Saturday, March 31, 2012
Hollywood Violence, The Pentagon, & Marlon Brando Oscar Rejection (The Point)
Mimi Kennedy (actress, Midnight In Paris) makes a point about how Hollywood exports violence abroad, and Jordan Zakarin (writer/editor, The Huffington Post) shares his thoughts on the cozy relationship between the film industry and the Pentagon. The final point is on what may be the most controversial moment in Oscars history involving Marlon Brando and Native Americans. Cenk Uygur (host, The Young Turks) leads the discussion with Mike Farrell (actor/activist/writer - president, Death Penalty Focus), Tina Dupuy (managing editor, CrooksAndLiars.com), and Ed Rampell (film critic and author, 'Progressive Hollywood').
Remarks by the President on Oil and Gas Subsidies
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Rose Garden
11:00 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Everybody, please have a seat. Sorry we’re running just a little bit behind, but I figured it’s a great day to enjoy the Rose Garden.
Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people.
Right now, the biggest oil companies are raking in record profits –- profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station. But on top of these record profits, oil companies are also getting billions a year -- billions a year in taxpayer subsidies -– a subsidy that they’ve enjoyed year after year for the last century.
Think about that. It’s like hitting the American people twice. You’re already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress, up until this point, has thought it was a good idea to send billions of dollars more in tax dollars to the oil industry.
It’s not as if these companies can’t stand on their own. Last year, the three biggest U.S. oil companies took home more than $80 billion in profits. Exxon pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour. And when the price of oil goes up, prices at the pump go up, and so do these companies’ profits. In fact, one analysis shows that every time gas goes up by a penny, these companies usually pocket another $200 million in quarterly profits. Meanwhile, these companies pay a lower tax rate than most other companies on their investments, partly because we’re giving them billions in tax giveaways every year.
Now, I want to make clear, we all know that drilling for oil has to be a key part of our overall energy strategy. We want U.S. oil companies to be doing well. We want them to succeed. That’s why under my administration, we’ve opened up millions of acres of federal lands and waters to oil and gas production. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating oil rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some. And just yesterday, we announced the next step for potential new oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic.
So the fact is, we’re producing more oil right now than we have in eight years, and we’re importing less of it as well. For two years in a row, America has bought less oil from other countries than we produce here at home -– for the first time in over a decade.
So American oil is booming. The oil industry is doing just fine. With record profits and rising production, I’m not worried about the big oil companies. With high oil prices around the world, they’ve got more than enough incentive to produce even more oil. That’s why I think it’s time they got by without more help from taxpayers who are already having a tough enough time paying the bills and filling up their gas tank. And I think it’s curious that some folks in Congress, who are the first to belittle investments in new sources of energy, are the ones that are fighting the hardest to maintain these giveaways for the oil companies.
Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double-down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising -- investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels; investments in fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and energy-efficient homes and buildings. That’s the future. That’s the only way we're going to break this cycle of high gas prices that happen year after year after year. As the economy is growing, the only time you start seeing lower gas prices is when the economy is doing badly. That’s not the kind of pattern that we want to be in. We want the economy doing well, and people to be able to afford their energy costs.
And keep in mind, we can’t just drill our way out of this problem. As I said, oil production here in the United States is doing very well, and it's been doing well even as gas prices are going up. Well, the reason is because we use more than 20 percent of the world’s oil but we only have 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. And that means we could drill every drop of American oil tomorrow but we’d still have to buy oil from other countries to make up the difference. We’d still have to depend on other countries to meet our energy needs. And because it’s a world market, the fact that we’re doing more here in the United States doesn’t necessarily help us because even U.S. oil companies they’re selling that oil on a worldwide market. They’re not keeping it just for us. And that means that if there’s rising demand around the world then the prices are going to up.
That’s not the future that I want for America. I don’t want folks like these back here and the folks in front of me to have to pay more at the pump every time that there’s some unrest in the Middle East and oil speculators get nervous about whether there’s going to be enough supply. I don’t want our kids to be held hostage to events on the other side of the world.
I want us to control our own destiny. I want us to forge our own future. And that’s why, as long as I’m President, America is going to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy, which means we will continue developing our oil and gas resources in a robust and responsible way. But it also means that we’re going to keep developing more advanced homegrown biofuels, the kinds that are already powering truck fleets across America.
