And we are going to continue to keep the pressure up, and are looking for every tool available to prevent the slaughter of innocents in Syria. And this is an area where I think the Prime Minister and I deeply agree -- it's important that we not be bystanders during these extraordinary events.
At the same time, there are other threats in the region, including the situation in Iran. And I thanked the Prime Minister and the Danish government for their leadership role in applying the toughest sanctions we've ever seen coming out of the EU. Difficult sanctions to apply, but we both agree that we're making progress and they are working in sending a message to Iran that it needs to take a different path if it wants to rejoin the international community, and that there is a expectation on the part of the world that they abide by their international obligations when it comes to their nuclear program.
So the final thing we talked about was the fact that we both have two daughters; they're roughly the same ages. (Laughter.) We traded notes. The Prime Minister's daughters are slightly older than Malia and Sasha. She assures me that they continue to behave themselves, even well into their teenage years. So I'm encouraged by the report.
PRIME MINISTER THORNING-SCHMIDT: Good. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And I thank you very much. I hope that you have a wonderful stay while you're here, and we look forward to working with you again in the near future.
PRIME MINISTER THORNING-SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you so much for your kind words. And the Danish people have a very strong sense of closeness to the United States, and we always have had that sense. We have close economic, political ties with each other. But not only that, we exchange tourism, students, ideas, and culture. But perhaps most important of all, we have -- we share common values. And I think in a turbulent time, this is very, very important.
So basically, the friendship and the alliance between our two countries is in very good shape right now. And I thank you for that.
As you said, we discussed the current situation. Denmark holds the presidency of the EU right now, and we talk about the debt situation most of the time, in Europe. I conveyed the message to the President that I am convinced that we will see ourselves through this crisis. We have now put some very important measures in place. We have fiscal conservation, we have reforms, and we have focus on growth and jobs right now.
In doing that, in this endeavor, I think a closer transatlantic relationship will be important. We are dependent on each other and we should have closer trade with each other, and I think that would be part of creating sustainable growth in our own countries.
As you were saying, Mr. President, we also have close ties in terms of security. It is clear -- it has been for a long time -- that Danish soldiers are serving alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan, and I used the opportunity today to thank you and the American people for the great effort you have put in Afghanistan. It is greatly appreciated worldwide. And I know that the Danish people really appreciate the global leadership that you and your people have taken also within that context.
I look forward, of course, to coming back to the States, to your hometown, Chicago, to participate in the NATO summit. And what we will be discussing there is Afghanistan, of course. One of the major issues there is transition to the next phase in Afghanistan, and where -- what we want to see is the Afghans taking responsibility for their own security. And we are, in Europe, with all the Danish leadership, trying to gather donors in this -- in securing that the Afghans are capable of taking over their own security.
We have some great samples of our alliance. We have worked together, again, in Libya, where we made sure that Libya came out on a path of democracy. And I think, again, the Americans showed leadership in that context.
Another area that we discussed, as you’ve said, was Syria, which is quite the opposite situation. It is horrendous what we see in Syria right now. But I think it is also very, very true that we have worked together in that area. We must continue that endeavor, and just today we have seen that, of the leadership of the League of Arab States, there has been a step forward in trying to put pressure on Syria, which is very, very important. The same goes for Iran.
Another area in security where we work together is in terms of piracy, and I used the opportunity of thanking sincerely the President for the courageous operation that led to the freeing of two aid workers that worked for the Danish Refugee Council. They are now safe because of the Americans. Thank you for that.
So basically our security -- our cooperation in terms of security are very great indeed.
I will finish here just by saying that I think our meeting here today has confirmed the friendship and the alliance between our two countries. There’s a lot we can do that -- you're always welcome to come to Denmark -- and I think it is very, very important that we have these kind of meetings to renew the friendship, and this is what you’ve done today.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much, everybody.
END
3:51 P.M. EST
Hillary Clinton Tea Party Black Panthers Bristol Palin Newt Gingrich
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/22/12
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:55 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for coming to the White House for your daily briefing.
Q New glasses -- again?
MR. CARNEY: You think these are new? (Laughter.)
Q Yeah. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: Maybe.
Q Did you leave them on the bumper again?
MR. CARNEY: Not this time. Not this time. These could be old; they could be new.
Before I get started I wanted, on a serious note, to say something about two journalists who were killed yesterday in Syria. As you know, last week I, aboard Air Force One, said something about Anthony Shadid, who died last week in Syria. These tragic deaths underscore something that I think we all -- all of us in this room, since we participate in -- I did once and you do now -- in this profession -- it's a reminder of the incredible risk that journalists take -- Marie Colvin, Anthony Shadid, and the French photojournalist who was killed yesterday as well -- in order to bring the truth about what's happening in a country like Syria to those of us at home and in countries around the world. And our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those journalists.
And it's a reminder, too, that the victims are many, and overwhelmingly, in this case, they are innocent Syrian civilians. The brutality of the Assad regime becomes ever more apparent each day -- as each day goes by.
So I just wanted to mention that -- and go to questions. Julie.
Q Thank you. Sticking with Syria, you said yesterday that international action is needed before the situation in Syria becomes too chaotic. But given this latest incident and the continued shelling in Syria, how much more chaotic can things get? What exactly is the international community waiting for at this point?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the international community has acted through the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly. Unfortunately, Russia and China vetoed a resolution that would have passed through the Security Council. But there is overwhelming international support for the condemnation of Assad and his regime's atrocities and actions, and overwhelming support for the Syrian people.
There's an ever-growing coalition of nations, if you will, who are part of the "Friends of Syria" that the United States is part of, and together we will continue to enhance the pressure on Assad, continue to help the opposition become more functional, continue to work to bring humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, and continue to call on the international community collectively to take greater action to pressure Assad and to force him to relinquish power so that the Syrian people can have the democratic future that they deserve.
Q When you talk about helping the opposition, the main opposition group said today that foreign military intervention may be necessary in order for humanitarian aid to make it into Syria. I know you said yesterday that humanitarian aid is needed. Would the U.S. support foreign military intervention for the purpose of getting humanitarian aid into Syria?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think there's a useful comparative here to Libya. I'm often asked this question in the -- using that comparison. And what we had in Libya when there was outside military intervention was a unified international community, a call for intervention by the Libyan people, the prospect of an immediate assault by Qaddafi’s forces on an entire city, Benghazi, and the possibility that international military action could have -- could halt that and could limit or prevent the deaths of many, many thousands of Libyans.
Each country in the region where we have had this kind of unrest is different, and certainly Syria is different from Libya in many of those particulars that I just laid out.
We will work with the international community to provide humanitarian assistance. We will continue to press the international community to condemn Assad and his actions, and to take action to further pressure and sanction his regime.
Right now -- and I was asked this yesterday, and I just want to make clear that we do not believe that adding to the militarization of Syria is the right approach. We believe that the right approach is for the international community to speak with one voice to pressure Assad and get him to relinquish power and to cease the brutal assault on his own people.
Q Does that apply also to military intervention for the purpose of --
MR. CARNEY: Well, right now we believe that the appropriate action is a diplomatic, economic approach, the likes of which we’re taking.
Q If I could switch briefly over to the corporate tax proposal -- when the President has rolled out other proposals from his State of the Union address, he’s been out front in doing so, but today’s proposal came from the Treasury Department and Secretary Geithner. Why not have the President out front? Why put this distance between he and the proposal today?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I certainly disagree that there is distance between the President and his Secretary of the Treasury. Tim Geithner has developed this proposal, working with his team and the economic team here in the White House. The President -- you should have by now -- if not, you’ll have it momentarily -- has put out a full statement laying out why he believes this corporate tax reform that he and his administration is putting forward today is so important; why it fits into his overall blueprint for an “America Built to Last,” where everyone gets a fair shot and plays by the same rules.
So the President is very committed to corporate tax reform, as he made clear at the State of the Union address last year in 2011. And he believes that this is an area where an opportunity exists, an opportunity to disprove the conventional wisdom that nothing can get done in an election year between a White House held by one party and a Congress largely controlled by the other.
After all, there is a fair amount of consensus that simplifying the corporate tax code is a good idea, that broadening the base and lowering the rate is a good idea.
The President has put forward a proposal that does that; that in doing that eliminates unnecessary and expensive subsidies and carved-out special provisions for corporations like oil and gas companies that don’t need them; that eliminates the carried interest rule that allows hedge fund managers and private equity investors to -- or managers -- to pay a far lower tax rate on their income than firefighters and teachers -- and everyone probably in this room -- and thereby creates a corporate tax code that allows American businesses to be more competitive globally, that incentivizes manufacturing in the United States, that takes away the incentive for companies to relocate overseas and reverses that and creates incentives for companies to insource again in the United States -- a trend the President believes is very important to our economic future.
So he’s very supportive of this proposal and hopes that Congress will see in this an opportunity to prove the critics wrong, to show that we can get things done this year for the American people.
Reuters.
Q Thank you, Jay. Picking up on the discussion of gas prices from yesterday, is it fair for the American voter or the American public to blame any President -- in this case, this President and his administration -- when gas prices start going up so high?
MR. CARNEY: Look, I think this President, as I said yesterday, fully appreciates the impact of higher gas prices on average Americans trying to make ends meet. He talked about that yesterday in the event where he discussed the extension of the payroll tax cut.
One of the reasons in both 2011 and now this year that cutting the payroll tax for 160 million Americans is so important is because it gives the average American family an extra $40 per paycheck, close to $1,000 per year, to pay for things like gasoline, to fill up their tanks.
