Feedzilla
Glenn Beck Rush Limbaugh Hillary Clinton Tea Party Black Panthers
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Statement by the Press Secretary
The agreement reached by House and Senate leadership to fund the government through the first quarter of 2013 is a welcome development, and we are encouraged that both sides have agreed to resolve this issue without delay. The President has made clear that it is essential that the legislation to fund the government adheres to the funding levels agreed to by both parties last year, and not include ideological or extraneous policy riders. The President will work with leaders in both parties to sign a bill that accomplishes these goals.
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."
stimulus bill recession Rick Santorum Chris Dodd Sharron Angle
Guns Don't Kill People
James Holmes, the detained shooter in our latest national mass murder tradegy, bought four guns from various retailers over the last two months.
Holmes bought his first Glock pistol in Aurora, Colorado, on May 22nd. Six days later, he picked up a Remington shotgun in Denver. About two weeks later, he bought a .223 caliber Smith & Wesson rifle in Thornton, Colorado, and then a second Glock in Denver on July 6th — 13 days before the shooting.
A high-volume drum magazine was attached to the rifle, making that rifle an assault weapon and allowing him to fire 50 to 60 rounds in under sixty seconds.
Led by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) on September 13 1994 and signed into law by President Clinton the very same day. But the law expired on September 13, 2004. Despite numerous attempts by Senator Feinstein and others in the Democratic leadership, attempts to renew the AWB have all failed because of Republican opposition.
Guns don't kill people, Republican policies do.
Holmes bought his first Glock pistol in Aurora, Colorado, on May 22nd. Six days later, he picked up a Remington shotgun in Denver. About two weeks later, he bought a .223 caliber Smith & Wesson rifle in Thornton, Colorado, and then a second Glock in Denver on July 6th — 13 days before the shooting.
A high-volume drum magazine was attached to the rifle, making that rifle an assault weapon and allowing him to fire 50 to 60 rounds in under sixty seconds.
Led by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) on September 13 1994 and signed into law by President Clinton the very same day. But the law expired on September 13, 2004. Despite numerous attempts by Senator Feinstein and others in the Democratic leadership, attempts to renew the AWB have all failed because of Republican opposition.
Guns don't kill people, Republican policies do.
Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office Michael Steele John Boehner Speaker Pelosi
Friendly Advice to CNN -- Change Everything
CNN just had their�lowest ratings in a decade. They are in disastrous shape. When I was on MSNBC, we would beat them with a stick. Even after "pro-CNN" stories like revolutions in Egypt and Libya, Japanese nuclear meltdowns and the killing of Osama bin Laden (CNN does much better when major news or international stories break out), we still beat them. Now they're doing so poorly I might even catch them on Current.
We started at almost nothing on Current, but we have been steadily improving our numbers. Why are we getting traction? Because people want an alternative -- the real news. So, I should just stay quiet and let CNN drive off that cliff. By the way, when I catch Erin Burnett -- which is not that far off because I'm beginning to see her in the distance in the demos -- everyone will know it. Who knows, that might be the event that precipitates CNN re-thinking their entire model. Imagine if a network that started at nearly nothing catches CNN within a year.
But I am not going to wait until then to give them some friendly advice. I know they won't perceive it that way, but I am actually trying to help them. So here it is -- for the love of God, stop doing "he said, she said" crap that doesn't actually deliver the news to anyone. Democrats said this and Republicans said that -- who cares? What is the reality?! Your job is supposed to be to bring us facts, not what official spokespeople told you in their press releases and talking points.
The problem is that CNN doesn't have the courage to do this. They're afraid it might offend some folks if you tell the American people reality. I want to be clear; I'm not saying they should give us opinion. There's plenty of that in other parts of cable, including my show. They're never going to out-opinion me. But if Mitt Romney says his proposal balances the budget, well, why don't you crunch the numbers and tell us whether that's true or not? Of course the reality is that it creates�trillions of dollars in deficits just so that the rich can have more tax cuts. But CNN would consider reporting those�facts�as being biased.
If the Giants play the Cowboys and beat them silly, it is not biased to report that they won. You don't have a pro-Giants bias if you report the score. I'm a progressive but I have no interest in CNN skewing issues in favor of Democrats. By all means, call them out just as aggressively. The Democratic Party takes huge amounts of cash from corporations and unions to vote a certain way. My God, CNN doesn't even cover the role of money in politics. They take politicians at their word. Are you kidding? It seems like the people who work at CNN are the last people in the country who actually trust our politicians. Congressional approval ratings were recently at 11 percent. How well do you think you're going to do on television if you're sucking up to those guys?
By the way, following along with artificially created Fox News scandals doesn't give you balance. It makes you sad and pathetic. There are plenty of real Democratic scandals without falling into the rubbish Fox talks about. How much money does Chuck Schumer take from Wall Street? What favors does he give them in return? Why do Democratic leaders keep writing legislation rigged against the Internet -- could it have something to do with the tremendous amount of cash they take from Hollywood companies? Why does President Obama get a free pass on following George Bush's civil liberties abuses like warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detentions?
In other words, do your job -- report the news. The real news, not dueling talking points and manufactured controversies. My God, where is your investigative team? What's the last story you broke? Of course, the reality is that you don't want to break stories about Washington because that might offend some people. What kind of a so-called news operation is this afraid of their own shadow? "Oh my God, what if we offended someone in power. They might not come on our shows anymore and they might call us biased." Or they might call you journalists.
Sam Donaldson was on our show a long time ago and told us a really cool story about his old boss at ABC News, Roone Arledge. He said when he was covering the Reagan White House (and later the Clinton White House, too), whenever the administration called up to complain about him, Arledge would give him a raise. How far away from that model are we now? When politicians call up to complain now, "news" executives wet themselves in fear. Stand up to them! Do journalism! Challenge government!
And you know something amazing might happen -- people might actually watch you again.
Watch The Young Turks Here�and�Here
�
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter:�www.twitter.com/CenkUygur
�
�
We started at almost nothing on Current, but we have been steadily improving our numbers. Why are we getting traction? Because people want an alternative -- the real news. So, I should just stay quiet and let CNN drive off that cliff. By the way, when I catch Erin Burnett -- which is not that far off because I'm beginning to see her in the distance in the demos -- everyone will know it. Who knows, that might be the event that precipitates CNN re-thinking their entire model. Imagine if a network that started at nearly nothing catches CNN within a year.
But I am not going to wait until then to give them some friendly advice. I know they won't perceive it that way, but I am actually trying to help them. So here it is -- for the love of God, stop doing "he said, she said" crap that doesn't actually deliver the news to anyone. Democrats said this and Republicans said that -- who cares? What is the reality?! Your job is supposed to be to bring us facts, not what official spokespeople told you in their press releases and talking points.
The problem is that CNN doesn't have the courage to do this. They're afraid it might offend some folks if you tell the American people reality. I want to be clear; I'm not saying they should give us opinion. There's plenty of that in other parts of cable, including my show. They're never going to out-opinion me. But if Mitt Romney says his proposal balances the budget, well, why don't you crunch the numbers and tell us whether that's true or not? Of course the reality is that it creates�trillions of dollars in deficits just so that the rich can have more tax cuts. But CNN would consider reporting those�facts�as being biased.
If the Giants play the Cowboys and beat them silly, it is not biased to report that they won. You don't have a pro-Giants bias if you report the score. I'm a progressive but I have no interest in CNN skewing issues in favor of Democrats. By all means, call them out just as aggressively. The Democratic Party takes huge amounts of cash from corporations and unions to vote a certain way. My God, CNN doesn't even cover the role of money in politics. They take politicians at their word. Are you kidding? It seems like the people who work at CNN are the last people in the country who actually trust our politicians. Congressional approval ratings were recently at 11 percent. How well do you think you're going to do on television if you're sucking up to those guys?
By the way, following along with artificially created Fox News scandals doesn't give you balance. It makes you sad and pathetic. There are plenty of real Democratic scandals without falling into the rubbish Fox talks about. How much money does Chuck Schumer take from Wall Street? What favors does he give them in return? Why do Democratic leaders keep writing legislation rigged against the Internet -- could it have something to do with the tremendous amount of cash they take from Hollywood companies? Why does President Obama get a free pass on following George Bush's civil liberties abuses like warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detentions?
In other words, do your job -- report the news. The real news, not dueling talking points and manufactured controversies. My God, where is your investigative team? What's the last story you broke? Of course, the reality is that you don't want to break stories about Washington because that might offend some people. What kind of a so-called news operation is this afraid of their own shadow? "Oh my God, what if we offended someone in power. They might not come on our shows anymore and they might call us biased." Or they might call you journalists.
Sam Donaldson was on our show a long time ago and told us a really cool story about his old boss at ABC News, Roone Arledge. He said when he was covering the Reagan White House (and later the Clinton White House, too), whenever the administration called up to complain about him, Arledge would give him a raise. How far away from that model are we now? When politicians call up to complain now, "news" executives wet themselves in fear. Stand up to them! Do journalism! Challenge government!
And you know something amazing might happen -- people might actually watch you again.
Watch The Young Turks Here�and�Here
�
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter:�www.twitter.com/CenkUygur
�
�
Pakistani The View gubernatorial candidate Howard Dean ethics charges
Tennessee's Herron Joins Dems Eschewing Pelosi Views
Yet another major Democratic congressional candidate is running away from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Roy Herron, the Democratic candidate in Tennessee's 8th Congressional District, says he won't vote for her to continue as speaker if he?s elected and Democrats remain in control of the House, Politico reports. Herron says he wouldn?t support House Minority Leader John Boehner for the position, either.
"I think both of them are too extreme," Herron said in a speech, according to the Jackson Sun.
There seems to be a good reason Herron came out against Pelosi. He?s in a close battle with Republican Stephen Fincher for a seat that's important for Democrats to win if they hope to maintain their majority in the House.
Like Herron, who has the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, a number of conservative Democrats have criticized Pelosi in their campaigns.
� Newsmax. All rights reserved.
washington bureaucrats John Kerry George Will George Bush global warming
Monday, July 30, 2012
What Did Obama Mean by Change?
No reporter has ever asked him as far as I know. I don't know if any will ask this time around. What did you mean by "Change" anyway? He ran a whole campaign on it and does anyone really know what Barack Obama meant he was going to change?
�
I'm in the camp that he hasn't changed a damn thing. People will counter with Lilly Ledbetter. It's a lovely law, but does anyone really believe that's what was meant by the grandiose statement "Change"?
Of course I use Lilly Ledbetter as a symbol. President Obama obviously has more accomplishments than that. He really did change the laws and many people's perceptions on gay rights for example. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is history. The government is no longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act. And the President of the United States is finally for gay marriage. But did people really think Senator Obama meant he would change gay rights legislation? Is that what the 2008 election was about?
A little bit of financial reform (which so far�has proven�to be as ineffectual as progressive critics predicted) certainly doesn't qualify as "Change." Thirty million more Americans insured -- maybe, hopefully, by 2014 -- is a good thing. Is it transformational? Has Washington changed as we know it? Have we gotten "Change"?
Here is the common sense interpretation of what "Change" is -- changing the way Washington works. In fact, this is exactly what was promised, specifically by Barack Obama. He even made a campaign ad about it:�http://www.youtube.com/...
That's an example of the same old game playing in Washington. I don't want to learn how to play the game better; I want to put an end to the game playing.
And by God, what have you done to that effect? I would venture to say, almost without refutation, absolutely nothing. Even the most ardent Obama supporter can't in good conscience or sound mental state argue that President Obama has changed the way Washington works. He's just played the game a little better, if you're being charitable on how you keep score on that count.
But here's what should really burn you up -- he hasn't even tried. Not even close. Has there been a single piece of legislation backed by the White House that would stop the way lobbyists or big corporate interests or any special interest groups buy our politicians? In�93% of the cases, the person with more money wins their Congressional race. Democrat or Republican. Obviously the controlling factor is not ideology, party or even votes. It's money. And it's obvious.
And the president has done what to "Change" that?
Nonetheless, I'm insanely optimistic and na�ve. So, I say we give him one more chance. But there is no way you should just trust him and hope for the best. He has to actually do something this time instead of just hanging a campaign placard up.
Congressman John Yarmuth of Kentucky has introduced a�bipartisan bill�that would amend the constitution to say that money cannot control our elections. Will the president make this one of his top priorities? Will he campaign on it? Will he do everything in his power to pass it if he is re-elected?
If he does, then we should let bygones be bygones. The slate is wiped clean and God bless second terms and the concept of redemption. If the president makes a real effort on the campaign trail to emphasize this as one of his core issues, then progressives should turn out to do everything they can to get him elected, whether it's voting, donating or volunteering. We're not asking for much in return -- just deliver on your original promise.
On the other hand, if he can't even do this, then it's obvious that the Democrats will never, ever help us. It will be painfully clear that they are part of the same corrupt system and have no interest in ever changing it. In fact, they love that system because it is what keeps them in office.
But this is not a decision for me to make. It is for the president. Which way will he go? Will he continue to play small-bore politics? Will he continue his rhetorical games and hope we don't realize that he is being too clever by half? Will he play the same old Washington games and hope to play them just a little better? Or will he actually lead and bring us real change?
Despite all the broken promises and all the cute political tricks, I still have the audacity of hope. I'm just waiting for President Obama to put it out one last time, so we can really go to war against Washington -- all of it. Democrats and Republicans alike. The public has a pox ready for both of their houses and only one man has the antidote. Let's see what he does.
Watch The Young Turks�Here�and�Here
�
�
I'm in the camp that he hasn't changed a damn thing. People will counter with Lilly Ledbetter. It's a lovely law, but does anyone really believe that's what was meant by the grandiose statement "Change"?
Of course I use Lilly Ledbetter as a symbol. President Obama obviously has more accomplishments than that. He really did change the laws and many people's perceptions on gay rights for example. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is history. The government is no longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act. And the President of the United States is finally for gay marriage. But did people really think Senator Obama meant he would change gay rights legislation? Is that what the 2008 election was about?
A little bit of financial reform (which so far�has proven�to be as ineffectual as progressive critics predicted) certainly doesn't qualify as "Change." Thirty million more Americans insured -- maybe, hopefully, by 2014 -- is a good thing. Is it transformational? Has Washington changed as we know it? Have we gotten "Change"?
Here is the common sense interpretation of what "Change" is -- changing the way Washington works. In fact, this is exactly what was promised, specifically by Barack Obama. He even made a campaign ad about it:�http://www.youtube.com/...
That's an example of the same old game playing in Washington. I don't want to learn how to play the game better; I want to put an end to the game playing.
And by God, what have you done to that effect? I would venture to say, almost without refutation, absolutely nothing. Even the most ardent Obama supporter can't in good conscience or sound mental state argue that President Obama has changed the way Washington works. He's just played the game a little better, if you're being charitable on how you keep score on that count.