We’re going to keep investing in clean energy like the wind power and solar power that’s already lighting thousands of homes and creating thousands of jobs. We’re going to keep manufacturing more cars and trucks to get more miles to the gallon so that you can fill up once every two weeks instead of every week. We’re going to keep building more homes and businesses that waste less energy so that you’re in charge of your own energy bills.
We’re going to do all of this by harnessing our most inexhaustible resource: American ingenuity and American imagination. That’s what we need to keep going. That’s what’s at stake right now. That’s the choice that we face. And that’s the choice that’s facing Congress today. They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past, or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren’t needed to boost oil production so that we can invest in the future. It’s that simple.
And as long as I’m President, I’m betting on the future. And as the people I’ve talked to around the country, including the people who are behind me here today, they put their faith in the future as well. That’s what we do as Americans. That’s who we are. We innovate. We discover. We seek new solutions to some of our biggest challenges. And, ultimately, because we stick with it, we succeed. And I believe that we’re going to do that again. Today, the American people are going to be watching Congress to see if they have that same faith.
Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.)
END
11:08 A.M. EDT
For Immediate Release
Rose Garden
11:00 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Everybody, please have a seat. Sorry we’re running just a little bit behind, but I figured it’s a great day to enjoy the Rose Garden.
Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people.
Right now, the biggest oil companies are raking in record profits –- profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station. But on top of these record profits, oil companies are also getting billions a year -- billions a year in taxpayer subsidies -– a subsidy that they’ve enjoyed year after year for the last century.
Think about that. It’s like hitting the American people twice. You’re already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress, up until this point, has thought it was a good idea to send billions of dollars more in tax dollars to the oil industry.
It’s not as if these companies can’t stand on their own. Last year, the three biggest U.S. oil companies took home more than $80 billion in profits. Exxon pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour. And when the price of oil goes up, prices at the pump go up, and so do these companies’ profits. In fact, one analysis shows that every time gas goes up by a penny, these companies usually pocket another $200 million in quarterly profits. Meanwhile, these companies pay a lower tax rate than most other companies on their investments, partly because we’re giving them billions in tax giveaways every year.
Now, I want to make clear, we all know that drilling for oil has to be a key part of our overall energy strategy. We want U.S. oil companies to be doing well. We want them to succeed. That’s why under my administration, we’ve opened up millions of acres of federal lands and waters to oil and gas production. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating oil rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some. And just yesterday, we announced the next step for potential new oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic.
So the fact is, we’re producing more oil right now than we have in eight years, and we’re importing less of it as well. For two years in a row, America has bought less oil from other countries than we produce here at home -– for the first time in over a decade.
So American oil is booming. The oil industry is doing just fine. With record profits and rising production, I’m not worried about the big oil companies. With high oil prices around the world, they’ve got more than enough incentive to produce even more oil. That’s why I think it’s time they got by without more help from taxpayers who are already having a tough enough time paying the bills and filling up their gas tank. And I think it’s curious that some folks in Congress, who are the first to belittle investments in new sources of energy, are the ones that are fighting the hardest to maintain these giveaways for the oil companies.
Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double-down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising -- investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels; investments in fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and energy-efficient homes and buildings. That’s the future. That’s the only way we're going to break this cycle of high gas prices that happen year after year after year. As the economy is growing, the only time you start seeing lower gas prices is when the economy is doing badly. That’s not the kind of pattern that we want to be in. We want the economy doing well, and people to be able to afford their energy costs.
And keep in mind, we can’t just drill our way out of this problem. As I said, oil production here in the United States is doing very well, and it's been doing well even as gas prices are going up. Well, the reason is because we use more than 20 percent of the world’s oil but we only have 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. And that means we could drill every drop of American oil tomorrow but we’d still have to buy oil from other countries to make up the difference. We’d still have to depend on other countries to meet our energy needs. And because it’s a world market, the fact that we’re doing more here in the United States doesn’t necessarily help us because even U.S. oil companies they’re selling that oil on a worldwide market. They’re not keeping it just for us. And that means that if there’s rising demand around the world then the prices are going to up.
That’s not the future that I want for America. I don’t want folks like these back here and the folks in front of me to have to pay more at the pump every time that there’s some unrest in the Middle East and oil speculators get nervous about whether there’s going to be enough supply. I don’t want our kids to be held hostage to events on the other side of the world.