So he’s very aware of the impact that it has and fully understands the anxiety it creates. And he understood that when he was running for President back in 2008 when there was a spike in the price of oil. There has since been, as you know, last year and again this year -- this is a recurrent problem and it’s a problem that reinforces the need that he identified back when he was a candidate for a comprehensive energy strategy, one that takes an all-of-the-above approach to the development of our energy -- sources of energy; one that insists that we can safely and responsibly expand our domestic oil and gas production, which he has.
Every year since he's been President, we've increased our oil and gas production. Every year since he's been President, we've decreased our reliance on foreign oil imports. And certainly, every year since he's been President, he has made a focus of the importance of investing in alternative energy technology, because that combination is the one that will build a foundation for energy security in the future, so that we are not as vulnerable to the kinds of price shocks that we get when oil climbs, as it is now.
And as I said yesterday, we need to do the things that we can control to insulate ourselves from the things that we can't. And that includes oil prices that are going up in spite of the fact that domestic oil production is going up; oil prices that are going up globally in spite of the fact that the President has made clear -- put in place policies that will dramatically expand the amount of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, will expand the amount of exploration in Alaska, will expand the amount of natural gas production here in the United States.
And yet, these prices are going up. And that tells you that there are other things beyond our control, like unrest in the Middle East, or other factors like the growth of emerging countries such as China and India. So in that kind of environment, in that kind of world, we need to do everything we can here at home to insulate ourselves from these price shocks. And that’s what the President's been doing since he took office.
Q Does the President accept any responsibility for the fact that the prices are going up, especially -- or has any response to things --
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President accepts responsibility that he identified the next President should accept back in 2008, which is the need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that protects Americans in the long run from these kinds of situations, and that makes America more secure and energy independent. And that’s the policy he's proposed.
I think that if you're suggesting that there's responsibility for price hikes in the global -- I mean, a rise in the global price of oil, it's certainly not because of anything he hasn't done to expand domestic oil and gas production, because he has done -- taken significant action to expand American gas and oil production. And he will continue to do that.
He will continue to do that as he takes action to, for example, as I mentioned yesterday, allow for the first nuclear reactor to be built in this country in 30 years; to increase our investments in alternative energy like biodiesel and wind and solar. I mean he’s an all-of-the-above -- his is an all-of-the-above approach, and you’ll hear a lot about that from him in coming days and weeks.
Q But if a candidate like Rick Santorum says the reason these things are going -- these prices are going up is because of the President’s dedication to the radical environmentalist movement --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think it’s incumbent upon those who report on random statements by politicians seeking office to compare them to the facts, and the facts are as I’ve stated. Oil and gas production in the United States has risen every year since the President has been in office. Oil production is now higher than it’s been in eight years. And this President is taking action to ensure that it continues to go up.
Not least -- and I think it’s important to mention, and I don't know where various candidates for office are on this issue, but the President last year through an agreement with major automobile manufacturers have put into effect enhanced fuel-efficiency standards that will save American families $1.7 trillion at the pump, and cut oil consumption by 12 billion -- I think yesterday I said 12 million because 12 billion sounded like so much, and it is. And the fact is that action alone did more to enhance our long-term energy independence than almost anything any President could do.
Yes.
Q In the briefing on the tax proposal, Secretary Geithner said that they're using this proposal today to move the process along, which, as you know, can take time. And he said it’s designed so corporate tax reform could be done alone, but it might have to be done with individual tax reform, which will come after the presidential election. Given that, what is your timeframe for really getting this done?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would simply agree with Secretary Geithner that there is an opportunity here to do it alone or singularly with just corporate tax reform. The President has put forward a very specific framework of his approach -- that explains his approach to corporate reform. There is an opportunity, as I just said, because of apparent interest by both Democrats and Republicans to reform our corporate tax code, to take action now. There's no reason why Congress couldn’t take this up.
It is also the case that if Congress were to feel itself particularly bullish about the possibility of bipartisan cooperation that they could take up individual tax reform. And the President’s principles on individual tax reform are pretty clear as well. So there is -- it’s absolutely the case that you could do this by itself or you could do it with individual tax reform. We would welcome action by Congress, in accordance with the President’s principles, in either case.
Q So what is the President himself doing to encourage the Congress to feel bullish about bipartisan progress?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think Secretary Geithner himself, who is obviously the President’s Treasury Secretary, has already spoken with leaders in Congress about this.
Q But the President hasn’t? Or has he?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have any calls or conversations of the President to report, but I’m sure the President will be having these discussions. And, look, if there is interest in pursuing this corporate tax reform plan by Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the President is very interested in doing that. And that goes along -- that also applies to individual tax reform.
So I think as Secretary Geithner made clear, he’s already begun this conversation with Republicans and Democrats on the Hill with regards to corporate tax reform. And we hope that conversation continues and that we can produce a result for the American people and for American businesses that will have -- that will create the result of a lower tax rate for American businesses that will -- and that will make them more competitive; a broader base to ensure that this reform doesn’t add a dime to the deficit; and a situation where the American manufacturing sector, and in particular, the advanced manufacturing sector, is further incentivized to grow, and where small businesses are -- where the environment is made easier for small businesses to deal with the tax code by simplifying the tax code for them, allowing them to, for example, expense up to $1 million.
And there are a variety of other measures that are part of this corporate tax reform that would make American businesses much more competitive.
Q Have you gotten any feedback from the CEOs that the administration talks to about the plan already today that you can share with us?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything to share with you. I think that we believe that the reception so far has been positive and will be positive because it does what so many people say is important to do, which is -- and this is Democrats and Republicans -- which is lower the rate, broaden the base, eliminate the underbrush of unnecessary subsidies and loopholes and special provisions that complicate the tax code and basically have the taxpayer subsidizing oil and gas companies, for example, which enjoyed record profits last year and certainly seem to be on track to enjoy significant profits this year and don’t need those kinds of subsidies. That money can then be used to pay for an action that would lower the rates for everybody.
Yes, Jake.
Q The White House keeps praising these journalists who are -- who have been killed
MR. CARNEY: I don’t know about "keeps." I think --
Q You’ve commented, Vice President Biden did it in a statement. How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court? You’re currently -- I think that you’ve evoked it the sixth time -- and before the Obama administration it had only been used three times in history. This is the sixth time you’re suing a CIA officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about CIA torture. Certainly that’s something that’s in the public interest of the United States; his administration is taking this person to court. There just seems to be a disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad -- you just don’t want it in the United States.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would hesitate to speak to any particular case for obvious reasons and I would refer you to the Department of Justice for more on that. I think that we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of reporters who are placing themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to bring the story of oppression and brutality to the world. I think that is commendable and it’s certainly worth noting by us. And as somebody who knew both Anthony and Marie, I particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the American people.
As for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, I think that there are issues here that involve highly-sensitive, classified information, and I think that those are -- divulging that kind of information is a serious issue and always has been.
Q So the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here?
MR. CARNEY: Well, that’s not at all what I’m saying, Jake, and you know it’s not. Again I can’t specific--
Q Well, that’s what the Justice Department is doing.
MR. CARNEY: Well, you’re making a judgment about a broad array of cases and I can’t address those specifically.
Q It’s a judgment that a lot of whistleblowers organizations and good government groups are making as well.
MR. CARNEY: It’s not one that I’m going to make.
Yes, Ed.
Q Can we go back to gas prices because I wanted to ask about what -- the President’s case seems to be to deal with this issue now is we’ve really increased oil production. When you go back to 2008, the President repeatedly mocked Senator McCain and this whole "drill here, drill now," "drill, baby, drill" -- all of that was mocked, that it was a dumb idea. Now, you’re holding it up as a really great idea. How do you square those two?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Ed, there’s a distinction here that you’re missing. The President’s approach has been to responsibly increase domestic oil and gas production. What he has never said, and what I attempted, I thought, to appropriately mock yesterday, was the idea that there are magic solutions, that you can put forward a proposal to cut the price at the pump in half on a piece of paper with a couple of magic beans. It’s just not realistic.
The fact is oil and gas production in this country has been increasing, and even as it has been increasing the price of oil has been going up globally. That tells you that there are factors that are not entirely within our control. And putting forward to the American people that simply by drilling more you’re going to resolve this problem for the long term is not being honest with the American people.
That's why you need a comprehensive energy strategy. That's why you need an all-of-the-above approach. That's why you need to invest in clean energy technologies, as well as open up millions of acres -- of new acres in the Gulf of Mexico to exploration; as well as allow for the building and permitting of the first nuclear reactor in this country in 30 years. You need to do it all. And that's the only approach that is responsible.
And to suggest to Americans that there is some other way, that you can wave a magic wand and cut oil prices and cut gas prices, is simply not treating the American people with the kind of respect they deserve -- because they know better.
Q He didn’t mock John McCain in 2008 on this issue? He didn’t repeatedly say --
MR. CARNEY: I didn’t say that. I said that, then and now, the President believed that there is not -- that drilling alone was the way to resolve our energy security problems. It's not, as evidenced by the fact that domestic oil and gas production has increased every year that he's been in office, and yet oil prices -- we experience these spikes in oil prices. And I think that tells you that the way to insulate ourselves, the way to insulate the American people from these kind of price shocks, is to increase our energy independence, to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, to increase our capacity for alternative energy production as well as traditional fossil fuel production.
And that’s the approach the President's taking. But it's not -- drilling alone will not solve this problem. That was true in 2008; it's true in 2012.
Q Last thing. In '08 and then throughout his presidency, he's talked about a comprehensive plan, as you mentioned. But at the end of last year, when White House officials were talking about the 2012 agenda, it was suggested that the only must-pass legislation -- you were talking about this earlier -- by a Democratic White House working with a Republican House -- the only real must-pass was the payroll tax cut extension. So how can you now say that dealing with an energy plan now is something the President really wants to do, when in December you weren't talking about it?