But here's what should really burn you up -- he hasn't even tried. Not even close. Has there been a single piece of legislation backed by the White House that would stop the way lobbyists or big corporate interests or any special interest groups buy our politicians? In�93% of the cases, the person with more money wins their Congressional race. Democrat or Republican. Obviously the controlling factor is not ideology, party or even votes. It's money. And it's obvious.
And the president has done what to "Change" that?
Nonetheless, I'm insanely optimistic and na�ve. So, I say we give him one more chance. But there is no way you should just trust him and hope for the best. He has to actually do something this time instead of just hanging a campaign placard up.
Congressman John Yarmuth of Kentucky has introduced a�bipartisan bill�that would amend the constitution to say that money cannot control our elections. Will the president make this one of his top priorities? Will he campaign on it? Will he do everything in his power to pass it if he is re-elected?
If he does, then we should let bygones be bygones. The slate is wiped clean and God bless second terms and the concept of redemption. If the president makes a real effort on the campaign trail to emphasize this as one of his core issues, then progressives should turn out to do everything they can to get him elected, whether it's voting, donating or volunteering. We're not asking for much in return -- just deliver on your original promise.
On the other hand, if he can't even do this, then it's obvious that the Democrats will never, ever help us. It will be painfully clear that they are part of the same corrupt system and have no interest in ever changing it. In fact, they love that system because it is what keeps them in office.
But this is not a decision for me to make. It is for the president. Which way will he go? Will he continue to play small-bore politics? Will he continue his rhetorical games and hope we don't realize that he is being too clever by half? Will he play the same old Washington games and hope to play them just a little better? Or will he actually lead and bring us real change?
Despite all the broken promises and all the cute political tricks, I still have the audacity of hope. I'm just waiting for President Obama to put it out one last time, so we can really go to war against Washington -- all of it. Democrats and Republicans alike. The public has a pox ready for both of their houses and only one man has the antidote. Let's see what he does.
Watch The Young Turks�Here�and�Here
�
Juan Williams racial controversy U.S. banks Charlie Rangel Arizona
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
Private Residence
McLean, Virginia
6:46 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) Well, it is good to be with all of you. And I just want to say to Earl and Amanda, thank you so much for opening up your beautiful home. They have been great supports for a very long time.
And I want to thank all the other co-hosts -- the Moores, the Moreheads, the Slades -- thank you, all of you, who helped to put this thing together. It is a great, great event. (Applause.)
I know it's a little warm out here, but you know, it's summertime. (Laughter.) It's summertime, so you're supposed to bead up a little bit. (Laughter.)
You know, this is going to be my last campaign. I'm term-limited, I can't run again. Michelle is perfectly happy with that. (Laughter.) But it's made me a little bit nostalgic about some of my first campaigns. I think back to the first time I ran as a -- for state senate in the South Side of Chicago. (Applause.) And back then, we didn’t have a lot of support there initially, so I had to go Xerox my flyers at Kinko's. (Laughter.) And Michelle and I and some friends, we'd go and knock on doors, and people would say, "Who?" "How do you say that name again?" (Laughter.)
I won that first race, and then I ran for the U.S. Senate. And the thing about Illinois is it's a big state and a diverse state, so I'd have to drive all around the state. And back then I didn’t have Marine One or Air Force One, so I'd do my own driving. I might have a staff person in the passenger seat. And the young people out there, you may not understand this, but we had these things called maps. (Laughter.) So we didn’t have GPS back then. And they were on pieces of paper, and you'd have to unfold them and then fold them again. (Laughter.) And you'd get lost. And then I'd have to find my own parking spot. And if it was raining, I'd have to be reaching in the back to see if I could find an umbrella.
But wherever I went -- inner-city, farm town, suburbs -- whatever people I was meeting, whatever background they were from, they all had a similar story. It was similar to the story of my family. If I'd met an older person -- what are you talking about, young lady? (Laughter.) I'm calling you out. (Applause.) She is talking about how to get her picture right. (Laughter.) I'm just teasing you. (Laughter.)
But if I met an older veteran, I'd think about my grandparents and how my grandfather fought in World War II. When he came back, he was able to go to college on the GI Bill. And my grandparents were able to buy their first home with an FHA loan.
And if I met a single mom, I'd think about my mom, and how, even though she didn’t have money and she only had the support of her parents -- my grandparents -- she was able to put herself through school, work at the same time, and still give her kids a great education. And I would think about -- if I'd met a working couple I'd think about Michelle's parents. Some of you may know, Michelle's dad had MS, so by the time I met him he could barely walk, had to use two canes. And he'd have to wake up an hour earlier than everybody else to get dressed and get to work on time. But he never missed a day of work. And Michelle's mom worked as a secretary most of her life at a bank. And they didn’t have a lot, but they were able to give their children, Michelle and her brother, the kind of education and love and support that would allow them to pursue their dreams.
And so the point is that everywhere I went I'd meet people with the same story. And at its core was this basic idea that here in America, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, you should be able to make it if you work hard. You should be able to get ahead if you act responsibly. It's that idea that built the strongest middle class on Earth, and made us an economic superpower.
And the idea that being in the middle class, by the way, was not necessarily a matter of your bank account. It had to do with could you find a job that paid a living wage, that supported a family. Could you make sure you were able to have a home that you could call you own; that you wouldn’t go bankrupt when you get sick; that you would be able to give your kids a great education and they could achieve things that you never even dreamed of, and then hopefully you could retire with some dignity and some respect.
That was the idea of America. And when we decided in 2008 to launch this improbable campaign, the idea behind it was that idea -- how do we restore an America where everybody can make it if they try. Because we had gone through a decade in which it hadn’t been true for a lot of folks.
I mean, the decade before I was sworn in, we saw the most sluggish job growth in decades. A few people were doing very well, but for the vast majority of people, wages and incomes were going down while the cost of everything from college to health care were going up. And this all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
So what we said was, America deserves better -- deserves better leadership, deserves a better vision. And a lot of people didn’t give us a chance. But because of you, we were able not just to win an election but begin this process of turning America towards a better vision for the future. (Applause.)
Now, over the last three and a half years we've had a lot of work to do. But because of our efforts, instead of losing 800,000 jobs per month we created 4.5 million jobs over the last several years -- (applause) -- half a million in manufacturing, strongest manufacturing job growth since the 1990s. We saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse. (Applause.) We were able to stabilize the financial system, help small businesses, and slowly the unemployment rate has begun to come down.
But we understand we've got more work to do. We're not there yet. There's still millions of people who are still out of work, and we've got too many people whose housing -- whose homes are underwater. Too many people still struggling to pay the bills. So our goal was not just to get back to where we were before the crisis. Our goal was to build an economy that would last for decades to come, for the next generation.
And that's why, even as we were working on fixing the economy, we also said let's make sure that nobody goes bankrupt when they get sick. Let's pass a health care law that can ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality to health care. (Applause.) That's the reason why we reformed our student loan system so that we could expand Pell grants and make sure that millions of people were able to get thousands of dollars of assistance in sending their kids to college -- and, by the way, also making sure that young people were dealing with less debt when they graduate. (Applause.)
That's why we put in place Wall Street reform so we don't have another taxpayer-funded bailout. (Applause.) Because we insisted that banks have enough capital requirements and that they have a plan so that if they make bad decisions, it's not going to cost you any money, it will cost them money.
And so the question is, are we going to continue down this path of building an economy that lasts, where everybody gets a fair shot, everybody does their fair share, everybody plays by the same set of rules? I believe that's the right vision for the future. (Applause.) And that's why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)
Now, there’s as stark a choice in this election as we’ve seen in a very long time because the other side just has some different ideas. Mr. Romney’s basic idea, and his allies in Congress, is what I call top-down economics. He wants to -- Bill Clinton a couple months ago said, they basically want to do the same thing that they did before -- except on steroids. (Laughter.) So they don't want to just continue the Bush tax cuts; they want to add another $5 trillion of tax cuts on top of that, mostly going to folks who don't need tax cuts and weren’t even asking for tax cuts.
It will be paid for by gutting our investments in education, our investments in infrastructure, our investments in research and development; voucherizing Medicare. That is not a recipe for long-term growth.
And we’ve got an example of how they approach problems right now because the Senate just passed a bill that I have been pushing that says right now, if we don't do anything, if Congress does nothing, everybody’s taxes go up on January 1st, which would be tough on the economy and tough on a lot of families.
So what I’ve said is let’s say that everybody who makes $250,000 a year or less, that their taxes won’t go up -- the incomes taxes will not go up a dime. Let’s give them some certainty. By the way, that includes 97 percent of small businesses. The Senate passed it; the House, so far, has not. If we get 218 votes out of the House, the vast majority of the country will have certainty next year that their taxes will not go up.
But so far at least, the House’s attitude is we’re not going to do that unless we also get a trillion dollar’s worth of tax cuts for the wealthy. That's a bad bargain for America. That's not how we grow an economy. I don't believe in top-down economics. I believe in middle-out economics and bottom-up economics. I believe that when everybody is doing well, then folks at the top do well also because they’ve got customers who have money in their pockets.
AUDIENCE: Yes!
THE PRESIDENT: That's the choice in this election. And the good news is you’re going to be able to be the tie-breaker. You can break this stalemate. And that is why I’m running for a second term as President, to break that stalemate once and for all. (Applause.)
So let me tell you what my vision is. My vision is that just as we were able to make sure that the auto industry in America stayed strong, we’ve got to bet on American workers and American manufacturing, and that means we got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Let’s give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in the United States of America, right here in Virginia -- (applause) -- because we’ve got the best workers in the world and the best innovation in the world. What we need is a tax code that works for folks who are investing here in the United States. That's my vision.
My vision is to make sure that our education system is working for every child, not just some children. (Applause.) So I want to help school districts hire the best teachers, new teachers -- especially in math and science. I want to open up community colleges for 2 million more people so that they can get trained for the jobs that local businesses are hiring for right now. And I want to make sure that college is even more affordable -- not just to continuing the tax credits we put in place, not just continuing the expansion of Pell grants we’ve put in place, but also let’s bring down tuition costs so that our young people are not burdened with debt. Because a higher education, it’s not a luxury today, it is an economic necessity in the 21st century. That's what we’re fighting for, and that's why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States. (Applause.)
I want to make sure that we are investing in America. I promised I’d end the war in Iraq -- we ended it. (Applause.) I said we’d go after al Qaeda -- we have gone after them. (Applause.) We are now transitioning out of Afghanistan, putting Afghans in the lead for their country’s own security.
And now after a decade of war, I think it makes sense for us to take half the savings from war and let’s use it to do some nation-building here at home. Let’s make sure that we’re rebuilding our roads and our bridges. Let’s build broadband lines into rural communities and improve our wireless networks and rebuild our ports and airports.
We can put people to work right now doing the work that America needs done. It will be good for those hard hats who have more money in their pockets. They’ll go to restaurants, and they’ll shop at local businesses. And the entire economic will get a lift, plus we will make ourselves more competitive for decades to come. That's how we build an America that lasts. That's why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)
I don't want to refight the battles we’ve already fought. Health care was the right thing to do -- 30 million people will have health insurance that did not have it before. (Applause.) Your children can stay on your health insurance plan till they're 26 years old. Women are getting preventative care. We are not going to go back to the old days when insurance companies could just jerk you around for no reason. The Supreme Court has spoken. We are now implementing it, and America is going to be better for it. (Applause.)
The same way that we are not going back to the days when you couldn’t serve the country you love just because of you who you love. We ended “don't ask, don't tell.” That was the right thing to do. We are moving forward. We’re not going to roll back funding for Planned Parenthood -- as my opponent opposes -- because I think women should have control over their health care choices just like everybody else does. (Applause.) We’re not going backwards.
And when it comes to the debt and the deficit, we’re going to lower it, but we’re going to do it in a balanced, responsible way. We’re not going to lower it on the backs of the poor and the middle class. We’re going to make cuts in programs that don't work. We’re going to streamline government. We’ve made government already more responsive, and we’re going to continue. But we’re also going to ask the wealthiest folks, people like me -- and, yes, I’m sorry, Earl, you qualify -- (laughter) -- to do a little bit more because we have been incredibly blessed.
AUDIENCE: Yes!
THE PRESIDENT: And this country gave us opportunity, and we’ve got to make sure that we are giving opportunity to the next generation. That's a worthy investment. That's how America grew. We built this nation together. And I want to make sure that we continue to have that vision as we think about Malia and Sasha, your children, your grandchildren. I don't want to go backwards.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Me either!
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to need to go forwards. (Applause.)
Now, when we ran in 2008, I told you this would not be easy and this would not be quick. And I told you it might take more than one year, more than one term, maybe even more then one President. But we’ve made progress. And so now what you’re going to be seeing over the next three months is more money spent, mostly on negative ads than we’ve ever seen before. Some folks are writing $10 million checks to try to replace me. And basically they make the same argument all the time -- because they know their economic theories don't really work, or at least they don't sell, so their argument will be: The economy is not where it should, and it’s Obama’s fault. They’ll have variations on it, but they’ll do the same ad over and over and over and over again. You’re already seeing them in Virginia and some other states.
And, look, you always got to be a little concerned when folks are writing $10 million checks. But what gives me confidence and what gives me faith is you. So many of you supported us in 2008. And remember, we were outspent for a time, and we were counted out. I’ve been outspent before. But what I’ve understood is that when the American people really start paying attention, they can cut through the nonsense. When the American people are paying attention, they're the ones who will determine what is true, what is right, what’s consistent with our values.
And when all of you start thinking back to your own family’s history. Some of you, parents, grandparents came here as immigrants. Some of you, your ancestors came here in chains. But the running story has been our capacity, each generation, to say if we work hard, there’s a better day ahead; that if we act responsibly -- whether we’re working on a farm or in a factory or in a mill or down in a mine -- that next generation, they're going to be able to do things I couldn’t do. So maybe I can't own a business, but if I really work hard, some day, maybe my daughter owns a business. I might not own a home, but if I work really hard, maybe some day, my son, he’ll build homes. I might not be able to vote, but some day, maybe a great grandson, or a great-great grandson will end up being a senator or a mayor or maybe even the President of the United States. That has been the story of our history.
And when the American people are reminded of that, when we focus on what’s best in our traditions, then I don't fear $10 million checks. Then I have confidence that change will happen, and we will keep moving forward.
So let me just say to all of you, in addition to thanks, we’ve got a little over a hundred days left. In that campaign in 2008, we went through a lot of ups and downs, and I tried to not make promises that I couldn’t keep. So I promised I’d end the war in Iraq -- I ended it. I promised, we’d cut taxes for middle-class families -- we did.