I want us to control our own destiny. I want us to forge our own future. And that’s why, as long as I’m President, America is going to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy, which means we will continue developing our oil and gas resources in a robust and responsible way. But it also means that we’re going to keep developing more advanced homegrown biofuels, the kinds that are already powering truck fleets across America.
We’re going to keep investing in clean energy like the wind power and solar power that’s already lighting thousands of homes and creating thousands of jobs. We’re going to keep manufacturing more cars and trucks to get more miles to the gallon so that you can fill up once every two weeks instead of every week. We’re going to keep building more homes and businesses that waste less energy so that you’re in charge of your own energy bills.
We’re going to do all of this by harnessing our most inexhaustible resource: American ingenuity and American imagination. That’s what we need to keep going. That’s what’s at stake right now. That’s the choice that we face. And that’s the choice that’s facing Congress today. They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past, or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren’t needed to boost oil production so that we can invest in the future. It’s that simple.
And as long as I’m President, I’m betting on the future. And as the people I’ve talked to around the country, including the people who are behind me here today, they put their faith in the future as well. That’s what we do as Americans. That’s who we are. We innovate. We discover. We seek new solutions to some of our biggest challenges. And, ultimately, because we stick with it, we succeed. And I believe that we’re going to do that again. Today, the American people are going to be watching Congress to see if they have that same faith.
Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.)
END
11:08 A.M. EDT
Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Burlington, Vermont, 3/30/2012
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Aboard Air Force One
En Route Burlington, Vermont
Please see below for a correction to a typo in the transcript.
MR. EARNEST MR. PRESIDENT: I don’t think so. I don’t -- I would anticipate that today’s events will be typical of the other campaign political events that the President has spoke at and participated in.
10:36 A.M. EDT
MR. EARNEST: Good morning, as we fly on Air Force One toward a beautiful neck of the woods in the country. We've got a couple of campaign events each, both in Vermont as well as in Maine.
I have one quick announcement before I take your questions. Before departing the White House this morning, the President signed the 90-day extension of the Surface Transportation Act. The President was pleased that Congress acted to prevent construction workers from having to go off the job because of a lapse in funding. So he was pleased to sign the 90-day extension today. However, we encourage Congress to act in a bipartisan fashion on a longer-term extension.
Q Will you have a readout of that coming -- since this isn't getting piped back, are you going to have a readout of that, signing the 90-day extension?
MR. EARNEST: There will be the regular pro forma notice that will be distributed.
Q When will that be?
MR. EARNEST: I don't think they've sent it yet. They're waiting for me to gaggle before doing that. So you're the first to know.
Q Josh, do you have any update on the President's determination that he has to make today on the Iranian oil sanctions?
MR. EARNEST: Yesterday Jay made reference to the fact that we were aware that this deadline was coming and signaled our intention to meet it. I don't have any announcements to make on that determination this morning. However, there will be -- we'll have more on this for you later today, including a conference call that will be convened by some senior administration officials who can answer any questions you may have about that determination.
Q The President said opening -- I mean -- I'm sorry -- Jay said opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an option that's on the table. Will the Iranian declaration play into that decision?
MR. EARNEST: Well, we've said for a number of weeks now that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is one of many options that remains on the table. But there are no specific proposals -- as we've said before, there are no specific proposals that have been floated at this point.
As it relates to the presidential determination related to the Iran sanctions, I would refer that question to this conference call that I referenced that will take place this afternoon.
Q Is the President talking to officials about this during the day between campaign stops, or has the determination already been made?
MR. EARNEST: I don't have any calls at this point to read out to you.
Q Can you comment on Congressman Ryan endorsing Mitt Romney today?
MR. EARNEST: As you know, this process -- the process of the Republican Party choosing their nominee has been going on for some time. We have, generally speaking, shown respect for that process by allowing the Republican candidates and other Republican officials and certainly Republican voters to make the decision about who they're going to support to be the Republican nominee. So I don't have a specific reaction to that.
Q -- Republicans are coalescing, though, around Romney now -- Bush and Rubio and now Ryan -- as the eventual nominee. It seems like that's moving in that direction, right?
MR. EARNEST: There is no -- there is a primary election scheduled in Wisconsin on Tuesday and I don't want to get ahead of Republican voters, members of the Republican Party making their own decisions about who they believe their nominee should be.