MR. CARNEY: Well, that’s -- he has been talking about this consistently since he was sworn into office. And the point about extending the payroll tax cut was the fact that Congress, which had not shown a great deal of interest -- Republicans -- in bipartisan cooperation on difficult issues, that the one issue that we felt confident was a must-do piece for them, as well as us, because of the political price they would pay for raising taxes on 160 million Americans, was extending the payroll tax cut.
But we fully hope and expect that Congress will do more than that. And we look forward to Congress taking action on the President’s refinance proposal which could put up to $3,000 in the pockets of average, responsible American homeowners; taking action on an infrastructure investment bill that could put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work and allow for the building of -- rebuilding of our infrastructure in this country -- roads, bridges, schools, highways, ports; and taking action to, if they felt really emboldened by this bipartisan potential, putting teachers back to work, taking action on some of the other provisions in the American Jobs Act, as well as corporate tax reform, as well as measures that would enhance our energy security.
The point is, is that the sky is the limit here if Congress is willing to work with this administration, if Democrats and Republicans are willing to work together on the Hill.
All the way in the back, yes, ma’am. Nice to see you. Welcome.
Q Thank you. I would like to know if you know of any educational initiatives the President has in place to better prepare students for success at college or university level?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President has pursued since he took office comprehensive education reform. Race to the Top has been one of the unheralded -- by the media largely -- bipartisan successes that this President has pushed forward, working with the Secretary of Education.
He has also expanded access to Pell grants to allow for more Americans to attend college, and he will push forward with broad education initiatives. Because if you may remember -- I know folks in this room do -- his State of the Union address last year, in 2011, he talked about the need for the United States to out-educate and out-innovate the competition globally. We can't -- we cannot win economically in the 21st century if we don't have the best-educated workforce. That's our competitive advantage.
Even though -- one of the reasons why we’ve seen a trend towards insourcing, American companies bringing jobs back to the United States, is when they look at all of the factors that go into deciding where to locate a factory or where to locate a business, other countries may have lower labor prices, but we have a skilled, educated workforce that can bring great value to American businesses, as well as international businesses. We have to keep that up. So he’s very committed to education.
Yes, Norah.
Q Can I return to Syria? You were talking about the "Friends of Syria" meeting that will happen later this week, and part of the goal is making the opposition more "functional" is the word you used. What do you mean, and how would we help make the opposition more functional?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we would work with the "Friends of Syria" to help stand them up, to cement its organizational capacity, its unity, so that there is an entity in place as this inevitable transition occurs -- because, as we’ve said in the past, it’s not a question of if, but when Assad gives up the reins of power in the Syria.
So we will do that, working with the “Friends of Syria,” working with this broad coalition of members of the international community who are committed to the Syrian people, to their right to a democratic transition, and strongly condemn and oppose the brutality of the Assad regime.
Q So some NGOs are calling for recognizing the opposition as a transitional government. Is that something that the U.S. supports?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of the process here. I think that helping to organize and unify the opposition is something that we are doing in cooperation with our international partners. This is an entity that is emerging as the brutality of the Assad regime continues, and so I don’t have a timeframe on if or when something like that would happen. But right now we’re just working with the “Friends of Syria” to help them organize, help them unify.
Q Can I get you to clarify remarks out of both the White House and the State Department yesterday -- if pressure on Assad does not work, are we considering arming the opposition?
MR. CARNEY: I want to be clear that our position is that it is not appropriate now to contribute to the militarization, the further militarization of Syria. What I said and I think what was said in the State Department was simply to make clear that we don’t rule out additional measures if the international community waits too long and doesn’t act decisively. But that is not -- I’m not hinting at imminent action or change. Our position is that it is not appropriate to contribute to the militarization of Syria, that there is opportunity still now for this process to result in the departure from power of Assad and a democratic transition to begin to take place.
Q There are estimated 100 civilians that were killed in the city of Homs yesterday. Why would we intervene on behalf of the rebels in Libya and not help those in Syria?
MR. CARNEY: Well, that’s an excellent question and I attempted to answer that a little bit earlier, but you ask it more directly, so I’ll try to address it. The comparative is useful in that it demonstrates why it is important to not have a one-size-fits-all approach, because the situations can be different even though the broader unrest in the region obviously is similar or reflects an overall trend in the region.
In Libya, as you recall, there was support at the international level, broad support of the United Nations Security Council resolution. There was a request from the Libyan opposition and the Libyan people for direct military intervention, outside military intervention. And, most importantly, there was the opportunity identified by the President and other leaders, and military leaders of NATO, to have the dramatic impact of preventing a massacre in Benghazi. There was a city coming under assault by Qaddafi forces. And the situation in Syria is different in all of those particulars that I just laid out.
Again, we're not ruling stuff out in the future, ruling actions out in the future. But right now, we believe that the right approach is not to contribute to the militarization, and to pursue a path of pressuring Assad, isolating Assad, and furthering along the process that will ultimately lead to him stepping down or no longer being in power.
Q And then finally, would we support and help establish a safe haven?
MR. CARNEY: For?
Q Within Syria?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, we don’t believe that military action is the right course -- contributing to the militarization of Syria is the right path right now. We are, through humanitarian assistance and pursuing the provision of humanitarian assistance, pursuing the international effort to assist the opposition in organizing itself and unifying itself. But in terms of a military action to secure a part of the country, that is not currently a policy we're pursuing.
Yes.
Q Jay, thanks. On Iran, as you know, the IAEA inspectors returned, basically saying that they felt their trip was unsuccessful. What's the White House's reaction? And to what extent does this compound or add to the tensions that are already there with Iran?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we regret the failure of Iran to reach an agreement this week with the IAEA that would permit the agency to fully investigate the serious allegation raised -- allegations, rather, raised in its November report.
It’s important to note that the IAEA maintains regular access to both of Iran’s enrichment facilities at Qom and Natanz. The IAEA was seeking additional access -- that's what this visit was about -- in line with Iran’s safeguards obligations, to sites and facilities where Iran is suspected of conducting work related to weaponization activity. So, unfortunately, this is another demonstration of Iran’s refusal to abide by its international obligations.
We will continue to evaluate, working with our P5-plus-1 partners, the letter in response -- that we received from the Iranians in response to Lady Ashton’s letter about the possibility of engaging in talks. But this particular action by Iran suggests that they have not changed their behavior when it comes to abiding by their international obligations.
Q On the tax reform plan, as you know, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is giving his own economic speech today in which he’s going to talk about his tax reform plan. He was initially going to give that speech on Friday and he moved it up. But was the timing of today’s announcement in any way meant to preempt the unveiling of that speech?
MR. CARNEY: Well, no. In fact, I think we’ve been saying for quite some time now that our corporate tax reform proposal would be put forward at the end of the month, roughly within the timeframe of the submission of the budget. So we’ve kept to that schedule. Perhaps others are timing their announcements around ours. But this is something that Secretary Geithner has been working on with the White House economic team and the Treasury team for quite some time, and we identified this time period as a time to release it a number of weeks ago.
Q And also, tonight is the 20th Republican presidential debate, potentially the last presidential debate. Given that, will the President watch tonight? I know you’ve said he hasn’t in the past. Does he have any plans to watch this final --
MR. CARNEY: So the question is why is this night so different from any other? (Laughter.)
Q Exactly.
MR. CARNEY: I didn't ask him today, this morning if he planned to watch it. I suspect, knowing him, knowing his viewing habits, that he will not watch it. He has a family at home. He tends to, when he watches TV at all, it’s either sports or a movie. So I don't expect he will. But the President obviously keeps up with what’s in the news and will, I’m sure, be aware of the general back-and-forth in the debate come tomorrow morning.
Q Given that the President is going to face off with one of these candidates, isn’t it important for him to see the debate and not just -- I know you said he’s read about the debates. But I mean, isn’t that a part of understanding the strategy --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think there is ample time between now and early November for him to prepare for what will be debates with his opponent once that opponent emerges from this process. I think -- we’re not pushing up against a deadline here. I think he’ll be prepared when that time comes. He might look at a little tape when that time comes. But for now, I think he’ll continue his practice of finding something better to do.
Yes. How are you, Mara?
Q Just to clarify what you said to Norah, you said Syria is different, and then you listed all the criteria that made Libyan opposition the correct choice. So if there was an imminent massacre in Syria, then you’d be considering --
MR. CARNEY: There are ways to speculate about individual things, conditions that might be in place. What was the case in Libya is that all those conditions were in place that created an opportunity where international, outside military action to prevent the slaughter of civilians, to enforce a no-fly zone, was an option that the international community could take.
So my point in making that comparison is that it was those
-- that set of circumstances that made that option achievable, and that is the one the President pursued with many, many international partners, very importantly, including countries from the region. So I’m just making the distinction because it’s easy to say, well, you did this in that country why don’t you do it in this? And it’s important to recognize the different circumstances.
Q You’re saying right now none of those things are --
MR. CARNEY: Well, there was not a United Nations Security Council resolution passed. There’s a different military situation on the ground, if you will, and just different circumstances in general.
Q And also to follow up on Jessica’s question about tax reform -- you said that the President’s principles on individual tax reform are as clear as well. Does that mean he also wants to lower rates and broaden the base there, too?
MR. CARNEY: Well, his principles are clear. They are the Buffett Rule, as you know and you’ve heard him and I and others talk about. You haven’t heard “I” talk about it, you’ve heard "me" talk about it -- that’s just correct grammar.
Q That’s not really tax reform, though.
MR. CARNEY: Well, certainly it is. It’s --
Q -- raising taxes on one individual --
MR. CARNEY: No, no, no. It’s ensuring that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay a lower effective tax rate than average, working Americans.