But the biggest promise I made, I said, I’m not a perfect man -- Michelle can tell you that -- (laughter) -- and I won’t be a perfect President. But what I can promise you is that I will always tell you what I think, I’ll always tell you where I stand, and I will spend every single day fighting as hard as I know how for you. And I have kept that promise. (Applause.) I have kept that promise because I believe in you. And in you I see my own story. In your grandparents I see my grandparents. In your children I see Malia and Sasha. I know where you've been because that's where I've been. That's where Michelle has been. And we know what it means to struggle, but we also know what it means to receive the incredible blessings of this country.
So if you still believe in me and you're willing to stand with me -- (applause) -- and keep on going, not just today, not just tomorrow, not just next week, not just next month, but for the next 105 days, and then four more years after that -- (applause) -- then we'll finish what we started. We will bring this economy all the way back and more. And we'll remind the world just why it is the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth. (Applause.)
Thank you, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.) God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Appreciate you.
END
7:07 P.M. EDT
McLean, Virginia
6:46 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) Well, it is good to be with all of you. And I just want to say to Earl and Amanda, thank you so much for opening up your beautiful home. They have been great supports for a very long time.
And I want to thank all the other co-hosts -- the Moores, the Moreheads, the Slades -- thank you, all of you, who helped to put this thing together. It is a great, great event. (Applause.)
I know it's a little warm out here, but you know, it's summertime. (Laughter.) It's summertime, so you're supposed to bead up a little bit. (Laughter.)
You know, this is going to be my last campaign. I'm term-limited, I can't run again. Michelle is perfectly happy with that. (Laughter.) But it's made me a little bit nostalgic about some of my first campaigns. I think back to the first time I ran as a -- for state senate in the South Side of Chicago. (Applause.) And back then, we didn’t have a lot of support there initially, so I had to go Xerox my flyers at Kinko's. (Laughter.) And Michelle and I and some friends, we'd go and knock on doors, and people would say, "Who?" "How do you say that name again?" (Laughter.)
I won that first race, and then I ran for the U.S. Senate. And the thing about Illinois is it's a big state and a diverse state, so I'd have to drive all around the state. And back then I didn’t have Marine One or Air Force One, so I'd do my own driving. I might have a staff person in the passenger seat. And the young people out there, you may not understand this, but we had these things called maps. (Laughter.) So we didn’t have GPS back then. And they were on pieces of paper, and you'd have to unfold them and then fold them again. (Laughter.) And you'd get lost. And then I'd have to find my own parking spot. And if it was raining, I'd have to be reaching in the back to see if I could find an umbrella.
But wherever I went -- inner-city, farm town, suburbs -- whatever people I was meeting, whatever background they were from, they all had a similar story. It was similar to the story of my family. If I'd met an older person -- what are you talking about, young lady? (Laughter.) I'm calling you out. (Applause.) She is talking about how to get her picture right. (Laughter.) I'm just teasing you. (Laughter.)
But if I met an older veteran, I'd think about my grandparents and how my grandfather fought in World War II. When he came back, he was able to go to college on the GI Bill. And my grandparents were able to buy their first home with an FHA loan.
And if I met a single mom, I'd think about my mom, and how, even though she didn’t have money and she only had the support of her parents -- my grandparents -- she was able to put herself through school, work at the same time, and still give her kids a great education. And I would think about -- if I'd met a working couple I'd think about Michelle's parents. Some of you may know, Michelle's dad had MS, so by the time I met him he could barely walk, had to use two canes. And he'd have to wake up an hour earlier than everybody else to get dressed and get to work on time. But he never missed a day of work. And Michelle's mom worked as a secretary most of her life at a bank. And they didn’t have a lot, but they were able to give their children, Michelle and her brother, the kind of education and love and support that would allow them to pursue their dreams.
And so the point is that everywhere I went I'd meet people with the same story. And at its core was this basic idea that here in America, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, you should be able to make it if you work hard. You should be able to get ahead if you act responsibly. It's that idea that built the strongest middle class on Earth, and made us an economic superpower.
And the idea that being in the middle class, by the way, was not necessarily a matter of your bank account. It had to do with could you find a job that paid a living wage, that supported a family. Could you make sure you were able to have a home that you could call you own; that you wouldn’t go bankrupt when you get sick; that you would be able to give your kids a great education and they could achieve things that you never even dreamed of, and then hopefully you could retire with some dignity and some respect.
That was the idea of America. And when we decided in 2008 to launch this improbable campaign, the idea behind it was that idea -- how do we restore an America where everybody can make it if they try. Because we had gone through a decade in which it hadn’t been true for a lot of folks.
I mean, the decade before I was sworn in, we saw the most sluggish job growth in decades. A few people were doing very well, but for the vast majority of people, wages and incomes were going down while the cost of everything from college to health care were going up. And this all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
So what we said was, America deserves better -- deserves better leadership, deserves a better vision. And a lot of people didn’t give us a chance. But because of you, we were able not just to win an election but begin this process of turning America towards a better vision for the future. (Applause.)
Now, over the last three and a half years we've had a lot of work to do. But because of our efforts, instead of losing 800,000 jobs per month we created 4.5 million jobs over the last several years -- (applause) -- half a million in manufacturing, strongest manufacturing job growth since the 1990s. We saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse. (Applause.) We were able to stabilize the financial system, help small businesses, and slowly the unemployment rate has begun to come down.
But we understand we've got more work to do. We're not there yet. There's still millions of people who are still out of work, and we've got too many people whose housing -- whose homes are underwater. Too many people still struggling to pay the bills. So our goal was not just to get back to where we were before the crisis. Our goal was to build an economy that would last for decades to come, for the next generation.
And that's why, even as we were working on fixing the economy, we also said let's make sure that nobody goes bankrupt when they get sick. Let's pass a health care law that can ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality to health care. (Applause.) That's the reason why we reformed our student loan system so that we could expand Pell grants and make sure that millions of people were able to get thousands of dollars of assistance in sending their kids to college -- and, by the way, also making sure that young people were dealing with less debt when they graduate. (Applause.)
That's why we put in place Wall Street reform so we don't have another taxpayer-funded bailout. (Applause.) Because we insisted that banks have enough capital requirements and that they have a plan so that if they make bad decisions, it's not going to cost you any money, it will cost them money.
And so the question is, are we going to continue down this path of building an economy that lasts, where everybody gets a fair shot, everybody does their fair share, everybody plays by the same set of rules? I believe that's the right vision for the future. (Applause.) And that's why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)
Now, there’s as stark a choice in this election as we’ve seen in a very long time because the other side just has some different ideas. Mr. Romney’s basic idea, and his allies in Congress, is what I call top-down economics. He wants to -- Bill Clinton a couple months ago said, they basically want to do the same thing that they did before -- except on steroids. (Laughter.) So they don't want to just continue the Bush tax cuts; they want to add another $5 trillion of tax cuts on top of that, mostly going to folks who don't need tax cuts and weren’t even asking for tax cuts.
It will be paid for by gutting our investments in education, our investments in infrastructure, our investments in research and development; voucherizing Medicare. That is not a recipe for long-term growth.
And we’ve got an example of how they approach problems right now because the Senate just passed a bill that I have been pushing that says right now, if we don't do anything, if Congress does nothing, everybody’s taxes go up on January 1st, which would be tough on the economy and tough on a lot of families.
So what I’ve said is let’s say that everybody who makes $250,000 a year or less, that their taxes won’t go up -- the incomes taxes will not go up a dime. Let’s give them some certainty. By the way, that includes 97 percent of small businesses. The Senate passed it; the House, so far, has not. If we get 218 votes out of the House, the vast majority of the country will have certainty next year that their taxes will not go up.
But so far at least, the House’s attitude is we’re not going to do that unless we also get a trillion dollar’s worth of tax cuts for the wealthy. That's a bad bargain for America. That's not how we grow an economy. I don't believe in top-down economics. I believe in middle-out economics and bottom-up economics. I believe that when everybody is doing well, then folks at the top do well also because they’ve got customers who have money in their pockets.
AUDIENCE: Yes!
THE PRESIDENT: That's the choice in this election. And the good news is you’re going to be able to be the tie-breaker. You can break this stalemate. And that is why I’m running for a second term as President, to break that stalemate once and for all. (Applause.)
So let me tell you what my vision is. My vision is that just as we were able to make sure that the auto industry in America stayed strong, we’ve got to bet on American workers and American manufacturing, and that means we got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Let’s give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in the United States of America, right here in Virginia -- (applause) -- because we’ve got the best workers in the world and the best innovation in the world. What we need is a tax code that works for folks who are investing here in the United States. That's my vision.
My vision is to make sure that our education system is working for every child, not just some children. (Applause.) So I want to help school districts hire the best teachers, new teachers -- especially in math and science. I want to open up community colleges for 2 million more people so that they can get trained for the jobs that local businesses are hiring for right now. And I want to make sure that college is even more affordable -- not just to continuing the tax credits we put in place, not just continuing the expansion of Pell grants we’ve put in place, but also let’s bring down tuition costs so that our young people are not burdened with debt. Because a higher education, it’s not a luxury today, it is an economic necessity in the 21st century. That's what we’re fighting for, and that's why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States. (Applause.)
I want to make sure that we are investing in America. I promised I’d end the war in Iraq -- we ended it. (Applause.) I said we’d go after al Qaeda -- we have gone after them. (Applause.) We are now transitioning out of Afghanistan, putting Afghans in the lead for their country’s own security.
And now after a decade of war, I think it makes sense for us to take half the savings from war and let’s use it to do some nation-building here at home. Let’s make sure that we’re rebuilding our roads and our bridges. Let’s build broadband lines into rural communities and improve our wireless networks and rebuild our ports and airports.
We can put people to work right now doing the work that America needs done. It will be good for those hard hats who have more money in their pockets. They’ll go to restaurants, and they’ll shop at local businesses. And the entire economic will get a lift, plus we will make ourselves more competitive for decades to come. That's how we build an America that lasts. That's why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)
I don't want to refight the battles we’ve already fought. Health care was the right thing to do -- 30 million people will have health insurance that did not have it before. (Applause.) Your children can stay on your health insurance plan till they're 26 years old. Women are getting preventative care. We are not going to go back to the old days when insurance companies could just jerk you around for no reason. The Supreme Court has spoken. We are now implementing it, and America is going to be better for it. (Applause.)
The same way that we are not going back to the days when you couldn’t serve the country you love just because of you who you love. We ended “don't ask, don't tell.” That was the right thing to do. We are moving forward. We’re not going to roll back funding for Planned Parenthood -- as my opponent opposes -- because I think women should have control over their health care choices just like everybody else does. (Applause.) We’re not going backwards.
And when it comes to the debt and the deficit, we’re going to lower it, but we’re going to do it in a balanced, responsible way. We’re not going to lower it on the backs of the poor and the middle class. We’re going to make cuts in programs that don't work. We’re going to streamline government. We’ve made government already more responsive, and we’re going to continue. But we’re also going to ask the wealthiest folks, people like me -- and, yes, I’m sorry, Earl, you qualify -- (laughter) -- to do a little bit more because we have been incredibly blessed.
AUDIENCE: Yes!
THE PRESIDENT: And this country gave us opportunity, and we’ve got to make sure that we are giving opportunity to the next generation. That's a worthy investment. That's how America grew. We built this nation together. And I want to make sure that we continue to have that vision as we think about Malia and Sasha, your children, your grandchildren. I don't want to go backwards.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Me either!
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to need to go forwards. (Applause.)
Now, when we ran in 2008, I told you this would not be easy and this would not be quick. And I told you it might take more than one year, more than one term, maybe even more then one President. But we’ve made progress. And so now what you’re going to be seeing over the next three months is more money spent, mostly on negative ads than we’ve ever seen before. Some folks are writing $10 million checks to try to replace me. And basically they make the same argument all the time -- because they know their economic theories don't really work, or at least they don't sell, so their argument will be: The economy is not where it should, and it’s Obama’s fault. They’ll have variations on it, but they’ll do the same ad over and over and over and over again. You’re already seeing them in Virginia and some other states.
And, look, you always got to be a little concerned when folks are writing $10 million checks. But what gives me confidence and what gives me faith is you. So many of you supported us in 2008. And remember, we were outspent for a time, and we were counted out. I’ve been outspent before. But what I’ve understood is that when the American people really start paying attention, they can cut through the nonsense. When the American people are paying attention, they're the ones who will determine what is true, what is right, what’s consistent with our values.
And when all of you start thinking back to your own family’s history. Some of you, parents, grandparents came here as immigrants. Some of you, your ancestors came here in chains. But the running story has been our capacity, each generation, to say if we work hard, there’s a better day ahead; that if we act responsibly -- whether we’re working on a farm or in a factory or in a mill or down in a mine -- that next generation, they're going to be able to do things I couldn’t do. So maybe I can't own a business, but if I really work hard, some day, maybe my daughter owns a business. I might not own a home, but if I work really hard, maybe some day, my son, he’ll build homes. I might not be able to vote, but some day, maybe a great grandson, or a great-great grandson will end up being a senator or a mayor or maybe even the President of the United States. That has been the story of our history.
And when the American people are reminded of that, when we focus on what’s best in our traditions, then I don't fear $10 million checks. Then I have confidence that change will happen, and we will keep moving forward.
So let me just say to all of you, in addition to thanks, we’ve got a little over a hundred days left. In that campaign in 2008, we went through a lot of ups and downs, and I tried to not make promises that I couldn’t keep. So I promised I’d end the war in Iraq -- I ended it. I promised, we’d cut taxes for middle-class families -- we did.
But the biggest promise I made, I said, I’m not a perfect man -- Michelle can tell you that -- (laughter) -- and I won’t be a perfect President. But what I can promise you is that I will always tell you what I think, I’ll always tell you where I stand, and I will spend every single day fighting as hard as I know how for you. And I have kept that promise. (Applause.) I have kept that promise because I believe in you. And in you I see my own story. In your grandparents I see my grandparents. In your children I see Malia and Sasha. I know where you've been because that's where I've been. That's where Michelle has been. And we know what it means to struggle, but we also know what it means to receive the incredible blessings of this country.
So if you still believe in me and you're willing to stand with me -- (applause) -- and keep on going, not just today, not just tomorrow, not just next week, not just next month, but for the next 105 days, and then four more years after that -- (applause) -- then we'll finish what we started. We will bring this economy all the way back and more. And we'll remind the world just why it is the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth. (Applause.)
Thank you, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.) God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Appreciate you.
END
7:07 P.M. EDT
Carl Paladino Plays Up Redneck Politics
Andrew Cuomo Has Double-Digit Lead Over Carl Paladino in N.Y. Governor Race11 days ago
Blagojevich financial regulations Tony Hayward bill clinton Juan Williams
Remarks by the President at Signing of the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act
Oval Office
Please see below for a correction (marked with an asterisk*).
10:24 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Hope you guys are all staying cool. Well, listen, I just wanted to welcome these outstanding leaders to the Oval Office. I want to in particular acknowledge Congressman Howard Berman and Senator Barbara Boxer, who have done outstanding work in shepherding through this bipartisan piece of legislation that underscores our unshakeable commitment to Israel.