Q On the Vice President's remarks yesterday that an event in the Gulf could possibly cause the President to lose reelection -- was he referring to the Persian Gulf? And does the White House see Iran as a political problem, not just a geopolitical threat?
MR. EARNEST: I wasn’t at the fundraiser last night so I haven't seen the full context of the Vice President's remarks, so I'm not sure I could refer to them specifically. However, I have heard many other senior administration officials and other campaign officials note that it is not uncommon for significant outside events to influence elections. They certainly have in the past. And so my guess is, is what the Vice President was referring to is any series of outside events that could have an impact to some degree or another on the election. And so my sense is that he made that reference in the context of other kinds of things like this -- certainly the ongoing financial turmoil in Europe and other things.
So my sense is that he was referring to some of the turmoil in the Middle East and referring to that frankly being a news-making event, but not drawing any other conclusions.
Q Does the President plan to say anything at any of his events today about the Supreme Court's health care arguments?
MR. EARNEST: Well, you've certainly heard the President at previous events like this, where he's talking about his reelection campaign, make the case for the success that he's enjoyed in his first three years of fighting on behalf of middle-class families in Washington, D.C. And the health care has been an important -- health care reform, the Affordable Care Act was an important part of that achievement.
We're already seeing that there's significant benefits that the American people are enjoying because of passage of the Affordable Care Act. So there are 5 million seniors who have gotten some assistance in paying for their prescription medicine that saved them more than $3 billion --
Q I'm referring specifically to how the argument went this week.
MR. EARNEST: As I pointed out, it’s not uncommon for the President to talk about how proud he is of the passage of the Affordable Care Act and the important benefits that the American people are already enjoying as a result of that passage. I wouldn’t anticipate, however, that he would comment specifically on the hearings necessarily today.
Q Josh, gay marriage is on the ballot in Maine in November. Is the President going to weigh in on that ballot initiative or discuss his evolving position today?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t anticipate that the President would make news on either of those things today.
Q Back on the Supreme Court, Jay said yesterday that the President thought Solicitor General Verrilli had done a good job in the arguments. Did he listen to those himself, the audio of that?
MR. EARNEST: Has the President heard the audio?
Q Yes.
MR. EARNEST: I’m not sure if the President himself has heard the audio. As I pointed out on Wednesday, the President has been following the news coverage and received briefings from our staff at the White House about the arguments and how they've proceeded. I don’t know specifically whether or not the President has heard the audio of those -- of the arguments.
Q As a constitutional law professor, is he not sort of interested in that on two fronts?
MR. EARNEST: There are many reasons why the President is interested in it. As I pointed out earlier, the Affordable Care Act is certainly one of the significant achievements of the first term of this administration and so the President is both personally and professionally invested in the arguments that are taking place.
The President has been following them in the news reports and has gotten specific briefings from our legal staff at the White House. And I feel confident in saying that the President shares the opinion of our White House staff that Mr. Verrilli did a terrific job in representing the interests of the government for the Supreme Court, but also representing the interests of the 2.5 million young adults who have health insurance coverage through their parent’s plan because of the Affordable Care Act. And Mr. Verrilli effectively was an advocate for the 50 million Americans who have access to free preventative coverage -- or free preventative services through their private insurance coverage because of the Affordable Care Act. That’s essentially the role that Mr. Verrilli was charged with and everyone at the White House was pleased with his performance.
Q Are you still saying there are no contingency plans, though, if it does get voted down? There’s got to be something that you guys are doing as a backup.
MR. EARNEST: There’s a lot that we’re doing and it’s related to the implementation of this law to ensure that we can maximize benefits of the Affordable Care Act for the American people. And I can say that when the Supreme Court rules that we'll be prepared to deal with it.
Q Do you have any comment on the RNC web ad that apparently altered the audio from the hearing of Donald Verrilli, making him sound more halting than he was?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any specific reaction to that. I’d refer you to my colleagues at the DNC about that.
Q Can you do a week ahead and talk about the North American Leaders Summit on Monday?
MR. EARNEST: There’s a lot here, so write fast.
On Monday, the President will host Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico for the North American Leaders Summit in Washington, D.C. The meeting will build on wide-ranging and ongoing cooperation among the United States, Canada and Mexico, with a particular focus on economic growth and competitiveness, citizen security, energy and climate change.
The leaders will also discuss North America’s role in the Americas in anticipation of the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia later next month, as well as other global, economic, political and security issues.