He has made clear that his approach to tax reform would ensure that those making under $250,000 a year will not see their taxes go up. That is a principle. He is committed to the expiration of the high-end Bush tax cuts.
So the set of principles that he has put in place in terms of the individual tax code could very well be translated into individual tax reform. So he’s spoken at length about the individual tax code and he has put forward a framework for corporate tax reform. Obviously, this is the kind of thing when people ask me about why executive actions and "We Can’t Wait," this is the kind of thing that a President can’t do on his own. He needs congressional cooperation, and he looks forward to having it.
Q Well, what I’m confused about -- you just listed the President’s views on certain tax policies. When people say tax reform, they generally mean broadening the base and lowering rates. That’s not what you’re talking about when you talk about individual tax reform the way you are with corporate tax reform.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not sure I agree with your premise that tax reform follows that formula.
Q -- the President is less progressive --
MR. CARNEY: That is the formula that applies to the President’s approach, which is an approach shared by many others to corporate tax reform. The approach that the President has taken on individual tax rates is that we should not have a tax code that’s skewed to benefit -- through the carried interest rule or other itemized deductions, other means that allow for millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower effective tax rate than average Americans. He does not believe that folks earning up $250,000 -- families earning up to $250,000 should see their taxes go up. He does believe that those making more than $250,000 should see their taxes go up because the unaffordable Bush tax cuts for high-income Americans need to expire at the end of the year.
Q Right. But even those principles, does he believe in broadening the base and lowering rates in general? Keeping all the progressivity you just mentioned, does he believe that that is what we should do --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that progressivity is an important principle here, and that’s one that is reflected in his embrace of the Buffett Rule and his embrace of expiring -- making sure that the higher-end Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.
Q What about broadening the base and getting rid of deductions? Because the President has --
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President has put --
Q -- take another question.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, let me get some others here. I think, Mara, you know we have put forward proposals in the past -- last summer and fall -- that included limiting itemized deductions for high-income Americans. That’s a way of a broadening the base. Eliminating the carried interest rule is a way of broadening the base so that hedge fund managers who are simply earning income don’t pay a capital gains rate, they pay at an income tax rate.
So I think this President has put forward both on paper and through speeches quite a bit of information about his approach to individual taxes.
Laura.
Q On corporate tax reform, are you comfortable with the idea that while you are closing certain corporate loopholes, this -- your proposal does in its own way pick winners and losers in the sense that there are new advantages for manufacturers and clean energy makers?
MR. CARNEY: We are comfortable with an approach that eliminates a huge amount of the complications, loopholes, special provisions, subsidies from the tax code, and focuses the tax code on growing the American manufacturing sector, growing the advanced manufacturing sector, and assisting small businesses, which are, after all, an important engine of economic growth and a hugely important engine of job growth in this country.
So, yes, we believe that we need to eliminate a lot of the existing complexities from the tax code, and then identify very clearly what our priorities are when it comes to manufacturing, advanced manufacturing and small businesses.
Q So you kept saying, in response to the questions about gas prices, that we need to insulate ourselves against these higher prices and world events, et cetera. Yet you’ve explained how domestic production is at a high level and it’s doing apparently very little to insulate us on the world oil market. So my question is, are you -- if we do continue to pursue Obama’s sort of all-of-the-above policies and accomplish the things that the President is seeking, will that be enough to counter what’s happening in the world oil markets? Will what he’s suggesting lead to lower gas prices?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what this President is pursuing -- the policies that he's already put in place and the policies that he is pursuing will do is reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. And by definition, that will create a situation where we have greater energy security in the future than we have had in the past.
I can't predict what oil prices will be in a year or two years or even six months. I would be careful of anyone who says they can. But what we can do through policy is increase our domestic production of oil and gas, increase our overall domestic sources of energy, including alternative energy, and thereby insulate ourselves from some of the shocks that come in the future. But that doesn’t mean --
Q That doesn’t take care --
MR. CARNEY: -- that doesn’t -- what we know, for example, if through the car rule, the enhanced fuel efficiency standards that the President put into place, is that we will save $12 billion of oil because of that.
Q Barrels.
MR. CARNEY: Barrels, sorry -- 12 billion barrels of -- this is the second time I've blown it. Thank you, Mr. Henry -- 12 billion barrels of oil. That is a heck of a lot of oil. And absent those fuel efficiency standards, we know that we would be paying for that oil, and we would be paying for a certain portion of that we would be paying foreign providers of that oil.
So these are important steps that we can take to insulate ourselves from energy shocks in the future. You're shaking your head, but it's absolutely logical here. The more -- the less we rely on foreign oil, the less dependence we have, the more energy security we have.
Q But is that true? Do you -- if we increase domestic oil production, doesn’t it just go onto the world market with all the rest of the oil? It does very little to --
MR. CARNEY: I think that we increase domestic oil and gas production, understanding that increasing domestic oil and gas production alone won't solve our energy challenges, it will mean that we can continue to reduce, hopefully, our imports of foreign oil, reduce our reliance on foreign oil. And thereby, when you have problems in a region of the world that produces oil, you are -- the effect on your own production -- your own dependence on that -- the reduction in your dependence on that insulates you from some of that shock.
Q Will that lead to lower gas prices?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to predict gas prices. What I know is that it increases our energy security.
Yes.
Q Jay, you took a question yesterday about Secretary Vilsack’s comment about getting the oil companies, in his words, “to help ensure that the recovery that we’re now seeing is not jeopardized by energy costs that get out of control.” What did you find out about that?
MR. CARNEY: You know what, I would refer you to the Department of Agriculture. I think what our approach has been is to, through the policies that I’ve been describing several times now, to work with domestic oil and gas companies to ensure that more -- millions and millions of more acres are available -- millions of acres are available for exploration in the Gulf and in Alaska and other places.
We work with manufacturers in a variety of ways to ensure the smooth operation of a system here that provides oil and gas products to American consumers, but I don't think it was anything more specific than that.
Q Do you know of any specific concern --
MR. CARNEY: No --
Q -- a new effort to get them to try to put a lid on prices?
MR. CARNEY: No, no, no, no. And I think that should not be interpreted that way. I think this was more about the fact that we have a lot of consultation and dialogue to ensure that the overall system that produces and supplies American consumers is operating smoothly.
Q In the Florida speech tomorrow, is he going to specifically address the current price situation? Is there going to be any kind of reassurance for people in this speech, which apparently is going to focus on energy?
MR. CARNEY: Well, he will talk about the need to take an all-of-the-above approach. He will certainly talk about it broadly in terms of our energy security in the 21st century and our economic security in the 21st century as a long-term project. He’ll, I expect, make reference to the rise in oil prices that we’re experiencing right now and the anxiety that that creates and the impact that has on American families trying to make ends meet.
He has been very clear about his concern about higher gas prices and higher oil prices, and what that means for American families. And he’s been explicit about that in arguing for the payroll tax cut and the extra money that that provides to Americans both in 2011 and this year. So, yes, I expect you can hear him -- you’ll hear him talk about that tomorrow.
Yes.
Q Jay, the President is going viral again by singing. (Laughter.) Is this by design? Is it a reaction to polls?
MR. CARNEY: I think it’s just -- it’s a hidden talent that we’re just getting to hear. It’s not at all -- the circumstances both at the Apollo Theater and last night at the event here I think were pretty unique. So I can't predict -- the next time maybe at the inauguration next year. (Laughter.) But what I can tell you is that among his --
Q It’s only a matter of when. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: It will be a celebration. No matter -- among his many talents is the ability to carry a tune.
Yes, sir.
Q Jay, on corporate taxes, you could find any number of polls suggesting average Americans believe that corporations don’t pay their fair share, that there are too many loopholes, too many breaks, et cetera. So why doesn’t the President make more of a show of this? Why doesn’t he bang the drum a little bit about this issue when it could be politically positive for him?
MR. CARNEY: I think the President has been pretty explicit about his firm belief that there are provisions within the tax code that allow some corporations to be subsidized in ways that are just not affordable and are unnecessary. And I think oil and gas companies are a primary example and one that he’s been beating the drum on for quite some time -- and that is included within this corporate tax reform proposal.
He hasn’t often been criticized for not speaking out on this issue because he’s spoken out on it so clearly, and he will continue to do so. And that’s how -- we’ve been clear about the carried interest rule and why that is simply bad policy and why it needs to be eliminated. It’s simply not equitable if a hedge fund manager or a private equity executive pays tax on his or her income at a rate of 15 percent when average folks are paying much more. That’s just not -- it doesn’t make sense and it’s not affordable. We need to be fiscally responsible in our approach to the tax code. That’s the approach the President has taken in this corporate tax reform, and it’s the approach that guides his vision on taxes in general.
Yes, Kate.
Q House Democrats sent the President a letter today asking him to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Is that something that’s on the table?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t seen this letter that you mention, but I’ll answer that as I have in the past, which is I have no specific comments to make on that possibility. We obviously examine every issue when it comes to higher oil and gas prices. That was the case last year and continues to be the case. And we take no possible response off the table, but I have no specific comment to make on that.
Q Is there a price that you’re looking at, though?
MR. CARNEY: No, I have no comment on that.
Q On the Buffett Rule -- back to the Buffett Rule, Governor Christie -- any response to his remarks that Warren Buffett should just “shut up and write a check” in a TV interview last night? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: I think Mr. Buffett, who is widely regarded for his success in business as well as in philanthropy, has been quite outspoken, as is his right, on what he believes is an issue of tax fairness. He simply believes, as one of the wealthiest men in the world, that he should not be paying an effective tax rate lower than his secretary. I don’t know why the governor mentioned or others think that’s a bad idea, but this President believes it’s the right approach.