As many of you know, I have made it a top priority for my administration to deepen cooperation with Israel across the whole spectrum of security issues -- intelligence, military, technology. And, in many ways, what this legislation does is bring together all the outstanding cooperation that we have seen, really, at an unprecedented level between our two countries that underscore our unshakeable commitment to Israel security.
I’m also very pleased that this week we are going to be able to announce $70 million in additional spending -- $70 billion [million]*, excuse me, in additional spending for Iron Dome. This is a program that has been critical in terms of providing security and safety for the Israeli families. It is a program that has been tested and has prevented missile strikes inside of Israel. And it is testimony to the leadership of the folks sitting here that we’re going to be able to lock in that fund to assure that that program continues and that we are standing by our friends in Israel when it comes to these kinds of attacks.
Let me just close by saying that the tragic events that we saw in Bulgaria emphasize the degree to which this continues to be a challenge not just for Israel, but for the entire world -- preventing terrorist attacks and making sure the people of Israel are not targeted.
And I hope that, as I sign as this bill, once again everybody understands how committed all of us are -- Republicans and Democrats -- as Americans to our friends in making sure that Israel is safe and secure.
Leon Panetta, our Secretary of Defense, will be traveling to Israel to further consult and find additional ways that we can ensure such cooperation at a time when, frankly, the region is experiencing heightened tensions.
So, with that, let me sign this bill. Again, I want to thank all who are standing beside me for their outstanding leadership and their outstanding work on this issue.
(The bill is signed.)
Let me make sure I’m using enough pens. (Laughter.) There you go. Thank you.
END
10:28 A.M. EDT
Please see below for a correction (marked with an asterisk*).
10:24 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Hope you guys are all staying cool. Well, listen, I just wanted to welcome these outstanding leaders to the Oval Office. I want to in particular acknowledge Congressman Howard Berman and Senator Barbara Boxer, who have done outstanding work in shepherding through this bipartisan piece of legislation that underscores our unshakeable commitment to Israel.
As many of you know, I have made it a top priority for my administration to deepen cooperation with Israel across the whole spectrum of security issues -- intelligence, military, technology. And, in many ways, what this legislation does is bring together all the outstanding cooperation that we have seen, really, at an unprecedented level between our two countries that underscore our unshakeable commitment to Israel security.
I’m also very pleased that this week we are going to be able to announce $70 million in additional spending -- $70 billion [million]*, excuse me, in additional spending for Iron Dome. This is a program that has been critical in terms of providing security and safety for the Israeli families. It is a program that has been tested and has prevented missile strikes inside of Israel. And it is testimony to the leadership of the folks sitting here that we’re going to be able to lock in that fund to assure that that program continues and that we are standing by our friends in Israel when it comes to these kinds of attacks.
Let me just close by saying that the tragic events that we saw in Bulgaria emphasize the degree to which this continues to be a challenge not just for Israel, but for the entire world -- preventing terrorist attacks and making sure the people of Israel are not targeted.
And I hope that, as I sign as this bill, once again everybody understands how committed all of us are -- Republicans and Democrats -- as Americans to our friends in making sure that Israel is safe and secure.
Leon Panetta, our Secretary of Defense, will be traveling to Israel to further consult and find additional ways that we can ensure such cooperation at a time when, frankly, the region is experiencing heightened tensions.
So, with that, let me sign this bill. Again, I want to thank all who are standing beside me for their outstanding leadership and their outstanding work on this issue.
(The bill is signed.)
Let me make sure I’m using enough pens. (Laughter.) There you go. Thank you.
END
10:28 A.M. EDT
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 7/26/12
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
See below for a follow up to a question (marked with an asterisk) posed in the briefing.
*The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
12:49 P.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Thank you all for being here. It’s wonderful to be back in the White House briefing room. I have a couple of brief announcements I wanted to make, if you will bear with me.
First, earlier this morning, John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, hosted an Olympic security deputy’s meeting with the full counterterrorism and law enforcement community to take stock of our efforts working with the United Kingdom to prepare for the London 2012 Olympic Games.
Following that meeting, Mr. Brennan provided the President with an update on the Olympics as well as the United States government’s support to the United Kingdom prior to and during the games. The President directed that we continue to ensure that we are doing everything possible to keep the American people safe and to continue close cooperation with our British counterparts.
In keeping with our special relationship, the President also made it clear that he has the utmost confidence in our close friend and ally, the United Kingdom, as they finalize preparations to host the London Olympics.
Next, changing subjects, I just wanted to note that, as you saw last night, the Senate took action and passed a bill to extend the middle-class tax cuts for 114 million middle-class families. The House should follow suit and pass this bill right away. The House Republicans are now the only people left in Washington holding hostage the middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses.
The fact is the typical middle-class family cannot afford a $2,200 tax hike at the beginning of next year. It’s time for House Republicans to drop their demand for another $1 trillion giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and give our families and small businesses the financial security and certainty that they need.
As the President said last night, we need tax cuts for working Americans, not for folks who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them.
And with that, I will take your questions. Mr. Feller -- oh, wait, before I do, I think congratulations are in order. I should have said that when I called on you, but I’ll do it again.
Ben.
Q Thanks, Jay. I wanted to try to get some clarity about gun control and the President’s positions. Since the Colorado tragedy, you’ve been telling us that the President wants to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people under existing laws. And then, last night, to the Urban League, he said there have been actions taken, but they do not go far enough. He talked about AK-47s being kept off the city streets. And so I’m just trying to get clear -- does he or does he not think that any new gun legislation --
MR. CARNEY: Well, let me back up a little bit and say that President Obama has called for common-sense measures that protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and improve public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them under existing law.
And, as I think you know, thanks to the administration’s efforts, background checks conducted on those looking to purchase firearms are now more thorough and more complete. The Department of Justice can provide more details on that.
I would also say that, or note, that the President made a broader point last night, which is that tackling the problem of violence is not just about gun laws. In communities across the country, the administration is partnering with local law enforcement and government officials to reduce crime, to connect young people with summer jobs, so they spend less time on the street, and to set up programs that steer children away from a life of gang violence and toward the safety and promise of a classroom.
We also must recognize that it is not enough to debate the role of government in reducing violence. It is up to parents, teachers, neighbors, and communities to make a difference in the lives of our young people as well.
I think that the point the President was making in the speech that he delivered last night was that we have to remember that in the wake of an awful event like the one in Aurora, Colorado, that violence is not an isolated incident in America, and that we need to take a broader look at it and try to tackle it from a number of different directions, which this President has been doing through his administration.
Q I get that broader point that he was speaking about more than the role of government and that was sort of part of the coverage. But I’m still not clear about the answer to my specific question. Does he think any new specific gun legislation is needed, or is existing -- enforce existing laws is needed?
MR. CARNEY: Well, he believes that we can enhance the enforcement of existing laws by making it more difficult for those who should not have weapons under existing laws, make it more difficult for them to obtain weapons. And that’s what his Department of Justice have been working on.
I think you’re aware of the fact that there is a stalemate in Congress on a broad range of issues, and this would include this one. The assault weapons ban is an issue that the President has supported the reinstatement of since its expiration in 2004.
But, given the stalemate in Congress, our focus is on the steps that we can take to make sure criminals and others who should not have those guns, make sure that they cannot obtain them.
Q So just two quick points. So does he plan to do anything, when he talked last night about working with Congress -- no stone unturned -- does he plan to do anything this year to make another case for that assault weapons ban?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not going to make scheduling announcements in terms of what the President may or may not say in the future. What I can tell you is that the President’s point last night was broader. I think there is an issue about the stalemate in Congress, and there are things that we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws, as the President said, that can reduce violence in our society and, as he mentioned last night, in our urban centers.
So I think he -- I know he will continue to press the Department of Justice to try to enhance the enforcement of existing laws, try to further develop our background check system so that it prevents criminals and those who should not have weapons from getting them under existing law. And he’ll continue to make sure that his administration is partnering with local law enforcement officials and government officials to try to do the things that I talked about at the top that can help reduce violence.
Q Last one. You focus a lot on background checks. Our reporting shows that the suspect in Aurora passed all of his background checks. Can you explain how even an enhanced background check system would stop something like this?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't think the President ever suggested that the background check can stop every crime from occurring in America, even one as heinous as this. I’m not going to get into the specifics of what happened in Aurora because there’s obviously an ongoing investigation.
But we do need to take a broader look at what we can do to reduce violence in America. And it requires a multi-faceted approach that looks at this problem from a variety of angles, and that's not just legislative and it’s not just about gun laws.
Q Turning to a foreign subject -- is there any --
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, correct?
Q Margaret.
MR. CARNEY: Welcome.
Q Thank you. Is there any reaction from the White House on the indictment of Bo Xilai’s wife at this time?
MR. CARNEY: I’ll have to take that question. I was not aware of that. Maybe the State Department has a reaction.
Yes. Jake, then -- well, let’s go to -- go ahead. Welcome.
Q Thank you. Just two topics. On Syria quickly -- you know that this crisis is deepening, is escalating, the ongoing assault in Aleppo. I just want to make sure I’m clear on what is it that the U.S. is doing right now. What can they do besides wait and see if there’s some consensus reached in the U.N.? Is there --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re continuing to work with other nations and the “Friends of Syria,” as well as other international partners, to provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, provide assistance to the opposition as it tries to form itself and unify -- nonlethal assistance to the opposition as well as administrative assistance, if you will, that the “Friends of Syria” is providing as the opposition comes together.
But it is a point that you made that is worth noting that there is an ongoing assault happening in Syria that demonstrates once again the depravity of President Assad and his regime. The fact is they're using artillery and fixed-wing aircraft -- there were reports of that -- as well as helicopters against a civilian population center.
And it once again points to the need for international consensus around the idea that Syria's future cannot include President Assad because of the actions that he's taken against his people. And we need to move quickly to look at what Syria can and should be in a post-Assad world, work with our partners, work with the opposition to help create that transition, because Assad's days are surely numbered.
As we've seen, it's clear that he's losing control of Syria. The momentum against the Assad regime continues with defections throughout the government. As we've seen in recent days, increasing numbers of formerly pro-regime Syrians, officials in the government, ambassadors to foreign countries, military personnel -- high-ranking military personnel -- are recognizing that to stand in solidarity with Assad is to stand against the Syrian people.
That's why it's time for the Syrian people and the international community to focus on what comes next, as I said.
Q And then one more on the guns issue. These are some of the President's strongest words yet on this issue. Does he feel like he has shown leadership publicly on the issues of guns during his term?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President's feelings about this issue I think were reflected in what he said, and those comments and remarks echo what the President has said in the past. And I think he does take a broad view about the problem of violence and how we need to address it. He is very mindful of the need, when it comes to legislation, that we ensure that we protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. That is very important to him. And he believes that we can take measures that improve public safety by preventing weapons from getting into the hands of those who should not have them, under existing law.
But there are broader aspects to this problem, as I talked about. And that's why we need to not look at it through one single prism, but to examine ways that we can help address the problem through assisting local law enforcement officials or through the education system, the school system, help keep kids off the street and out of gangs, for example.
And the President noted, and as I just did as well, that it's not just a governmental problem. It's something that teachers, parents, neighborhoods and communities need to talk about and take action on to make a difference in the lives of those who might otherwise fall into violence.
Jake.
Q You used the word "giveaway", and President Obama, in his statement yesterday, used the word "giveaway," referring to the extension of the lower Bush tax cut rates for I guess the top 1 or 2 percent of the country -- people making over $200,000 a year, or couples making $250,000. What do you say to a small business owner who says, that's not a giveaway, that's my money, and by the way, I'm going to need some of that money in order to help pay the health care of individuals that I'm now mandated to do? It's not giving anything away, it's allowing me to keep my money.
MR. CARNEY: Well, the phrasing of the question leaves out a few things, which is, one, this tax cut that the Senate passed and that the President supports would go to 97 percent of small businesses in America -- 97 percent. Further, this President has cut the taxes of small businesses in America 18 times, independent of this. So his focus on assisting small businesses, which he considers the engine of economic growth in this country, the engine of job creation in this country, has been intense and will continue to be.
Q It’s true that I’m not bringing up people I was not asking about. That is true.
MR. CARNEY: Well, no -- but, I mean -- but your question framed it around the -- so you're talking about the 3 percent here. And as we've noted, under the definition of small businesses that Republicans trot out when they're insisting on these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, means that --
Q I wasn’t talking about millionaires and billionaires. I was talking about somebody making over $200,000 a year.
MR. CARNEY: Sure, but again, that's 97 percent of people who file -- small businesses that file taxes under the individual tax code will receive this tax cut. Many of the remaining self-described small businesses that we’re talking about -- we’re talking about hedge fund managers, often, and law firm partners -- and addressing those small businesses that fall in the remaining category, this tax cut goes to everybody.
This is an often misunderstood fact in reporting and I think just in general, that giving this tax cut -- extending this tax cut to 98 percent of Americans, those who make up to $250,000, means that everyone gets it, even those who make millions and billions, up to the first $250,000 of income. So that -- for a family, that includes everyone, okay? And including small businesses that file in this manner.
Secondly, the President believes that small businesses are so important that he has dedicated a lot of energy and focus on providing tax credits and tax incentives and tax cuts to small businesses throughout his three and a half years in office. Beyond that, he believes that extending the high-end Bush tax cuts again is something we simply cannot afford.
We’re talking about a trillion dollars over a decade. We’ve seen what happened when these tax cuts, which you may recall, you and I were covering it, were sold initially as a pay-back from the budget surpluses that were achieved under the Clinton administration, and then when the economy ran into trouble and those surpluses were beginning to erode, it was sold as an economic stimulus measure. And what we got was middle-class incomes stagnating, the slowest expansion in 50 years, and an economic crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen in more than 70 years.
Q The question is this -- why is it a giveaway? Why are you guys using -- you and President Obama -- using the term “giveaway” when even if you support the Senate Democrats’ bill, it’s not technically a giveaway, it is allowing people to keep the tax cut that they got in 2001 and 2002?
MR. CARNEY: Right. But these are tax cuts that we cannot afford, that do not -- by the estimates of credible, independent economists do not measurably help the economy and do not, in the way that tax cuts to working and middle-class Americans, help the economy, and we have to make choices. And it is a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans that we simply can't afford.
And those who say that, oh, it's terrible for the economy -- remember, again, you and I were there and covered it. There were proclamations of gloom and doom, of economic crisis, and stagnation and recession that were promised by Republicans when President Clinton instituted the tax rates that existed throughout the ‘90s. And instead of everything that Republicans predicted, we got the longest peacetime expansion -- economic expansion in our history. We got 24 million jobs created, and plenty -- as the President says, plenty of millionaires and billionaires created as well. So it’s a matter of --
Q I appreciate you running on President Clinton’s record, but that's --
MR. CARNEY: It’s a matter of choices. I mean, that's what I think the President makes clear. We can't afford this tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. It is a giveaway that we cannot afford. Middle-class Americans need that tax cut. Our economy needs it for 98 percent of the country.
Q I’m told to change the subject. When Vice President Biden issued a rather strong statement yesterday about an unattributed quote or unattributed quotes from unnamed Romney advisors in a British newspaper, the Romney campaign’s response was that unattributed quotes should not merit a response from the Vice President of the United States. And I wondered if you had any response to that.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’ll leave specific campaign questions for the campaign to answer. I find it a little ironic given some of the attention paid to quotes from unnamed -- alleged unnamed Obama campaign advisors that have been the focus of attention of the Romney campaign.
What I can say is that the record here is what matters. When this President came into office, our alliances were under strain and frayed. Our standing in the world had been diminished. In the three and a half years that President Obama has been in office, he has strengthened our alliances around the world, including and in particular with NATO countries, and including and in particular with the United Kingdom, with whom we have a remarkably strong bond, a special relationship that has never been stronger. And I'll leave the back-and-forth to the campaign, but let's talk about policy and fact here.
And I would note that in that article in question, again, as a matter of policy, the only difference that I could tell, aside from the quote that's gotten a lot of attention that was focused on, was the need to -- that the only difference in policy proposals that seemed apparent were that we should move a bust from one room to another in the White House. And that was a principal policy difference, which is pretty preposterous.
This President has strengthened our alliances. He has built up American credibility around the globe. He has kept his commitments to end the war in Iraq, to take the fight to al Qaeda, to wind down our war in Afghanistan, to rebalance our focus towards Asia, which was neglected in the eight years prior to President Obama coming into office. And he is meeting all those commitments.
Norah. Congratulations.
Q Thank you very much. I'll miss all of you.
MR. CARNEY: Liar. (Laughter.)
Q I will. (Laughter.) On Syria, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked about the opposition taking more and more territory that will eventually result in a safe haven inside of Syria. What is the Obama administration weighing in terms of additional support? Are there discussions ongoing about different -- providing different sort of support to the opposition?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we're in conversations and discussions all the time about Syria, both internally and with our partners and allies around the world -- at the United Nations, at the "Friends of Syria" and elsewhere. I don't have anything specific for you. Our overall policy approach is what it has been. Our focus is on continuing to pressure the Assad regime, continuing to draw attention to the need for a peaceful transition, the fact that the longer Assad is in power, even as his grip on power diminishes, the more violent and chaotic the situation in Syria becomes.
And we'll continue to work with our partners to provide the assistance that we have been providing -- humanitarian assistance, non-lethal assistance to the opposition, consultation with the opposition as it forms itself. And this is all towards the goal of a transition that guarantees fundamental rights in Syria, of all Syrians, including minorities. And that is a critical element of any transition in a situation like this, and it is a priority of the United States.
Q There are many differences between Libya and Syria, which we've talked about, but one of the things Libya had was safe havens for the opposition, and the opposition held control of areas of Libya. When that becomes more clear -- I mean, what the Secretary seemed to be hinting at is that the U.S. would then get further involved. Is that true?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "further involved." We have not changed our position in terms of providing arms to or engaging militarily in Syria. We are pursuing the policy that we have been pursuing: to pressure and isolate the Assad regime; to work with our allies and partners and the "Friends of Syria;" to continue to try to build consensus internationally with the effort that we've undertaken at the United Nations; and continue to point out to the Russians and others about the need to accept that Assad cannot remain in power in Syria, and that it is a mistake to provide support to that regime because, in the end, the Syrian people will remember whose side each country was on in this brutal conflict. So these are the steps that we’re taking.
So I would not read anything beyond that. I think she was noting the fact that the opposition has made gains and that Assad’s grip on his country is diminishing.
Ed.
Q Hey, Jay. Two subjects -- one being the national security leaks. Can you say flatly that nobody inside the White House was involved in the national security leaks that are being investigated?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Ed, as you know, this is a matter under investigation by two experienced federal prosecutors, so I’m not going to speak specifically about it. I can point you to the statements of the President, statements I’ve made in the past about this, about the seriousness with which he takes this issue, and make the point that no one relies on the kind of information that is provided -- classified information that is provided to help him make incredibly difficult decisions than the President of the United States. And so he has no tolerance for the leaks, and that’s why he has spoken to this issue in the way that he has.
If you’re asking me to make a comment on an ongoing investigation --
Q Right, but you referenced past statements. One of your past statements was June 11th, and you said it was absurd when Senator McCain suggested that people inside the White House had leaked this information for political gain. In June, David Axelrod flatly said on ABC that nobody inside the White House was involved. And yesterday, David Axelrod was -- hang on --
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q -- David Axelrod was on MSNBC yesterday and said the President did not leak anything, and then he followed up by saying the President did not authorize any leaks. That’s different -- that leaves open the door that there were unauthorized leaks by White House people. So have you moved the goal post?
MR. CARNEY: No, Ed. I think you’re conflating a lot of things. All those statements are completely true. I stand by what I’ve said and what Mr. Axelrod and the President said. What I can tell you is that there are investigations ongoing and I’m not going to comment on the specifics of the investigations. I can point you to what the President --
Q Right. But you flatly said nobody in the White House was involved. Can you today say nobody in the White House was involved?
MR. CARNEY: Involved in -- which particular case are you talking about?
Q The national security leaks.
MR. CARNEY: I can tell you that the President takes this very seriously. We all take this very seriously. It is, again, an insult and preposterous to suggest that this White House would leak information for political gain -- classified information for political gain. That did not happen and would not happen under this President.
And a lot of this began as a focus on the operation that successfully removed Osama bin Laden from the battlefield. And the fact of the matter is the President spoke to 100 million people about that operation. Its existence is well known.
And this President, as that operation demonstrates, finds the use of the kinds of information that is protected in our national security environment highly important. He has to make life-and-death decisions based on that information all the time, and he thinks it is extremely important that that information be safeguarded.
Q One of Governor Romney’s advisors yesterday, Richard Williamson, flat out accused the National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, of leaking information that David Sanger has written a book --
MR. CARNEY: Right. And he accused him -- he made that accusation based on rumors he said he’d heard in the journalistic community. That same person called Russia the Soviet Union on multiple occasions. He called Governor Romney, Governor Reagan, on several occasions, and could not, in my -- that I could tell, accurately or intelligently or coherently state a foreign policy difference between this President and the Governor. So I would let the investigations take place.
Q So you disagree with him. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: I do.
Q Last topic -- veterans affairs. The President, to the VFW on Monday, flatly said, your veterans’ benefits will not be affected by the sequester. General Shinseki, who is meeting with the President today, testified on Capitol Hill yesterday, I believe, and said that administrative costs would be affected by the sequester, not veterans’ benefits. The question is, if -- when you have the Veterans Secretary saying that there will be some cuts to the Veterans Affairs Department because of the sequester, the President flatly saying your veterans’ benefits won’t be affected, how do you know that for sure when their budget is going to take a hit?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the Secretary’s comments that, if the sequester were to come about and take effect, that it would -- again, I’m just citing what Secretary Shinseki said -- that the impact would be on administrative costs in his agency.
But let’s just back up and be clear. The whole point of the sequester was to create a forcing mechanism to get Congress to act. And the sequester itself was filled with cuts to both defense and non-defense spending that were so onerous that nobody would support them. The President doesn’t support them. Republicans and Democrats in Congress don’t support them. And bipartisan majorities of both Republicans and Democrats voted for this measure because they thought it was necessary to hold themselves accountable to do the right thing, which is to pass a balanced deficit reduction plan.
And as you know, Ed, that the only opposition to a balanced deficit reduction plan has come from Republicans who refuse to accept the very mainstream principle that we should not ask only the middle class and seniors to bear the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.
We have a situation where defense cuts that the President believes are much too deep, that Republicans and Democrats believe are much too deep, as well as non-defense cuts -- Republicans would allow those to go into place, rather than ask millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more. That’s unacceptable as far as this President is concerned.
And every bipartisan commission that’s looked at this issue has said that we need to take a balanced approach that includes spending cuts, entitlement reforms, and revenues. Some gatherings of senators, the Gang of Six, and others have also adopted that principle. That’s the principle that underlies the President’s budget proposals. It’s the principle behind what the President submitted to the super committee last fall. That’s the approach we have to take -- it’s a principle supported by a majority of the American people.
Unfortunately, there is this obstacle in Congress that has prevented us from moving thus far. Hopefully, that will not be the case as the year moves on.
Q You were talking about the security briefing the President got today about the Olympics. Does he often get security briefings about -- I mean, does the United States have a role in the Olympic security?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we are --
Q What is our role?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we have a very close relationship with the British, obviously, on security issues.
Q Are there assets that we’re loaning?
MR. CARNEY: This is a major international event where many, many Americans will be present, as well as people from around the world, and we assist our allies with security operations all the time. So, in that sense, obviously, this is a British -- an event hosted in London, and the British are running this security operation, but we are absolutely providing assistance.
Q When you say we’re providing assistance, what does that mean?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I mean, beyond --
Q Is it physical? Is it intelligence? Is it actual boots on the ground? What is it?
MR. CARNEY: We’re providing advice, consultation, cooperation. I don't have specifics for you beyond that.
Q Did the readout on this have anything to do today with what Mitt Romney told Brian Williams last night about security?
MR. CARNEY: The President had this briefing today, so, no. The answer is no. He did -- it did not.
Q But the decision to read it out to us publicly?
MR. CARNEY: I’m just trying to fill you in on the President’s day. (Laughter.)
Q On guns. I’m just asking. No one answered. You made a claim that he said that he has had a record on gun control. What is that? You were saying in the answer to Ben’s question, about the things he has done during this administration on the issue of guns. What has he done? I know he signed a law expanding gun rights in national parks and stuff, so that people can carry concealed guns in the national park. What else has he done?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I pointed to the measures that have been taken at his direction by the Department of Justice to enhance the quality of our background checks system that reduces the likelihood that weapons fall into the hands of criminals and others who should not have them under existing law. And those are actions that DOJ has --
Q -- can you explain it a little bit?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have the paper on them, but we -- when this came up earlier in the week, or rather late last week, I think we had something that we passed out to you, and the Department of Justice has it. But they’ve taken a number of measures to increase the sort of quality -- both the quantity of information and the depth of information that goes into the background check system. And that has a -- that's progress. That's positive -- it has a positive impact on the goal of preventing weapons that should not get into the hands of criminals under existing law from getting to those criminals.
Q Does he want Congress to vote on an assault weapons ban?
MR. CARNEY: He supports -- and has from the beginning -- the reinstatement of the assault weapons bans. I think you know very well that there’s a stalemate in Congress on that issue, as there is on so many issues.
Q You put -- on the stalemate on taxes, you guys put your shoulder in on that, though, and you said, no, we want a vote. We insist on a vote. We demand a vote. You brought leaders down. Fair to say not the same level of concern on this issue?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say that the President supports it. He recognizes there is a stalemate in Congress. He believes that anything Congress were to do must cross the threshold of protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans citizens, law-abiding American citizens. And that while there is that stalemate in Congress, there are other things that we can do and we should do.
An action that he’s taken and an action that we don't often talk about here, but those who cover federal law enforcement as well as education know about the programs that are in place to help local officials deal with violence in their communities, to help connect teenagers with summer jobs, to help keep teenagers off the streets and out of gangs -- that's all part of a broader effort to reduce violence.
Yes, Jared. Then I’ll move it around.
Q Thank you. Just one on taxes. You have said and the President --
MR. CARNEY: Summer cut there, didn't you?
Q Yes, thank you very much. (Laughter.) Glad you noticed. The President has said and you have said the wealthy don't need a tax cut right now, but then why still allow them to have a tax cut on the first $200,000-$250,000 of their income?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the principle is that everyone -- that we should reduce taxes -- or extend the tax cuts for everyone earning -- every family earning $250,000 or less. I mean, you know how our tax code is written. That means that everybody making up to that point enjoys that tax cut. What the President does not believe is that we can afford extending the Bush high-income tax cuts. They're too expensive. They're not helpful to the economy.
And what we know from past experience is that the upper marginal rate that was in place under the Clinton administration, did not in any way impede economic growth. In fact, the tax rates that existed in the 1990s weren’t -- that were decried by Republicans at the time, were in place and were law when we had the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history and when the economy created 24 million jobs. So that's why.
Q And then I guess just to back up, also you’ve said many times how ruinous the Bush tax cuts were. Then why still extend 98 percent --
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President believes that the middle class needs and deserves the assistance that this tax cut would provide, that we cannot raise taxes on the middle class by an average of $2,200 next year. That is good for individual families and it’s going for the economy.
As economists, you know well -- because of the nature of your coverage -- that independent economists broadly agree that the economic benefit of tax cuts is disproportionately felt when those tax cuts are given to lower and middle-income Americans; that higher income Americans and millionaires and billionaires are much less likely to inject that money directly back into the economy. And, therefore, even its economic benefit -- setting aside the fairness argument, even the economic benefit is minimal and outweighed by the cost.
Again, we’re talking about a trillion dollars over 10 years. And when you talk about -- you mentioned the ruinous effects of the Bush tax cuts -- those high-end tax cuts contributed mightily to the record trillion-dollar-plus deficit that President Obama inherited when he came into office.
Mark, yes. Then I’ll move to the back.
Q Jay, on Olympic security, was there some new or recent request from the British government for assistance?
MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of. This is the kind of partnership that we have as a matter of course. We have a longstanding, close cooperation -- cooperation relationship with the UK officials on security and intelligence matters. U.S. personnel in London for the games are building on the well- established law enforcement intelligence-sharing relationships that already exist between our two countries.
The State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has the U.S. security lead for Olympic Games in foreign countries, and for more specifics, I could refer you to them.
Q And one more. On the tax cut, doesn't it take two to have a stalemate? Isn’t President Obama as dug in on his position as Republicans are on theirs?
MR. CARNEY: No, but that's where -- I’m so glad you asked that question because no. (Laughter.) No. Everyone -- and this is the miracle of miracles -- everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike, on Capitol Hill, in Congress, supports extension of the middle-class tax cuts. So let’s do it. Let’s pass that and sign it into law and give that security to 98 percent of taxpaying Americans, give that help to the economy that that certainty will create, and then we can debate the merits of tax cuts for the top 2 percent, because that's where the disagreement is.
Everyone agrees on tax cuts for 98 percent -- why don't we get that done? Tax cuts for the 2 percent -- we can debate and have a healthy debate about it. And obviously, there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue.
But we all agree that Americans earning up to $250,000 -- that's 98 percent of us -- should get that tax cut extended. So let’s do that. God, they could do a voice vote. They could pass it unanimously and send it down here, and the President would sign it into a law.