Q Do you think he should go ahead and write the check until that -- it becomes law?
MR. CARNEY: I mean, that’s a quip that tries to draw attention away from what is a very serious issue, which is the need to have a tax code that’s fair and that helps the American people as they recover from this recession, and helps us achieve the kind of balanced approach to deficit and debt reduction that this President has pursued for some time now. So, quips aside, we think the Buffett Rule is absolutely an important principle to apply to individual tax reform.
Jared. Last one. Yes.
Q Rhetorically, when you’re talking about the energy policy, the President has had this ground-up, comprehensive energy policy. But when we’re talking about tax reform, it seems like what’s coming from the podium is that there are these piecemeal things, we can do this on corporate tax reform, there could be more -- you said earlier -- on individual reform, if the Congress is there for it. Why is it not the same comprehensive, ground-up strategy?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think first of all, the corporate tax reform framework that was laid out today is fairly detailed, A.
B, if we could achieve some of these important policy objectives through executive action as the President did with close to a dozen automobile manufacturers in putting in place fuel efficiency standards that will save 12 billion barrels of oil, we would.
But the fact is that in order to achieve corporate tax reform or individual tax reform or balance deficit and debt reduction, we need to work with Congress. And the way to do that is to put forward the kind of detailed framework that makes clear what this President’s principles are, makes clear the path that he believes we need to take in reforming our tax code, and invite, as the Secretary of the Treasury has already done, Democrats and Republicans to work together to achieve that goal of lowering the rate, expanding the base, eliminating subsidies and loopholes, and creating incentives for American manufacturing and advanced manufacturing and small businesses to grow.
Q Earlier the President -- there was a statement from the President’s office about observation of Ash Wednesday. Is the President doing anything in particular during Lenten season? Is he giving anything up or is he doing anything special for it?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any information on that. I believe we did put out a statement for Ash Wednesday today.
Thanks very much.
END
1:51 P.M. EST
For Immediate Release
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:55 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for coming to the White House for your daily briefing.
Q New glasses -- again?
MR. CARNEY: You think these are new? (Laughter.)
Q Yeah. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: Maybe.
Q Did you leave them on the bumper again?
MR. CARNEY: Not this time. Not this time. These could be old; they could be new.
Before I get started I wanted, on a serious note, to say something about two journalists who were killed yesterday in Syria. As you know, last week I, aboard Air Force One, said something about Anthony Shadid, who died last week in Syria. These tragic deaths underscore something that I think we all -- all of us in this room, since we participate in -- I did once and you do now -- in this profession -- it's a reminder of the incredible risk that journalists take -- Marie Colvin, Anthony Shadid, and the French photojournalist who was killed yesterday as well -- in order to bring the truth about what's happening in a country like Syria to those of us at home and in countries around the world. And our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those journalists.
And it's a reminder, too, that the victims are many, and overwhelmingly, in this case, they are innocent Syrian civilians. The brutality of the Assad regime becomes ever more apparent each day -- as each day goes by.
So I just wanted to mention that -- and go to questions. Julie.
Q Thank you. Sticking with Syria, you said yesterday that international action is needed before the situation in Syria becomes too chaotic. But given this latest incident and the continued shelling in Syria, how much more chaotic can things get? What exactly is the international community waiting for at this point?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the international community has acted through the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly. Unfortunately, Russia and China vetoed a resolution that would have passed through the Security Council. But there is overwhelming international support for the condemnation of Assad and his regime's atrocities and actions, and overwhelming support for the Syrian people.
There's an ever-growing coalition of nations, if you will, who are part of the "Friends of Syria" that the United States is part of, and together we will continue to enhance the pressure on Assad, continue to help the opposition become more functional, continue to work to bring humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, and continue to call on the international community collectively to take greater action to pressure Assad and to force him to relinquish power so that the Syrian people can have the democratic future that they deserve.
Q When you talk about helping the opposition, the main opposition group said today that foreign military intervention may be necessary in order for humanitarian aid to make it into Syria. I know you said yesterday that humanitarian aid is needed. Would the U.S. support foreign military intervention for the purpose of getting humanitarian aid into Syria?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think there's a useful comparative here to Libya. I'm often asked this question in the -- using that comparison. And what we had in Libya when there was outside military intervention was a unified international community, a call for intervention by the Libyan people, the prospect of an immediate assault by Qaddafi’s forces on an entire city, Benghazi, and the possibility that international military action could have -- could halt that and could limit or prevent the deaths of many, many thousands of Libyans.
Each country in the region where we have had this kind of unrest is different, and certainly Syria is different from Libya in many of those particulars that I just laid out.
We will work with the international community to provide humanitarian assistance. We will continue to press the international community to condemn Assad and his actions, and to take action to further pressure and sanction his regime.
Right now -- and I was asked this yesterday, and I just want to make clear that we do not believe that adding to the militarization of Syria is the right approach. We believe that the right approach is for the international community to speak with one voice to pressure Assad and get him to relinquish power and to cease the brutal assault on his own people.
Q Does that apply also to military intervention for the purpose of --
MR. CARNEY: Well, right now we believe that the appropriate action is a diplomatic, economic approach, the likes of which we’re taking.
Q If I could switch briefly over to the corporate tax proposal -- when the President has rolled out other proposals from his State of the Union address, he’s been out front in doing so, but today’s proposal came from the Treasury Department and Secretary Geithner. Why not have the President out front? Why put this distance between he and the proposal today?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I certainly disagree that there is distance between the President and his Secretary of the Treasury. Tim Geithner has developed this proposal, working with his team and the economic team here in the White House. The President -- you should have by now -- if not, you’ll have it momentarily -- has put out a full statement laying out why he believes this corporate tax reform that he and his administration is putting forward today is so important; why it fits into his overall blueprint for an “America Built to Last,” where everyone gets a fair shot and plays by the same rules.
So the President is very committed to corporate tax reform, as he made clear at the State of the Union address last year in 2011. And he believes that this is an area where an opportunity exists, an opportunity to disprove the conventional wisdom that nothing can get done in an election year between a White House held by one party and a Congress largely controlled by the other.
After all, there is a fair amount of consensus that simplifying the corporate tax code is a good idea, that broadening the base and lowering the rate is a good idea.
The President has put forward a proposal that does that; that in doing that eliminates unnecessary and expensive subsidies and carved-out special provisions for corporations like oil and gas companies that don’t need them; that eliminates the carried interest rule that allows hedge fund managers and private equity investors to -- or managers -- to pay a far lower tax rate on their income than firefighters and teachers -- and everyone probably in this room -- and thereby creates a corporate tax code that allows American businesses to be more competitive globally, that incentivizes manufacturing in the United States, that takes away the incentive for companies to relocate overseas and reverses that and creates incentives for companies to insource again in the United States -- a trend the President believes is very important to our economic future.
So he’s very supportive of this proposal and hopes that Congress will see in this an opportunity to prove the critics wrong, to show that we can get things done this year for the American people.
Reuters.
Q Thank you, Jay. Picking up on the discussion of gas prices from yesterday, is it fair for the American voter or the American public to blame any President -- in this case, this President and his administration -- when gas prices start going up so high?
MR. CARNEY: Look, I think this President, as I said yesterday, fully appreciates the impact of higher gas prices on average Americans trying to make ends meet. He talked about that yesterday in the event where he discussed the extension of the payroll tax cut.
One of the reasons in both 2011 and now this year that cutting the payroll tax for 160 million Americans is so important is because it gives the average American family an extra $40 per paycheck, close to $1,000 per year, to pay for things like gasoline, to fill up their tanks.
So he’s very aware of the impact that it has and fully understands the anxiety it creates. And he understood that when he was running for President back in 2008 when there was a spike in the price of oil. There has since been, as you know, last year and again this year -- this is a recurrent problem and it’s a problem that reinforces the need that he identified back when he was a candidate for a comprehensive energy strategy, one that takes an all-of-the-above approach to the development of our energy -- sources of energy; one that insists that we can safely and responsibly expand our domestic oil and gas production, which he has.
Every year since he's been President, we've increased our oil and gas production. Every year since he's been President, we've decreased our reliance on foreign oil imports. And certainly, every year since he's been President, he has made a focus of the importance of investing in alternative energy technology, because that combination is the one that will build a foundation for energy security in the future, so that we are not as vulnerable to the kinds of price shocks that we get when oil climbs, as it is now.
And as I said yesterday, we need to do the things that we can control to insulate ourselves from the things that we can't. And that includes oil prices that are going up in spite of the fact that domestic oil production is going up; oil prices that are going up globally in spite of the fact that the President has made clear -- put in place policies that will dramatically expand the amount of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, will expand the amount of exploration in Alaska, will expand the amount of natural gas production here in the United States.
And yet, these prices are going up. And that tells you that there are other things beyond our control, like unrest in the Middle East, or other factors like the growth of emerging countries such as China and India. So in that kind of environment, in that kind of world, we need to do everything we can here at home to insulate ourselves from these price shocks. And that’s what the President's been doing since he took office.
Q Does the President accept any responsibility for the fact that the prices are going up, especially -- or has any response to things --
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President accepts responsibility that he identified the next President should accept back in 2008, which is the need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that protects Americans in the long run from these kinds of situations, and that makes America more secure and energy independent. And that’s the policy he's proposed.
I think that if you're suggesting that there's responsibility for price hikes in the global -- I mean, a rise in the global price of oil, it's certainly not because of anything he hasn't done to expand domestic oil and gas production, because he has done -- taken significant action to expand American gas and oil production. And he will continue to do that.
He will continue to do that as he takes action to, for example, as I mentioned yesterday, allow for the first nuclear reactor to be built in this country in 30 years; to increase our investments in alternative energy like biodiesel and wind and solar. I mean he’s an all-of-the-above -- his is an all-of-the-above approach, and you’ll hear a lot about that from him in coming days and weeks.
Q But if a candidate like Rick Santorum says the reason these things are going -- these prices are going up is because of the President’s dedication to the radical environmentalist movement --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think it’s incumbent upon those who report on random statements by politicians seeking office to compare them to the facts, and the facts are as I’ve stated. Oil and gas production in the United States has risen every year since the President has been in office. Oil production is now higher than it’s been in eight years. And this President is taking action to ensure that it continues to go up.
Not least -- and I think it’s important to mention, and I don't know where various candidates for office are on this issue, but the President last year through an agreement with major automobile manufacturers have put into effect enhanced fuel-efficiency standards that will save American families $1.7 trillion at the pump, and cut oil consumption by 12 billion -- I think yesterday I said 12 million because 12 billion sounded like so much, and it is. And the fact is that action alone did more to enhance our long-term energy independence than almost anything any President could do.
Yes.
Q In the briefing on the tax proposal, Secretary Geithner said that they're using this proposal today to move the process along, which, as you know, can take time. And he said it’s designed so corporate tax reform could be done alone, but it might have to be done with individual tax reform, which will come after the presidential election. Given that, what is your timeframe for really getting this done?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would simply agree with Secretary Geithner that there is an opportunity here to do it alone or singularly with just corporate tax reform. The President has put forward a very specific framework of his approach -- that explains his approach to corporate reform. There is an opportunity, as I just said, because of apparent interest by both Democrats and Republicans to reform our corporate tax code, to take action now. There's no reason why Congress couldn’t take this up.
It is also the case that if Congress were to feel itself particularly bullish about the possibility of bipartisan cooperation that they could take up individual tax reform. And the President’s principles on individual tax reform are pretty clear as well. So there is -- it’s absolutely the case that you could do this by itself or you could do it with individual tax reform. We would welcome action by Congress, in accordance with the President’s principles, in either case.
Q So what is the President himself doing to encourage the Congress to feel bullish about bipartisan progress?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think Secretary Geithner himself, who is obviously the President’s Treasury Secretary, has already spoken with leaders in Congress about this.
Q But the President hasn’t? Or has he?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have any calls or conversations of the President to report, but I’m sure the President will be having these discussions. And, look, if there is interest in pursuing this corporate tax reform plan by Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the President is very interested in doing that. And that goes along -- that also applies to individual tax reform.
So I think as Secretary Geithner made clear, he’s already begun this conversation with Republicans and Democrats on the Hill with regards to corporate tax reform. And we hope that conversation continues and that we can produce a result for the American people and for American businesses that will have -- that will create the result of a lower tax rate for American businesses that will -- and that will make them more competitive; a broader base to ensure that this reform doesn’t add a dime to the deficit; and a situation where the American manufacturing sector, and in particular, the advanced manufacturing sector, is further incentivized to grow, and where small businesses are -- where the environment is made easier for small businesses to deal with the tax code by simplifying the tax code for them, allowing them to, for example, expense up to $1 million.
And there are a variety of other measures that are part of this corporate tax reform that would make American businesses much more competitive.
Q Have you gotten any feedback from the CEOs that the administration talks to about the plan already today that you can share with us?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything to share with you. I think that we believe that the reception so far has been positive and will be positive because it does what so many people say is important to do, which is -- and this is Democrats and Republicans -- which is lower the rate, broaden the base, eliminate the underbrush of unnecessary subsidies and loopholes and special provisions that complicate the tax code and basically have the taxpayer subsidizing oil and gas companies, for example, which enjoyed record profits last year and certainly seem to be on track to enjoy significant profits this year and don’t need those kinds of subsidies. That money can then be used to pay for an action that would lower the rates for everybody.
Yes, Jake.
Q The White House keeps praising these journalists who are -- who have been killed
MR. CARNEY: I don’t know about "keeps." I think --
Q You’ve commented, Vice President Biden did it in a statement. How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court? You’re currently -- I think that you’ve evoked it the sixth time -- and before the Obama administration it had only been used three times in history. This is the sixth time you’re suing a CIA officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about CIA torture. Certainly that’s something that’s in the public interest of the United States; his administration is taking this person to court. There just seems to be a disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad -- you just don’t want it in the United States.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would hesitate to speak to any particular case for obvious reasons and I would refer you to the Department of Justice for more on that. I think that we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of reporters who are placing themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to bring the story of oppression and brutality to the world. I think that is commendable and it’s certainly worth noting by us. And as somebody who knew both Anthony and Marie, I particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the American people.
As for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, I think that there are issues here that involve highly-sensitive, classified information, and I think that those are -- divulging that kind of information is a serious issue and always has been.
Q So the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here?
MR. CARNEY: Well, that’s not at all what I’m saying, Jake, and you know it’s not. Again I can’t specific--
Q Well, that’s what the Justice Department is doing.
MR. CARNEY: Well, you’re making a judgment about a broad array of cases and I can’t address those specifically.
Q It’s a judgment that a lot of whistleblowers organizations and good government groups are making as well.
MR. CARNEY: It’s not one that I’m going to make.
Yes, Ed.
Q Can we go back to gas prices because I wanted to ask about what -- the President’s case seems to be to deal with this issue now is we’ve really increased oil production. When you go back to 2008, the President repeatedly mocked Senator McCain and this whole "drill here, drill now," "drill, baby, drill" -- all of that was mocked, that it was a dumb idea. Now, you’re holding it up as a really great idea. How do you square those two?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Ed, there’s a distinction here that you’re missing. The President’s approach has been to responsibly increase domestic oil and gas production. What he has never said, and what I attempted, I thought, to appropriately mock yesterday, was the idea that there are magic solutions, that you can put forward a proposal to cut the price at the pump in half on a piece of paper with a couple of magic beans. It’s just not realistic.
The fact is oil and gas production in this country has been increasing, and even as it has been increasing the price of oil has been going up globally. That tells you that there are factors that are not entirely within our control. And putting forward to the American people that simply by drilling more you’re going to resolve this problem for the long term is not being honest with the American people.
That's why you need a comprehensive energy strategy. That's why you need an all-of-the-above approach. That's why you need to invest in clean energy technologies, as well as open up millions of acres -- of new acres in the Gulf of Mexico to exploration; as well as allow for the building and permitting of the first nuclear reactor in this country in 30 years. You need to do it all. And that's the only approach that is responsible.
And to suggest to Americans that there is some other way, that you can wave a magic wand and cut oil prices and cut gas prices, is simply not treating the American people with the kind of respect they deserve -- because they know better.
Q He didn’t mock John McCain in 2008 on this issue? He didn’t repeatedly say --
MR. CARNEY: I didn’t say that. I said that, then and now, the President believed that there is not -- that drilling alone was the way to resolve our energy security problems. It's not, as evidenced by the fact that domestic oil and gas production has increased every year that he's been in office, and yet oil prices -- we experience these spikes in oil prices. And I think that tells you that the way to insulate ourselves, the way to insulate the American people from these kind of price shocks, is to increase our energy independence, to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, to increase our capacity for alternative energy production as well as traditional fossil fuel production.
And that’s the approach the President's taking. But it's not -- drilling alone will not solve this problem. That was true in 2008; it's true in 2012.
Q Last thing. In '08 and then throughout his presidency, he's talked about a comprehensive plan, as you mentioned. But at the end of last year, when White House officials were talking about the 2012 agenda, it was suggested that the only must-pass legislation -- you were talking about this earlier -- by a Democratic White House working with a Republican House -- the only real must-pass was the payroll tax cut extension. So how can you now say that dealing with an energy plan now is something the President really wants to do, when in December you weren't talking about it?
MR. CARNEY: Well, that’s -- he has been talking about this consistently since he was sworn into office. And the point about extending the payroll tax cut was the fact that Congress, which had not shown a great deal of interest -- Republicans -- in bipartisan cooperation on difficult issues, that the one issue that we felt confident was a must-do piece for them, as well as us, because of the political price they would pay for raising taxes on 160 million Americans, was extending the payroll tax cut.
But we fully hope and expect that Congress will do more than that. And we look forward to Congress taking action on the President’s refinance proposal which could put up to $3,000 in the pockets of average, responsible American homeowners; taking action on an infrastructure investment bill that could put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work and allow for the building of -- rebuilding of our infrastructure in this country -- roads, bridges, schools, highways, ports; and taking action to, if they felt really emboldened by this bipartisan potential, putting teachers back to work, taking action on some of the other provisions in the American Jobs Act, as well as corporate tax reform, as well as measures that would enhance our energy security.
The point is, is that the sky is the limit here if Congress is willing to work with this administration, if Democrats and Republicans are willing to work together on the Hill.
All the way in the back, yes, ma’am. Nice to see you. Welcome.
Q Thank you. I would like to know if you know of any educational initiatives the President has in place to better prepare students for success at college or university level?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President has pursued since he took office comprehensive education reform. Race to the Top has been one of the unheralded -- by the media largely -- bipartisan successes that this President has pushed forward, working with the Secretary of Education.
He has also expanded access to Pell grants to allow for more Americans to attend college, and he will push forward with broad education initiatives. Because if you may remember -- I know folks in this room do -- his State of the Union address last year, in 2011, he talked about the need for the United States to out-educate and out-innovate the competition globally. We can't -- we cannot win economically in the 21st century if we don't have the best-educated workforce. That's our competitive advantage.