Q So it’s a one-sided stalemate?
MR. CARNEY: In this case, yes. I mean, look, there are real differences between the parties. There are real differences obviously between the two contenders for the presidency. And, as the President has made clear, here is an area where there is broad agreement, so let’s act on it.
We will continue to debate whether or not we should take a balanced approach to our fiscal challenges. We can continue to debate whether we need to give tax cuts to the top 2 percent of income earners in America. And we will debate a number of other issues, the merits of extending -- of health care reform and Wall Street reform, for example.
But here is something that we all agree on, and if we all agree on it, let’s pass it. The President will sign it, and then we can debate the issues that continue to divide us.
You had a follow-up, Jon-Christopher?
Q We now know that -- it’s pretty obvious that the Governor and Mrs. Romney are attending the Olympics. They are there in London today. The question is -- we also know that First Lady Michelle Obama is leading the presidential delegation at the opening ceremonies. Does this mean there is a temporary bipartisan truce when it comes to supporting the USA teams?
MR. CARNEY: I think every American supports our athletes, whether they're Republican, Democrat, independent or otherwise.
Q A follow-up? Has the President sent a special message along with the First Lady to the U.S. athletes?
MR. CARNEY: I believe there is a message that the President and the First Lady deliver to -- the First Lady will deliver, but a message from both the President and the First Lady. I don't have details on that for you now, but there --we’ll all be watching. Very exciting.
Cheryl and then April.
Q Speaking of overwhelming, the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to require the White House to reveal the details of the sequester cuts. Will the President sign that bill? And do you have that information all ready -- the Sequester Transparency Act?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President will sign the bill. Up to this point, OMB staff has been conducting the analysis needed to move. And should it get to the point where it appears that Congress will not do its job and the sequester may take effect, OMB, DOD, and the entire administration will be prepared.
But let me be clear. There is no amount of planning or reporting that will turn the sequester into anything other than the devastating cut in defense and domestic investments that it was meant to be. The sequester was passed by both Republicans and Democrats not as a policy we want to see enacted, but as a forcing mechanism to get Congress to act in a serious, balanced way on deficit reduction.
As the President himself has said, there’s no reason why these cuts should happen, and Congress ought to be able to come together and agree on a balanced approach that reduces the deficit and keeps our military strong.
Right now, as I noted earlier in answer to Ed, congressional Republicans are trying to get out of what they agreed to because they’d rather protect tax cuts for some of the wealthiest Americans than make tough choices needed to reduce the deficit, even if it risks big cuts in our military. The President disagrees and will continue to urge Congress to act to avoid these devastating cuts.
I think the answer is he will sign the bill.
April.
Q Jay, two questions. On the President’s White House Initiative for Educational Excellence for African Americans, what is the budget for that? I understand that Arne Duncan is holding the purse strings. And I ask that because there's such inequity in educational excellence or scoring between blacks and mainstream students, and to bridge that gap, it’s going to take a lot of money from what many in the education fields have said. So how much money is this White House putting out for that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I think you’d noted at the top that this is something that will be overseen by the Department of Education, so in terms of how it is funded, I would refer you to them.
The executive order reflects the fact that the President has made providing a complete and a competitive education for all Americans from cradle to career a top priority. And the White House Initiative on Educational Excellent for African Americans will work across federal agencies and with partners and communities nationwide to produce a more effective continuum of education programs for African American students.
The initiative aims to ensure that all African American students receive an education that fully prepares them for high school graduation, college completion and productive careers.
I would note, when you talk about funding, that this is obviously not -- this is a part of a broader effort that this President and his administration have embarked on to improve education in America. And when it comes to teachers in the classroom, this is an issue that the President cares very deeply about. And that is why, in the American Jobs Act, he called on Congress to provide funding to put teachers back in the classroom, to prevent their layoffs around the country that have occurred at state and local governmental levels, that have affected teachers and policemen and firefighters disproportionately -- and especially in the education field.
Congress has -- Republicans in Congress have refused to pass that. But if Congress would act on that, on those elements of the American Jobs Act that they have yet to pass, not only would we benefit from what economists say would be another million jobs for our economy, but every child in America who is in a public school could potentially benefit from having those teachers go back to work. And we call on Congress to act on that immediately.
Q And my last question, please. On gun control, what does this administration and you particularly say to Democrats, like Congressman Ed Towns of New York, who say there needs to be a serious discussion with both sides across the aisle on the issue of gun control? He says that, historically, we’ve seen Presidents killed by guns. We’ve seen urban areas, people killed by guns. We’ve seen civil rights leaders killed by guns. We saw Gabrielle Giffords shot. We’ve seen Columbine. We’ve seen Virginia Tech, and we just saw what happened at the midnight massacre. What say you when Democrats are calling for this, and they're even -- Congressman John Lewis, right after Aurora, even invoked Robert Kennedy, talking about are we tolerating violence and letting common humanity go. So what say you about that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say what I have been saying earlier in this briefing, which is that the President is focused on steps that we can take to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them under existing law. And because of those efforts, background checks are now more thorough and complete.
There is a broader issue that your question raises about violence in the country and in different areas of the country that needs to be addressed not just through legislation, and certainly not narrowly just through laws affecting guns, but that has to do with education and economic opportunity. It has to do with assistance to local law enforcement and government officials and their efforts in their communities. It has to do with teachers and parents and neighborhoods coming together to address this problem.
It's not -- as the President said last night, you have shocking events like the one that occurred in Aurora or at Virginia Tech, but the fact is there are far too high levels of violence occurring every day in the United States, and we need to take a comprehensive approach to that. And that's what the President is trying to do -- recognizing that, in terms of legislation, there are obstacles in Congress, and the President believes that we need to take measures that protect Americans' Second Amendment rights while ensuring that those who should not have weapons do not get them.
Q So understanding this broad base about violence, but still with the incorporation of guns within this broad violent scope, if reelected, will this President push -- actively push for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban?
MR. CARNEY: I've stated the President's position on that; it has not changed. What I can tell you is the President will continue to push for common-sense measures that make it harder for those who should not have guns under existing law from getting them while protecting the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.
Q Do you think it's appropriate for Governor Romney to attend this fundraiser in London tonight being co-hosted by a lobbyist from Barclays, seeing as Barclays is at the center of this Libor scandal? The Barclay CEO pulled out of this fundraiser, but still there is going to be a presence there from Barclays at this fundraiser tonight.
MR. CARNEY: I think that is definitely a question that I would refer to the campaign.
Q Well, what about the amount of money that's being spent abroad and raised abroad? I mean, the President has raised over $600,000 at fundraisers in other countries. I mean, to most Americans, many would be surprised to hear that.
MR. CARNEY: But this is money raised from Americans.
Q From Americans in Shanghai and London and Europe --
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to probably both campaigns. But in terms of that, I know that we follow the rules in terms of fundraising. And on the other issue that you began with, I would refer you to the reelection campaign.
Q Jay, may I?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, Connie.
Q What city does this administration consider to be the capital of Israel -- Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?*
MR. CARNEY: I haven't had that question in a while. Our position has not changed, Connie.
Q What is the position? What's the capital?
MR. CARNEY: You know our position.
Q I don't.
Q No, no, she doesn’t know. She doesn’t know. That's why she asked.
MR. CARNEY: She does know --
Q I don't.
Q She does not know. She just said she doesn’t know. I don't know.
MR. CARNEY: We have long -- Les, I call on Christi. Go ahead.
Q Back on the question of gun violence. Why did the President wait? What's the reason for the venue and the timing of those remarks?
MR. CARNEY: The remarks last night? Well, it was a very appropriate venue -- it was the Urban League Conference. He talked about a number of issues, especially the economy, as well as the problem of violence in urban communities.
Q But those were his most extensive and impassioned remarks, and I just wondered if he's planning to do that in a more noticeable venue at a more noticeable time.
MR. CARNEY: You mean a speech in front of a vast audience with television cameras is not more noticeable?
Q Late at night, it was five days later --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we didn’t schedule -- we didn’t organize the conference. It was a very appropriate place to have that conversation.
Q Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?
MR. CARNEY: You know the answer.
Yes.
Q No, I don't know the answer. We don't know the answer. Could you just give us an answer? What do you recognize -- what does --
MR. CARNEY: Our position hasn’t changed, Lester.
Goyal.
Q Thank you. Two questions, Jay. One, India has now a new President -- if President has spoken to him? And second --
MR. CARNEY: I don't have any readouts of foreign leader calls.
Q And recently Time Magazine has come up -- the Prime Minister of India, that he is an underachiever and also shadow prime minister. What President think of India's Prime Minister and his relationship with him?
MR. CARNEY: I'll have to -- I haven't had that conversation with him. We have a very important relationship with India, Goyal, as you know, but I haven't had that conversation with him.
Q And finally, as far as the AIDS -- International AIDS conference going on in Washington and thousands of people around the globe are here. And what message you think the President has as far as spreading AIDS around the globe, but AIDS has gone down here in this country but spreading in other countries?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President's commitment to fighting AIDS both globally and domestically I think has been demonstrated. We gave out a lot of information in advance of this conference, had some senior officials speaking at the conference, so the commitment is broad-based.
Q Thank you, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: Thanks, Ben. Thanks, everybody.
END
1:40 P.M. EDT
See below for a follow up to a question (marked with an asterisk) posed in the briefing.
*The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
12:49 P.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Thank you all for being here. It’s wonderful to be back in the White House briefing room. I have a couple of brief announcements I wanted to make, if you will bear with me.
First, earlier this morning, John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, hosted an Olympic security deputy’s meeting with the full counterterrorism and law enforcement community to take stock of our efforts working with the United Kingdom to prepare for the London 2012 Olympic Games.
Following that meeting, Mr. Brennan provided the President with an update on the Olympics as well as the United States government’s support to the United Kingdom prior to and during the games. The President directed that we continue to ensure that we are doing everything possible to keep the American people safe and to continue close cooperation with our British counterparts.
In keeping with our special relationship, the President also made it clear that he has the utmost confidence in our close friend and ally, the United Kingdom, as they finalize preparations to host the London Olympics.
Next, changing subjects, I just wanted to note that, as you saw last night, the Senate took action and passed a bill to extend the middle-class tax cuts for 114 million middle-class families. The House should follow suit and pass this bill right away. The House Republicans are now the only people left in Washington holding hostage the middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses.
The fact is the typical middle-class family cannot afford a $2,200 tax hike at the beginning of next year. It’s time for House Republicans to drop their demand for another $1 trillion giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and give our families and small businesses the financial security and certainty that they need.
As the President said last night, we need tax cuts for working Americans, not for folks who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them.
And with that, I will take your questions. Mr. Feller -- oh, wait, before I do, I think congratulations are in order. I should have said that when I called on you, but I’ll do it again.
Ben.
Q Thanks, Jay. I wanted to try to get some clarity about gun control and the President’s positions. Since the Colorado tragedy, you’ve been telling us that the President wants to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people under existing laws. And then, last night, to the Urban League, he said there have been actions taken, but they do not go far enough. He talked about AK-47s being kept off the city streets. And so I’m just trying to get clear -- does he or does he not think that any new gun legislation --
MR. CARNEY: Well, let me back up a little bit and say that President Obama has called for common-sense measures that protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and improve public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them under existing law.
And, as I think you know, thanks to the administration’s efforts, background checks conducted on those looking to purchase firearms are now more thorough and more complete. The Department of Justice can provide more details on that.
I would also say that, or note, that the President made a broader point last night, which is that tackling the problem of violence is not just about gun laws. In communities across the country, the administration is partnering with local law enforcement and government officials to reduce crime, to connect young people with summer jobs, so they spend less time on the street, and to set up programs that steer children away from a life of gang violence and toward the safety and promise of a classroom.
We also must recognize that it is not enough to debate the role of government in reducing violence. It is up to parents, teachers, neighbors, and communities to make a difference in the lives of our young people as well.
I think that the point the President was making in the speech that he delivered last night was that we have to remember that in the wake of an awful event like the one in Aurora, Colorado, that violence is not an isolated incident in America, and that we need to take a broader look at it and try to tackle it from a number of different directions, which this President has been doing through his administration.
Q I get that broader point that he was speaking about more than the role of government and that was sort of part of the coverage. But I’m still not clear about the answer to my specific question. Does he think any new specific gun legislation is needed, or is existing -- enforce existing laws is needed?
MR. CARNEY: Well, he believes that we can enhance the enforcement of existing laws by making it more difficult for those who should not have weapons under existing laws, make it more difficult for them to obtain weapons. And that’s what his Department of Justice have been working on.
I think you’re aware of the fact that there is a stalemate in Congress on a broad range of issues, and this would include this one. The assault weapons ban is an issue that the President has supported the reinstatement of since its expiration in 2004.
But, given the stalemate in Congress, our focus is on the steps that we can take to make sure criminals and others who should not have those guns, make sure that they cannot obtain them.
Q So just two quick points. So does he plan to do anything, when he talked last night about working with Congress -- no stone unturned -- does he plan to do anything this year to make another case for that assault weapons ban?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not going to make scheduling announcements in terms of what the President may or may not say in the future. What I can tell you is that the President’s point last night was broader. I think there is an issue about the stalemate in Congress, and there are things that we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws, as the President said, that can reduce violence in our society and, as he mentioned last night, in our urban centers.
So I think he -- I know he will continue to press the Department of Justice to try to enhance the enforcement of existing laws, try to further develop our background check system so that it prevents criminals and those who should not have weapons from getting them under existing law. And he’ll continue to make sure that his administration is partnering with local law enforcement officials and government officials to try to do the things that I talked about at the top that can help reduce violence.
Q Last one. You focus a lot on background checks. Our reporting shows that the suspect in Aurora passed all of his background checks. Can you explain how even an enhanced background check system would stop something like this?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't think the President ever suggested that the background check can stop every crime from occurring in America, even one as heinous as this. I’m not going to get into the specifics of what happened in Aurora because there’s obviously an ongoing investigation.
But we do need to take a broader look at what we can do to reduce violence in America. And it requires a multi-faceted approach that looks at this problem from a variety of angles, and that's not just legislative and it’s not just about gun laws.
Q Turning to a foreign subject -- is there any --
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, correct?
Q Margaret.
MR. CARNEY: Welcome.
Q Thank you. Is there any reaction from the White House on the indictment of Bo Xilai’s wife at this time?
MR. CARNEY: I’ll have to take that question. I was not aware of that. Maybe the State Department has a reaction.
Yes. Jake, then -- well, let’s go to -- go ahead. Welcome.
Q Thank you. Just two topics. On Syria quickly -- you know that this crisis is deepening, is escalating, the ongoing assault in Aleppo. I just want to make sure I’m clear on what is it that the U.S. is doing right now. What can they do besides wait and see if there’s some consensus reached in the U.N.? Is there --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re continuing to work with other nations and the “Friends of Syria,” as well as other international partners, to provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, provide assistance to the opposition as it tries to form itself and unify -- nonlethal assistance to the opposition as well as administrative assistance, if you will, that the “Friends of Syria” is providing as the opposition comes together.
But it is a point that you made that is worth noting that there is an ongoing assault happening in Syria that demonstrates once again the depravity of President Assad and his regime. The fact is they're using artillery and fixed-wing aircraft -- there were reports of that -- as well as helicopters against a civilian population center.
And it once again points to the need for international consensus around the idea that Syria's future cannot include President Assad because of the actions that he's taken against his people. And we need to move quickly to look at what Syria can and should be in a post-Assad world, work with our partners, work with the opposition to help create that transition, because Assad's days are surely numbered.
As we've seen, it's clear that he's losing control of Syria. The momentum against the Assad regime continues with defections throughout the government. As we've seen in recent days, increasing numbers of formerly pro-regime Syrians, officials in the government, ambassadors to foreign countries, military personnel -- high-ranking military personnel -- are recognizing that to stand in solidarity with Assad is to stand against the Syrian people.
That's why it's time for the Syrian people and the international community to focus on what comes next, as I said.
Q And then one more on the guns issue. These are some of the President's strongest words yet on this issue. Does he feel like he has shown leadership publicly on the issues of guns during his term?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President's feelings about this issue I think were reflected in what he said, and those comments and remarks echo what the President has said in the past. And I think he does take a broad view about the problem of violence and how we need to address it. He is very mindful of the need, when it comes to legislation, that we ensure that we protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. That is very important to him. And he believes that we can take measures that improve public safety by preventing weapons from getting into the hands of those who should not have them, under existing law.
But there are broader aspects to this problem, as I talked about. And that's why we need to not look at it through one single prism, but to examine ways that we can help address the problem through assisting local law enforcement officials or through the education system, the school system, help keep kids off the street and out of gangs, for example.
And the President noted, and as I just did as well, that it's not just a governmental problem. It's something that teachers, parents, neighborhoods and communities need to talk about and take action on to make a difference in the lives of those who might otherwise fall into violence.
Jake.
Q You used the word "giveaway", and President Obama, in his statement yesterday, used the word "giveaway," referring to the extension of the lower Bush tax cut rates for I guess the top 1 or 2 percent of the country -- people making over $200,000 a year, or couples making $250,000. What do you say to a small business owner who says, that's not a giveaway, that's my money, and by the way, I'm going to need some of that money in order to help pay the health care of individuals that I'm now mandated to do? It's not giving anything away, it's allowing me to keep my money.
MR. CARNEY: Well, the phrasing of the question leaves out a few things, which is, one, this tax cut that the Senate passed and that the President supports would go to 97 percent of small businesses in America -- 97 percent. Further, this President has cut the taxes of small businesses in America 18 times, independent of this. So his focus on assisting small businesses, which he considers the engine of economic growth in this country, the engine of job creation in this country, has been intense and will continue to be.
Q It’s true that I’m not bringing up people I was not asking about. That is true.
MR. CARNEY: Well, no -- but, I mean -- but your question framed it around the -- so you're talking about the 3 percent here. And as we've noted, under the definition of small businesses that Republicans trot out when they're insisting on these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, means that --
Q I wasn’t talking about millionaires and billionaires. I was talking about somebody making over $200,000 a year.
MR. CARNEY: Sure, but again, that's 97 percent of people who file -- small businesses that file taxes under the individual tax code will receive this tax cut. Many of the remaining self-described small businesses that we’re talking about -- we’re talking about hedge fund managers, often, and law firm partners -- and addressing those small businesses that fall in the remaining category, this tax cut goes to everybody.
This is an often misunderstood fact in reporting and I think just in general, that giving this tax cut -- extending this tax cut to 98 percent of Americans, those who make up to $250,000, means that everyone gets it, even those who make millions and billions, up to the first $250,000 of income. So that -- for a family, that includes everyone, okay? And including small businesses that file in this manner.
Secondly, the President believes that small businesses are so important that he has dedicated a lot of energy and focus on providing tax credits and tax incentives and tax cuts to small businesses throughout his three and a half years in office. Beyond that, he believes that extending the high-end Bush tax cuts again is something we simply cannot afford.
We’re talking about a trillion dollars over a decade. We’ve seen what happened when these tax cuts, which you may recall, you and I were covering it, were sold initially as a pay-back from the budget surpluses that were achieved under the Clinton administration, and then when the economy ran into trouble and those surpluses were beginning to erode, it was sold as an economic stimulus measure. And what we got was middle-class incomes stagnating, the slowest expansion in 50 years, and an economic crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen in more than 70 years.
Q The question is this -- why is it a giveaway? Why are you guys using -- you and President Obama -- using the term “giveaway” when even if you support the Senate Democrats’ bill, it’s not technically a giveaway, it is allowing people to keep the tax cut that they got in 2001 and 2002?
MR. CARNEY: Right. But these are tax cuts that we cannot afford, that do not -- by the estimates of credible, independent economists do not measurably help the economy and do not, in the way that tax cuts to working and middle-class Americans, help the economy, and we have to make choices. And it is a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans that we simply can't afford.
And those who say that, oh, it's terrible for the economy -- remember, again, you and I were there and covered it. There were proclamations of gloom and doom, of economic crisis, and stagnation and recession that were promised by Republicans when President Clinton instituted the tax rates that existed throughout the ‘90s. And instead of everything that Republicans predicted, we got the longest peacetime expansion -- economic expansion in our history. We got 24 million jobs created, and plenty -- as the President says, plenty of millionaires and billionaires created as well. So it’s a matter of --
Q I appreciate you running on President Clinton’s record, but that's --
MR. CARNEY: It’s a matter of choices. I mean, that's what I think the President makes clear. We can't afford this tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. It is a giveaway that we cannot afford. Middle-class Americans need that tax cut. Our economy needs it for 98 percent of the country.
Q I’m told to change the subject. When Vice President Biden issued a rather strong statement yesterday about an unattributed quote or unattributed quotes from unnamed Romney advisors in a British newspaper, the Romney campaign’s response was that unattributed quotes should not merit a response from the Vice President of the United States. And I wondered if you had any response to that.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’ll leave specific campaign questions for the campaign to answer. I find it a little ironic given some of the attention paid to quotes from unnamed -- alleged unnamed Obama campaign advisors that have been the focus of attention of the Romney campaign.
What I can say is that the record here is what matters. When this President came into office, our alliances were under strain and frayed. Our standing in the world had been diminished. In the three and a half years that President Obama has been in office, he has strengthened our alliances around the world, including and in particular with NATO countries, and including and in particular with the United Kingdom, with whom we have a remarkably strong bond, a special relationship that has never been stronger. And I'll leave the back-and-forth to the campaign, but let's talk about policy and fact here.
And I would note that in that article in question, again, as a matter of policy, the only difference that I could tell, aside from the quote that's gotten a lot of attention that was focused on, was the need to -- that the only difference in policy proposals that seemed apparent were that we should move a bust from one room to another in the White House. And that was a principal policy difference, which is pretty preposterous.
This President has strengthened our alliances. He has built up American credibility around the globe. He has kept his commitments to end the war in Iraq, to take the fight to al Qaeda, to wind down our war in Afghanistan, to rebalance our focus towards Asia, which was neglected in the eight years prior to President Obama coming into office. And he is meeting all those commitments.
Norah. Congratulations.
Q Thank you very much. I'll miss all of you.
MR. CARNEY: Liar. (Laughter.)
Q I will. (Laughter.) On Syria, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked about the opposition taking more and more territory that will eventually result in a safe haven inside of Syria. What is the Obama administration weighing in terms of additional support? Are there discussions ongoing about different -- providing different sort of support to the opposition?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we're in conversations and discussions all the time about Syria, both internally and with our partners and allies around the world -- at the United Nations, at the "Friends of Syria" and elsewhere. I don't have anything specific for you. Our overall policy approach is what it has been. Our focus is on continuing to pressure the Assad regime, continuing to draw attention to the need for a peaceful transition, the fact that the longer Assad is in power, even as his grip on power diminishes, the more violent and chaotic the situation in Syria becomes.
And we'll continue to work with our partners to provide the assistance that we have been providing -- humanitarian assistance, non-lethal assistance to the opposition, consultation with the opposition as it forms itself. And this is all towards the goal of a transition that guarantees fundamental rights in Syria, of all Syrians, including minorities. And that is a critical element of any transition in a situation like this, and it is a priority of the United States.
Q There are many differences between Libya and Syria, which we've talked about, but one of the things Libya had was safe havens for the opposition, and the opposition held control of areas of Libya. When that becomes more clear -- I mean, what the Secretary seemed to be hinting at is that the U.S. would then get further involved. Is that true?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "further involved." We have not changed our position in terms of providing arms to or engaging militarily in Syria. We are pursuing the policy that we have been pursuing: to pressure and isolate the Assad regime; to work with our allies and partners and the "Friends of Syria;" to continue to try to build consensus internationally with the effort that we've undertaken at the United Nations; and continue to point out to the Russians and others about the need to accept that Assad cannot remain in power in Syria, and that it is a mistake to provide support to that regime because, in the end, the Syrian people will remember whose side each country was on in this brutal conflict. So these are the steps that we’re taking.
So I would not read anything beyond that. I think she was noting the fact that the opposition has made gains and that Assad’s grip on his country is diminishing.
Ed.
Q Hey, Jay. Two subjects -- one being the national security leaks. Can you say flatly that nobody inside the White House was involved in the national security leaks that are being investigated?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Ed, as you know, this is a matter under investigation by two experienced federal prosecutors, so I’m not going to speak specifically about it. I can point you to the statements of the President, statements I’ve made in the past about this, about the seriousness with which he takes this issue, and make the point that no one relies on the kind of information that is provided -- classified information that is provided to help him make incredibly difficult decisions than the President of the United States. And so he has no tolerance for the leaks, and that’s why he has spoken to this issue in the way that he has.
If you’re asking me to make a comment on an ongoing investigation --
Q Right, but you referenced past statements. One of your past statements was June 11th, and you said it was absurd when Senator McCain suggested that people inside the White House had leaked this information for political gain. In June, David Axelrod flatly said on ABC that nobody inside the White House was involved. And yesterday, David Axelrod was -- hang on --
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q -- David Axelrod was on MSNBC yesterday and said the President did not leak anything, and then he followed up by saying the President did not authorize any leaks. That’s different -- that leaves open the door that there were unauthorized leaks by White House people. So have you moved the goal post?
MR. CARNEY: No, Ed. I think you’re conflating a lot of things. All those statements are completely true. I stand by what I’ve said and what Mr. Axelrod and the President said. What I can tell you is that there are investigations ongoing and I’m not going to comment on the specifics of the investigations. I can point you to what the President --
Q Right. But you flatly said nobody in the White House was involved. Can you today say nobody in the White House was involved?
MR. CARNEY: Involved in -- which particular case are you talking about?
Q The national security leaks.
MR. CARNEY: I can tell you that the President takes this very seriously. We all take this very seriously. It is, again, an insult and preposterous to suggest that this White House would leak information for political gain -- classified information for political gain. That did not happen and would not happen under this President.
And a lot of this began as a focus on the operation that successfully removed Osama bin Laden from the battlefield. And the fact of the matter is the President spoke to 100 million people about that operation. Its existence is well known.
And this President, as that operation demonstrates, finds the use of the kinds of information that is protected in our national security environment highly important. He has to make life-and-death decisions based on that information all the time, and he thinks it is extremely important that that information be safeguarded.
Q One of Governor Romney’s advisors yesterday, Richard Williamson, flat out accused the National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, of leaking information that David Sanger has written a book --
MR. CARNEY: Right. And he accused him -- he made that accusation based on rumors he said he’d heard in the journalistic community. That same person called Russia the Soviet Union on multiple occasions. He called Governor Romney, Governor Reagan, on several occasions, and could not, in my -- that I could tell, accurately or intelligently or coherently state a foreign policy difference between this President and the Governor. So I would let the investigations take place.
Q So you disagree with him. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: I do.
Q Last topic -- veterans affairs. The President, to the VFW on Monday, flatly said, your veterans’ benefits will not be affected by the sequester. General Shinseki, who is meeting with the President today, testified on Capitol Hill yesterday, I believe, and said that administrative costs would be affected by the sequester, not veterans’ benefits. The question is, if -- when you have the Veterans Secretary saying that there will be some cuts to the Veterans Affairs Department because of the sequester, the President flatly saying your veterans’ benefits won’t be affected, how do you know that for sure when their budget is going to take a hit?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the Secretary’s comments that, if the sequester were to come about and take effect, that it would -- again, I’m just citing what Secretary Shinseki said -- that the impact would be on administrative costs in his agency.
But let’s just back up and be clear. The whole point of the sequester was to create a forcing mechanism to get Congress to act. And the sequester itself was filled with cuts to both defense and non-defense spending that were so onerous that nobody would support them. The President doesn’t support them. Republicans and Democrats in Congress don’t support them. And bipartisan majorities of both Republicans and Democrats voted for this measure because they thought it was necessary to hold themselves accountable to do the right thing, which is to pass a balanced deficit reduction plan.
And as you know, Ed, that the only opposition to a balanced deficit reduction plan has come from Republicans who refuse to accept the very mainstream principle that we should not ask only the middle class and seniors to bear the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.
We have a situation where defense cuts that the President believes are much too deep, that Republicans and Democrats believe are much too deep, as well as non-defense cuts -- Republicans would allow those to go into place, rather than ask millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more. That’s unacceptable as far as this President is concerned.
And every bipartisan commission that’s looked at this issue has said that we need to take a balanced approach that includes spending cuts, entitlement reforms, and revenues. Some gatherings of senators, the Gang of Six, and others have also adopted that principle. That’s the principle that underlies the President’s budget proposals. It’s the principle behind what the President submitted to the super committee last fall. That’s the approach we have to take -- it’s a principle supported by a majority of the American people.
Unfortunately, there is this obstacle in Congress that has prevented us from moving thus far. Hopefully, that will not be the case as the year moves on.
Q You were talking about the security briefing the President got today about the Olympics. Does he often get security briefings about -- I mean, does the United States have a role in the Olympic security?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we are --
Q What is our role?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we have a very close relationship with the British, obviously, on security issues.
Q Are there assets that we’re loaning?
MR. CARNEY: This is a major international event where many, many Americans will be present, as well as people from around the world, and we assist our allies with security operations all the time. So, in that sense, obviously, this is a British -- an event hosted in London, and the British are running this security operation, but we are absolutely providing assistance.
Q When you say we’re providing assistance, what does that mean?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I mean, beyond --
Q Is it physical? Is it intelligence? Is it actual boots on the ground? What is it?