Even though -- one of the reasons why we’ve seen a trend towards insourcing, American companies bringing jobs back to the United States, is when they look at all of the factors that go into deciding where to locate a factory or where to locate a business, other countries may have lower labor prices, but we have a skilled, educated workforce that can bring great value to American businesses, as well as international businesses. We have to keep that up. So he’s very committed to education.
Yes, Norah.
Q Can I return to Syria? You were talking about the "Friends of Syria" meeting that will happen later this week, and part of the goal is making the opposition more "functional" is the word you used. What do you mean, and how would we help make the opposition more functional?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we would work with the "Friends of Syria" to help stand them up, to cement its organizational capacity, its unity, so that there is an entity in place as this inevitable transition occurs -- because, as we’ve said in the past, it’s not a question of if, but when Assad gives up the reins of power in the Syria.
So we will do that, working with the “Friends of Syria,” working with this broad coalition of members of the international community who are committed to the Syrian people, to their right to a democratic transition, and strongly condemn and oppose the brutality of the Assad regime.
Q So some NGOs are calling for recognizing the opposition as a transitional government. Is that something that the U.S. supports?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of the process here. I think that helping to organize and unify the opposition is something that we are doing in cooperation with our international partners. This is an entity that is emerging as the brutality of the Assad regime continues, and so I don’t have a timeframe on if or when something like that would happen. But right now we’re just working with the “Friends of Syria” to help them organize, help them unify.
Q Can I get you to clarify remarks out of both the White House and the State Department yesterday -- if pressure on Assad does not work, are we considering arming the opposition?
MR. CARNEY: I want to be clear that our position is that it is not appropriate now to contribute to the militarization, the further militarization of Syria. What I said and I think what was said in the State Department was simply to make clear that we don’t rule out additional measures if the international community waits too long and doesn’t act decisively. But that is not -- I’m not hinting at imminent action or change. Our position is that it is not appropriate to contribute to the militarization of Syria, that there is opportunity still now for this process to result in the departure from power of Assad and a democratic transition to begin to take place.
Q There are estimated 100 civilians that were killed in the city of Homs yesterday. Why would we intervene on behalf of the rebels in Libya and not help those in Syria?
MR. CARNEY: Well, that’s an excellent question and I attempted to answer that a little bit earlier, but you ask it more directly, so I’ll try to address it. The comparative is useful in that it demonstrates why it is important to not have a one-size-fits-all approach, because the situations can be different even though the broader unrest in the region obviously is similar or reflects an overall trend in the region.
In Libya, as you recall, there was support at the international level, broad support of the United Nations Security Council resolution. There was a request from the Libyan opposition and the Libyan people for direct military intervention, outside military intervention. And, most importantly, there was the opportunity identified by the President and other leaders, and military leaders of NATO, to have the dramatic impact of preventing a massacre in Benghazi. There was a city coming under assault by Qaddafi forces. And the situation in Syria is different in all of those particulars that I just laid out.
Again, we're not ruling stuff out in the future, ruling actions out in the future. But right now, we believe that the right approach is not to contribute to the militarization, and to pursue a path of pressuring Assad, isolating Assad, and furthering along the process that will ultimately lead to him stepping down or no longer being in power.
Q And then finally, would we support and help establish a safe haven?
MR. CARNEY: For?
Q Within Syria?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, we don’t believe that military action is the right course -- contributing to the militarization of Syria is the right path right now. We are, through humanitarian assistance and pursuing the provision of humanitarian assistance, pursuing the international effort to assist the opposition in organizing itself and unifying itself. But in terms of a military action to secure a part of the country, that is not currently a policy we're pursuing.
Yes.
Q Jay, thanks. On Iran, as you know, the IAEA inspectors returned, basically saying that they felt their trip was unsuccessful. What's the White House's reaction? And to what extent does this compound or add to the tensions that are already there with Iran?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we regret the failure of Iran to reach an agreement this week with the IAEA that would permit the agency to fully investigate the serious allegation raised -- allegations, rather, raised in its November report.
It’s important to note that the IAEA maintains regular access to both of Iran’s enrichment facilities at Qom and Natanz. The IAEA was seeking additional access -- that's what this visit was about -- in line with Iran’s safeguards obligations, to sites and facilities where Iran is suspected of conducting work related to weaponization activity. So, unfortunately, this is another demonstration of Iran’s refusal to abide by its international obligations.
We will continue to evaluate, working with our P5-plus-1 partners, the letter in response -- that we received from the Iranians in response to Lady Ashton’s letter about the possibility of engaging in talks. But this particular action by Iran suggests that they have not changed their behavior when it comes to abiding by their international obligations.
Q On the tax reform plan, as you know, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is giving his own economic speech today in which he’s going to talk about his tax reform plan. He was initially going to give that speech on Friday and he moved it up. But was the timing of today’s announcement in any way meant to preempt the unveiling of that speech?
MR. CARNEY: Well, no. In fact, I think we’ve been saying for quite some time now that our corporate tax reform proposal would be put forward at the end of the month, roughly within the timeframe of the submission of the budget. So we’ve kept to that schedule. Perhaps others are timing their announcements around ours. But this is something that Secretary Geithner has been working on with the White House economic team and the Treasury team for quite some time, and we identified this time period as a time to release it a number of weeks ago.
Q And also, tonight is the 20th Republican presidential debate, potentially the last presidential debate. Given that, will the President watch tonight? I know you’ve said he hasn’t in the past. Does he have any plans to watch this final --
MR. CARNEY: So the question is why is this night so different from any other? (Laughter.)
Q Exactly.
MR. CARNEY: I didn't ask him today, this morning if he planned to watch it. I suspect, knowing him, knowing his viewing habits, that he will not watch it. He has a family at home. He tends to, when he watches TV at all, it’s either sports or a movie. So I don't expect he will. But the President obviously keeps up with what’s in the news and will, I’m sure, be aware of the general back-and-forth in the debate come tomorrow morning.
Q Given that the President is going to face off with one of these candidates, isn’t it important for him to see the debate and not just -- I know you said he’s read about the debates. But I mean, isn’t that a part of understanding the strategy --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think there is ample time between now and early November for him to prepare for what will be debates with his opponent once that opponent emerges from this process. I think -- we’re not pushing up against a deadline here. I think he’ll be prepared when that time comes. He might look at a little tape when that time comes. But for now, I think he’ll continue his practice of finding something better to do.
Yes. How are you, Mara?
Q Just to clarify what you said to Norah, you said Syria is different, and then you listed all the criteria that made Libyan opposition the correct choice. So if there was an imminent massacre in Syria, then you’d be considering --
MR. CARNEY: There are ways to speculate about individual things, conditions that might be in place. What was the case in Libya is that all those conditions were in place that created an opportunity where international, outside military action to prevent the slaughter of civilians, to enforce a no-fly zone, was an option that the international community could take.
So my point in making that comparison is that it was those
-- that set of circumstances that made that option achievable, and that is the one the President pursued with many, many international partners, very importantly, including countries from the region. So I’m just making the distinction because it’s easy to say, well, you did this in that country why don’t you do it in this? And it’s important to recognize the different circumstances.
Q You’re saying right now none of those things are --
MR. CARNEY: Well, there was not a United Nations Security Council resolution passed. There’s a different military situation on the ground, if you will, and just different circumstances in general.
Q And also to follow up on Jessica’s question about tax reform -- you said that the President’s principles on individual tax reform are as clear as well. Does that mean he also wants to lower rates and broaden the base there, too?
MR. CARNEY: Well, his principles are clear. They are the Buffett Rule, as you know and you’ve heard him and I and others talk about. You haven’t heard “I” talk about it, you’ve heard "me" talk about it -- that’s just correct grammar.
Q That’s not really tax reform, though.
MR. CARNEY: Well, certainly it is. It’s --
Q -- raising taxes on one individual --
MR. CARNEY: No, no, no. It’s ensuring that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay a lower effective tax rate than average, working Americans.
He has made clear that his approach to tax reform would ensure that those making under $250,000 a year will not see their taxes go up. That is a principle. He is committed to the expiration of the high-end Bush tax cuts.
So the set of principles that he has put in place in terms of the individual tax code could very well be translated into individual tax reform. So he’s spoken at length about the individual tax code and he has put forward a framework for corporate tax reform. Obviously, this is the kind of thing when people ask me about why executive actions and "We Can’t Wait," this is the kind of thing that a President can’t do on his own. He needs congressional cooperation, and he looks forward to having it.
Q Well, what I’m confused about -- you just listed the President’s views on certain tax policies. When people say tax reform, they generally mean broadening the base and lowering rates. That’s not what you’re talking about when you talk about individual tax reform the way you are with corporate tax reform.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not sure I agree with your premise that tax reform follows that formula.
Q -- the President is less progressive --
MR. CARNEY: That is the formula that applies to the President’s approach, which is an approach shared by many others to corporate tax reform. The approach that the President has taken on individual tax rates is that we should not have a tax code that’s skewed to benefit -- through the carried interest rule or other itemized deductions, other means that allow for millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower effective tax rate than average Americans. He does not believe that folks earning up $250,000 -- families earning up to $250,000 should see their taxes go up. He does believe that those making more than $250,000 should see their taxes go up because the unaffordable Bush tax cuts for high-income Americans need to expire at the end of the year.
Q Right. But even those principles, does he believe in broadening the base and lowering rates in general? Keeping all the progressivity you just mentioned, does he believe that that is what we should do --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that progressivity is an important principle here, and that’s one that is reflected in his embrace of the Buffett Rule and his embrace of expiring -- making sure that the higher-end Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.
Q What about broadening the base and getting rid of deductions? Because the President has --
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President has put --
Q -- take another question.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, let me get some others here. I think, Mara, you know we have put forward proposals in the past -- last summer and fall -- that included limiting itemized deductions for high-income Americans. That’s a way of a broadening the base. Eliminating the carried interest rule is a way of broadening the base so that hedge fund managers who are simply earning income don’t pay a capital gains rate, they pay at an income tax rate.