MR. CARNEY: We’re providing advice, consultation, cooperation. I don't have specifics for you beyond that.
Q Did the readout on this have anything to do today with what Mitt Romney told Brian Williams last night about security?
MR. CARNEY: The President had this briefing today, so, no. The answer is no. He did -- it did not.
Q But the decision to read it out to us publicly?
MR. CARNEY: I’m just trying to fill you in on the President’s day. (Laughter.)
Q On guns. I’m just asking. No one answered. You made a claim that he said that he has had a record on gun control. What is that? You were saying in the answer to Ben’s question, about the things he has done during this administration on the issue of guns. What has he done? I know he signed a law expanding gun rights in national parks and stuff, so that people can carry concealed guns in the national park. What else has he done?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I pointed to the measures that have been taken at his direction by the Department of Justice to enhance the quality of our background checks system that reduces the likelihood that weapons fall into the hands of criminals and others who should not have them under existing law. And those are actions that DOJ has --
Q -- can you explain it a little bit?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have the paper on them, but we -- when this came up earlier in the week, or rather late last week, I think we had something that we passed out to you, and the Department of Justice has it. But they’ve taken a number of measures to increase the sort of quality -- both the quantity of information and the depth of information that goes into the background check system. And that has a -- that's progress. That's positive -- it has a positive impact on the goal of preventing weapons that should not get into the hands of criminals under existing law from getting to those criminals.
Q Does he want Congress to vote on an assault weapons ban?
MR. CARNEY: He supports -- and has from the beginning -- the reinstatement of the assault weapons bans. I think you know very well that there’s a stalemate in Congress on that issue, as there is on so many issues.
Q You put -- on the stalemate on taxes, you guys put your shoulder in on that, though, and you said, no, we want a vote. We insist on a vote. We demand a vote. You brought leaders down. Fair to say not the same level of concern on this issue?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say that the President supports it. He recognizes there is a stalemate in Congress. He believes that anything Congress were to do must cross the threshold of protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans citizens, law-abiding American citizens. And that while there is that stalemate in Congress, there are other things that we can do and we should do.
An action that he’s taken and an action that we don't often talk about here, but those who cover federal law enforcement as well as education know about the programs that are in place to help local officials deal with violence in their communities, to help connect teenagers with summer jobs, to help keep teenagers off the streets and out of gangs -- that's all part of a broader effort to reduce violence.
Yes, Jared. Then I’ll move it around.
Q Thank you. Just one on taxes. You have said and the President --
MR. CARNEY: Summer cut there, didn't you?
Q Yes, thank you very much. (Laughter.) Glad you noticed. The President has said and you have said the wealthy don't need a tax cut right now, but then why still allow them to have a tax cut on the first $200,000-$250,000 of their income?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the principle is that everyone -- that we should reduce taxes -- or extend the tax cuts for everyone earning -- every family earning $250,000 or less. I mean, you know how our tax code is written. That means that everybody making up to that point enjoys that tax cut. What the President does not believe is that we can afford extending the Bush high-income tax cuts. They're too expensive. They're not helpful to the economy.
And what we know from past experience is that the upper marginal rate that was in place under the Clinton administration, did not in any way impede economic growth. In fact, the tax rates that existed in the 1990s weren’t -- that were decried by Republicans at the time, were in place and were law when we had the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history and when the economy created 24 million jobs. So that's why.
Q And then I guess just to back up, also you’ve said many times how ruinous the Bush tax cuts were. Then why still extend 98 percent --
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President believes that the middle class needs and deserves the assistance that this tax cut would provide, that we cannot raise taxes on the middle class by an average of $2,200 next year. That is good for individual families and it’s going for the economy.
As economists, you know well -- because of the nature of your coverage -- that independent economists broadly agree that the economic benefit of tax cuts is disproportionately felt when those tax cuts are given to lower and middle-income Americans; that higher income Americans and millionaires and billionaires are much less likely to inject that money directly back into the economy. And, therefore, even its economic benefit -- setting aside the fairness argument, even the economic benefit is minimal and outweighed by the cost.
Again, we’re talking about a trillion dollars over 10 years. And when you talk about -- you mentioned the ruinous effects of the Bush tax cuts -- those high-end tax cuts contributed mightily to the record trillion-dollar-plus deficit that President Obama inherited when he came into office.
Mark, yes. Then I’ll move to the back.
Q Jay, on Olympic security, was there some new or recent request from the British government for assistance?
MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of. This is the kind of partnership that we have as a matter of course. We have a longstanding, close cooperation -- cooperation relationship with the UK officials on security and intelligence matters. U.S. personnel in London for the games are building on the well- established law enforcement intelligence-sharing relationships that already exist between our two countries.
The State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has the U.S. security lead for Olympic Games in foreign countries, and for more specifics, I could refer you to them.
Q And one more. On the tax cut, doesn't it take two to have a stalemate? Isn’t President Obama as dug in on his position as Republicans are on theirs?
MR. CARNEY: No, but that's where -- I’m so glad you asked that question because no. (Laughter.) No. Everyone -- and this is the miracle of miracles -- everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike, on Capitol Hill, in Congress, supports extension of the middle-class tax cuts. So let’s do it. Let’s pass that and sign it into law and give that security to 98 percent of taxpaying Americans, give that help to the economy that that certainty will create, and then we can debate the merits of tax cuts for the top 2 percent, because that's where the disagreement is.
Everyone agrees on tax cuts for 98 percent -- why don't we get that done? Tax cuts for the 2 percent -- we can debate and have a healthy debate about it. And obviously, there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue.
But we all agree that Americans earning up to $250,000 -- that's 98 percent of us -- should get that tax cut extended. So let’s do that. God, they could do a voice vote. They could pass it unanimously and send it down here, and the President would sign it into a law.
Q So it’s a one-sided stalemate?
MR. CARNEY: In this case, yes. I mean, look, there are real differences between the parties. There are real differences obviously between the two contenders for the presidency. And, as the President has made clear, here is an area where there is broad agreement, so let’s act on it.
We will continue to debate whether or not we should take a balanced approach to our fiscal challenges. We can continue to debate whether we need to give tax cuts to the top 2 percent of income earners in America. And we will debate a number of other issues, the merits of extending -- of health care reform and Wall Street reform, for example.
But here is something that we all agree on, and if we all agree on it, let’s pass it. The President will sign it, and then we can debate the issues that continue to divide us.
You had a follow-up, Jon-Christopher?
Q We now know that -- it’s pretty obvious that the Governor and Mrs. Romney are attending the Olympics. They are there in London today. The question is -- we also know that First Lady Michelle Obama is leading the presidential delegation at the opening ceremonies. Does this mean there is a temporary bipartisan truce when it comes to supporting the USA teams?
MR. CARNEY: I think every American supports our athletes, whether they're Republican, Democrat, independent or otherwise.
Q A follow-up? Has the President sent a special message along with the First Lady to the U.S. athletes?
MR. CARNEY: I believe there is a message that the President and the First Lady deliver to -- the First Lady will deliver, but a message from both the President and the First Lady. I don't have details on that for you now, but there --we’ll all be watching. Very exciting.
Cheryl and then April.
Q Speaking of overwhelming, the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to require the White House to reveal the details of the sequester cuts. Will the President sign that bill? And do you have that information all ready -- the Sequester Transparency Act?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President will sign the bill. Up to this point, OMB staff has been conducting the analysis needed to move. And should it get to the point where it appears that Congress will not do its job and the sequester may take effect, OMB, DOD, and the entire administration will be prepared.
But let me be clear. There is no amount of planning or reporting that will turn the sequester into anything other than the devastating cut in defense and domestic investments that it was meant to be. The sequester was passed by both Republicans and Democrats not as a policy we want to see enacted, but as a forcing mechanism to get Congress to act in a serious, balanced way on deficit reduction.
As the President himself has said, there’s no reason why these cuts should happen, and Congress ought to be able to come together and agree on a balanced approach that reduces the deficit and keeps our military strong.
Right now, as I noted earlier in answer to Ed, congressional Republicans are trying to get out of what they agreed to because they’d rather protect tax cuts for some of the wealthiest Americans than make tough choices needed to reduce the deficit, even if it risks big cuts in our military. The President disagrees and will continue to urge Congress to act to avoid these devastating cuts.
I think the answer is he will sign the bill.
April.
Q Jay, two questions. On the President’s White House Initiative for Educational Excellence for African Americans, what is the budget for that? I understand that Arne Duncan is holding the purse strings. And I ask that because there's such inequity in educational excellence or scoring between blacks and mainstream students, and to bridge that gap, it’s going to take a lot of money from what many in the education fields have said. So how much money is this White House putting out for that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I think you’d noted at the top that this is something that will be overseen by the Department of Education, so in terms of how it is funded, I would refer you to them.
The executive order reflects the fact that the President has made providing a complete and a competitive education for all Americans from cradle to career a top priority. And the White House Initiative on Educational Excellent for African Americans will work across federal agencies and with partners and communities nationwide to produce a more effective continuum of education programs for African American students.
The initiative aims to ensure that all African American students receive an education that fully prepares them for high school graduation, college completion and productive careers.
I would note, when you talk about funding, that this is obviously not -- this is a part of a broader effort that this President and his administration have embarked on to improve education in America. And when it comes to teachers in the classroom, this is an issue that the President cares very deeply about. And that is why, in the American Jobs Act, he called on Congress to provide funding to put teachers back in the classroom, to prevent their layoffs around the country that have occurred at state and local governmental levels, that have affected teachers and policemen and firefighters disproportionately -- and especially in the education field.
Congress has -- Republicans in Congress have refused to pass that. But if Congress would act on that, on those elements of the American Jobs Act that they have yet to pass, not only would we benefit from what economists say would be another million jobs for our economy, but every child in America who is in a public school could potentially benefit from having those teachers go back to work. And we call on Congress to act on that immediately.
Q And my last question, please. On gun control, what does this administration and you particularly say to Democrats, like Congressman Ed Towns of New York, who say there needs to be a serious discussion with both sides across the aisle on the issue of gun control? He says that, historically, we’ve seen Presidents killed by guns. We’ve seen urban areas, people killed by guns. We’ve seen civil rights leaders killed by guns. We saw Gabrielle Giffords shot. We’ve seen Columbine. We’ve seen Virginia Tech, and we just saw what happened at the midnight massacre. What say you when Democrats are calling for this, and they're even -- Congressman John Lewis, right after Aurora, even invoked Robert Kennedy, talking about are we tolerating violence and letting common humanity go. So what say you about that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say what I have been saying earlier in this briefing, which is that the President is focused on steps that we can take to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them under existing law. And because of those efforts, background checks are now more thorough and complete.
There is a broader issue that your question raises about violence in the country and in different areas of the country that needs to be addressed not just through legislation, and certainly not narrowly just through laws affecting guns, but that has to do with education and economic opportunity. It has to do with assistance to local law enforcement and government officials and their efforts in their communities. It has to do with teachers and parents and neighborhoods coming together to address this problem.
It's not -- as the President said last night, you have shocking events like the one that occurred in Aurora or at Virginia Tech, but the fact is there are far too high levels of violence occurring every day in the United States, and we need to take a comprehensive approach to that. And that's what the President is trying to do -- recognizing that, in terms of legislation, there are obstacles in Congress, and the President believes that we need to take measures that protect Americans' Second Amendment rights while ensuring that those who should not have weapons do not get them.
Q So understanding this broad base about violence, but still with the incorporation of guns within this broad violent scope, if reelected, will this President push -- actively push for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban?
MR. CARNEY: I've stated the President's position on that; it has not changed. What I can tell you is the President will continue to push for common-sense measures that make it harder for those who should not have guns under existing law from getting them while protecting the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.
Q Do you think it's appropriate for Governor Romney to attend this fundraiser in London tonight being co-hosted by a lobbyist from Barclays, seeing as Barclays is at the center of this Libor scandal? The Barclay CEO pulled out of this fundraiser, but still there is going to be a presence there from Barclays at this fundraiser tonight.
MR. CARNEY: I think that is definitely a question that I would refer to the campaign.
Q Well, what about the amount of money that's being spent abroad and raised abroad? I mean, the President has raised over $600,000 at fundraisers in other countries. I mean, to most Americans, many would be surprised to hear that.
MR. CARNEY: But this is money raised from Americans.
Q From Americans in Shanghai and London and Europe --
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to probably both campaigns. But in terms of that, I know that we follow the rules in terms of fundraising. And on the other issue that you began with, I would refer you to the reelection campaign.
Q Jay, may I?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, Connie.
Q What city does this administration consider to be the capital of Israel -- Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?*
MR. CARNEY: I haven't had that question in a while. Our position has not changed, Connie.
Q What is the position? What's the capital?
MR. CARNEY: You know our position.
Q I don't.
Q No, no, she doesn’t know. She doesn’t know. That's why she asked.
MR. CARNEY: She does know --
Q I don't.
Q She does not know. She just said she doesn’t know. I don't know.
MR. CARNEY: We have long -- Les, I call on Christi. Go ahead.
Q Back on the question of gun violence. Why did the President wait? What's the reason for the venue and the timing of those remarks?
MR. CARNEY: The remarks last night? Well, it was a very appropriate venue -- it was the Urban League Conference. He talked about a number of issues, especially the economy, as well as the problem of violence in urban communities.
Q But those were his most extensive and impassioned remarks, and I just wondered if he's planning to do that in a more noticeable venue at a more noticeable time.
MR. CARNEY: You mean a speech in front of a vast audience with television cameras is not more noticeable?
Q Late at night, it was five days later --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we didn’t schedule -- we didn’t organize the conference. It was a very appropriate place to have that conversation.
Q Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?
MR. CARNEY: You know the answer.
Yes.
Q No, I don't know the answer. We don't know the answer. Could you just give us an answer? What do you recognize -- what does --
MR. CARNEY: Our position hasn’t changed, Lester.
Goyal.
Q Thank you. Two questions, Jay. One, India has now a new President -- if President has spoken to him? And second --
MR. CARNEY: I don't have any readouts of foreign leader calls.
Q And recently Time Magazine has come up -- the Prime Minister of India, that he is an underachiever and also shadow prime minister. What President think of India's Prime Minister and his relationship with him?
MR. CARNEY: I'll have to -- I haven't had that conversation with him. We have a very important relationship with India, Goyal, as you know, but I haven't had that conversation with him.
Q And finally, as far as the AIDS -- International AIDS conference going on in Washington and thousands of people around the globe are here. And what message you think the President has as far as spreading AIDS around the globe, but AIDS has gone down here in this country but spreading in other countries?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President's commitment to fighting AIDS both globally and domestically I think has been demonstrated. We gave out a lot of information in advance of this conference, had some senior officials speaking at the conference, so the commitment is broad-based.
Q Thank you, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: Thanks, Ben. Thanks, everybody.
END
1:40 P.M. EDT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)