So I think this President has put forward both on paper and through speeches quite a bit of information about his approach to individual taxes.
Laura.
Q On corporate tax reform, are you comfortable with the idea that while you are closing certain corporate loopholes, this -- your proposal does in its own way pick winners and losers in the sense that there are new advantages for manufacturers and clean energy makers?
MR. CARNEY: We are comfortable with an approach that eliminates a huge amount of the complications, loopholes, special provisions, subsidies from the tax code, and focuses the tax code on growing the American manufacturing sector, growing the advanced manufacturing sector, and assisting small businesses, which are, after all, an important engine of economic growth and a hugely important engine of job growth in this country.
So, yes, we believe that we need to eliminate a lot of the existing complexities from the tax code, and then identify very clearly what our priorities are when it comes to manufacturing, advanced manufacturing and small businesses.
Q So you kept saying, in response to the questions about gas prices, that we need to insulate ourselves against these higher prices and world events, et cetera. Yet you’ve explained how domestic production is at a high level and it’s doing apparently very little to insulate us on the world oil market. So my question is, are you -- if we do continue to pursue Obama’s sort of all-of-the-above policies and accomplish the things that the President is seeking, will that be enough to counter what’s happening in the world oil markets? Will what he’s suggesting lead to lower gas prices?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what this President is pursuing -- the policies that he's already put in place and the policies that he is pursuing will do is reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. And by definition, that will create a situation where we have greater energy security in the future than we have had in the past.
I can't predict what oil prices will be in a year or two years or even six months. I would be careful of anyone who says they can. But what we can do through policy is increase our domestic production of oil and gas, increase our overall domestic sources of energy, including alternative energy, and thereby insulate ourselves from some of the shocks that come in the future. But that doesn’t mean --
Q That doesn’t take care --
MR. CARNEY: -- that doesn’t -- what we know, for example, if through the car rule, the enhanced fuel efficiency standards that the President put into place, is that we will save $12 billion of oil because of that.
Q Barrels.
MR. CARNEY: Barrels, sorry -- 12 billion barrels of -- this is the second time I've blown it. Thank you, Mr. Henry -- 12 billion barrels of oil. That is a heck of a lot of oil. And absent those fuel efficiency standards, we know that we would be paying for that oil, and we would be paying for a certain portion of that we would be paying foreign providers of that oil.
So these are important steps that we can take to insulate ourselves from energy shocks in the future. You're shaking your head, but it's absolutely logical here. The more -- the less we rely on foreign oil, the less dependence we have, the more energy security we have.
Q But is that true? Do you -- if we increase domestic oil production, doesn’t it just go onto the world market with all the rest of the oil? It does very little to --
MR. CARNEY: I think that we increase domestic oil and gas production, understanding that increasing domestic oil and gas production alone won't solve our energy challenges, it will mean that we can continue to reduce, hopefully, our imports of foreign oil, reduce our reliance on foreign oil. And thereby, when you have problems in a region of the world that produces oil, you are -- the effect on your own production -- your own dependence on that -- the reduction in your dependence on that insulates you from some of that shock.
Q Will that lead to lower gas prices?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to predict gas prices. What I know is that it increases our energy security.
Yes.
Q Jay, you took a question yesterday about Secretary Vilsack’s comment about getting the oil companies, in his words, “to help ensure that the recovery that we’re now seeing is not jeopardized by energy costs that get out of control.” What did you find out about that?
MR. CARNEY: You know what, I would refer you to the Department of Agriculture. I think what our approach has been is to, through the policies that I’ve been describing several times now, to work with domestic oil and gas companies to ensure that more -- millions and millions of more acres are available -- millions of acres are available for exploration in the Gulf and in Alaska and other places.
We work with manufacturers in a variety of ways to ensure the smooth operation of a system here that provides oil and gas products to American consumers, but I don't think it was anything more specific than that.
Q Do you know of any specific concern --
MR. CARNEY: No --
Q -- a new effort to get them to try to put a lid on prices?
MR. CARNEY: No, no, no, no. And I think that should not be interpreted that way. I think this was more about the fact that we have a lot of consultation and dialogue to ensure that the overall system that produces and supplies American consumers is operating smoothly.
Q In the Florida speech tomorrow, is he going to specifically address the current price situation? Is there going to be any kind of reassurance for people in this speech, which apparently is going to focus on energy?
MR. CARNEY: Well, he will talk about the need to take an all-of-the-above approach. He will certainly talk about it broadly in terms of our energy security in the 21st century and our economic security in the 21st century as a long-term project. He’ll, I expect, make reference to the rise in oil prices that we’re experiencing right now and the anxiety that that creates and the impact that has on American families trying to make ends meet.
He has been very clear about his concern about higher gas prices and higher oil prices, and what that means for American families. And he’s been explicit about that in arguing for the payroll tax cut and the extra money that that provides to Americans both in 2011 and this year. So, yes, I expect you can hear him -- you’ll hear him talk about that tomorrow.
Yes.
Q Jay, the President is going viral again by singing. (Laughter.) Is this by design? Is it a reaction to polls?
MR. CARNEY: I think it’s just -- it’s a hidden talent that we’re just getting to hear. It’s not at all -- the circumstances both at the Apollo Theater and last night at the event here I think were pretty unique. So I can't predict -- the next time maybe at the inauguration next year. (Laughter.) But what I can tell you is that among his --
Q It’s only a matter of when. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: It will be a celebration. No matter -- among his many talents is the ability to carry a tune.
Yes, sir.
Q Jay, on corporate taxes, you could find any number of polls suggesting average Americans believe that corporations don’t pay their fair share, that there are too many loopholes, too many breaks, et cetera. So why doesn’t the President make more of a show of this? Why doesn’t he bang the drum a little bit about this issue when it could be politically positive for him?
MR. CARNEY: I think the President has been pretty explicit about his firm belief that there are provisions within the tax code that allow some corporations to be subsidized in ways that are just not affordable and are unnecessary. And I think oil and gas companies are a primary example and one that he’s been beating the drum on for quite some time -- and that is included within this corporate tax reform proposal.
He hasn’t often been criticized for not speaking out on this issue because he’s spoken out on it so clearly, and he will continue to do so. And that’s how -- we’ve been clear about the carried interest rule and why that is simply bad policy and why it needs to be eliminated. It’s simply not equitable if a hedge fund manager or a private equity executive pays tax on his or her income at a rate of 15 percent when average folks are paying much more. That’s just not -- it doesn’t make sense and it’s not affordable. We need to be fiscally responsible in our approach to the tax code. That’s the approach the President has taken in this corporate tax reform, and it’s the approach that guides his vision on taxes in general.
Yes, Kate.
Q House Democrats sent the President a letter today asking him to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Is that something that’s on the table?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t seen this letter that you mention, but I’ll answer that as I have in the past, which is I have no specific comments to make on that possibility. We obviously examine every issue when it comes to higher oil and gas prices. That was the case last year and continues to be the case. And we take no possible response off the table, but I have no specific comment to make on that.
Q Is there a price that you’re looking at, though?
MR. CARNEY: No, I have no comment on that.
Q On the Buffett Rule -- back to the Buffett Rule, Governor Christie -- any response to his remarks that Warren Buffett should just “shut up and write a check” in a TV interview last night? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: I think Mr. Buffett, who is widely regarded for his success in business as well as in philanthropy, has been quite outspoken, as is his right, on what he believes is an issue of tax fairness. He simply believes, as one of the wealthiest men in the world, that he should not be paying an effective tax rate lower than his secretary. I don’t know why the governor mentioned or others think that’s a bad idea, but this President believes it’s the right approach.
Q Do you think he should go ahead and write the check until that -- it becomes law?
MR. CARNEY: I mean, that’s a quip that tries to draw attention away from what is a very serious issue, which is the need to have a tax code that’s fair and that helps the American people as they recover from this recession, and helps us achieve the kind of balanced approach to deficit and debt reduction that this President has pursued for some time now. So, quips aside, we think the Buffett Rule is absolutely an important principle to apply to individual tax reform.
Jared. Last one. Yes.
Q Rhetorically, when you’re talking about the energy policy, the President has had this ground-up, comprehensive energy policy. But when we’re talking about tax reform, it seems like what’s coming from the podium is that there are these piecemeal things, we can do this on corporate tax reform, there could be more -- you said earlier -- on individual reform, if the Congress is there for it. Why is it not the same comprehensive, ground-up strategy?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think first of all, the corporate tax reform framework that was laid out today is fairly detailed, A.
B, if we could achieve some of these important policy objectives through executive action as the President did with close to a dozen automobile manufacturers in putting in place fuel efficiency standards that will save 12 billion barrels of oil, we would.
But the fact is that in order to achieve corporate tax reform or individual tax reform or balance deficit and debt reduction, we need to work with Congress. And the way to do that is to put forward the kind of detailed framework that makes clear what this President’s principles are, makes clear the path that he believes we need to take in reforming our tax code, and invite, as the Secretary of the Treasury has already done, Democrats and Republicans to work together to achieve that goal of lowering the rate, expanding the base, eliminating subsidies and loopholes, and creating incentives for American manufacturing and advanced manufacturing and small businesses to grow.
Q Earlier the President -- there was a statement from the President’s office about observation of Ash Wednesday. Is the President doing anything in particular during Lenten season? Is he giving anything up or is he doing anything special for it?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any information on that. I believe we did put out a statement for Ash Wednesday today.
Thanks very much.
END
1:51 P.M. EST
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)