On Tuesday, the President will attend meetings at the White House. And then on Wednesday the President will host an Easter prayer breakfast at the White House.
Q What kind of breakfast?
MR. EARNEST: An Easter prayer breakfast at the White House as he has done in previous years. Christian leaders from across the country will join the President at the breakfast for a time of prayer, reflection, and the celebration of Easter.
Also on Wednesday, the President will sign the STOCK Act, which makes clear that members of Congress are subject to the same insider trading laws that apply to everyone else. You will recall that this is legislation that the President called on Congress to pass in his 2012 State of the Union address.
On Thursday, the President will sign the Jobs Act. You will recall this is bipartisan legislation that was passed by the Congress a week or two ago and it includes key initiatives that the President proposed last fall in his American Jobs Act to help small businesses and startups grow and create jobs.
And then on Friday, the President will deliver remarks at the White House Forum on Women in the Economy. And later that day, the President and First Lady will mark the beginning of Passover with a seder at the White House with friends and staff.
Q -- we should be waiting for today, Josh, from the President?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t think so. I don’t -- I would anticipate that today’s events will be typical of the other campaign political events that the President has spoke at and participated in.
One other noteworthy thing about our trip is the illustrious Dr. Joynt Kumar informed me this morning that this is actually the first trip of a sitting President to the state of Vermont since July of 1995 -- a little noteworthy color for the morning.
Q The first trip of a sitting President to Vermont since July of ’95?
MR. EARNEST: President Bush never -- President Clinton did not travel to Vermont in his second term and President Bush did not visit Vermont as President.
Q Can I ask one question on NALS?
MR. EARNEST: Yes.
Q Why are they doing that now and not just waiting to Cartagena and doing it on the margins there? Is there some kind of thing that they’re teeing up, some kind of joint deliverable for the summit?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any sense of -- a preview of whether or not there might be anything that will come out of that meeting. I know that they had originally planned to do this on the margins of APEC and Hawaii.
Q And Calderon had to leave.
MR. EARNEST: Right, because of the tragic helicopter crash. So this was an effort to reschedule that. I’m not sure why they’re doing it -- they aren’t doing it on the margins of the Summit of the Americas. I don’t know if it’s a time constraint that they had in Colombia or if there’s something else that may have contributed to this.
But it certainly is -- the President does view this as an important opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Harper and President Calderon. He meets with them frequently and their staffs are obviously in close coordination. This will be another important opportunity for them to get together and talk.
Okay?
Q Thank you.
MR. EARNEST: All right. We have a long day, but I’ll be in touch over BlackBerry and I’ll try to come find you when we’re on the ground.
END
10:48 A.M. EDT
For Immediate Release
Aboard Air Force One
En Route Burlington, Vermont
Please see below for a correction to a typo in the transcript.
MR. EARNEST MR. PRESIDENT: I don’t think so. I don’t -- I would anticipate that today’s events will be typical of the other campaign political events that the President has spoke at and participated in.
10:36 A.M. EDT
MR. EARNEST: Good morning, as we fly on Air Force One toward a beautiful neck of the woods in the country. We've got a couple of campaign events each, both in Vermont as well as in Maine.
I have one quick announcement before I take your questions. Before departing the White House this morning, the President signed the 90-day extension of the Surface Transportation Act. The President was pleased that Congress acted to prevent construction workers from having to go off the job because of a lapse in funding. So he was pleased to sign the 90-day extension today. However, we encourage Congress to act in a bipartisan fashion on a longer-term extension.
Q Will you have a readout of that coming -- since this isn't getting piped back, are you going to have a readout of that, signing the 90-day extension?
MR. EARNEST: There will be the regular pro forma notice that will be distributed.
Q When will that be?
MR. EARNEST: I don't think they've sent it yet. They're waiting for me to gaggle before doing that. So you're the first to know.
Q Josh, do you have any update on the President's determination that he has to make today on the Iranian oil sanctions?
MR. EARNEST: Yesterday Jay made reference to the fact that we were aware that this deadline was coming and signaled our intention to meet it. I don't have any announcements to make on that determination this morning. However, there will be -- we'll have more on this for you later today, including a conference call that will be convened by some senior administration officials who can answer any questions you may have about that determination.
Q The President said opening -- I mean -- I'm sorry -- Jay said opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an option that's on the table. Will the Iranian declaration play into that decision?
MR. EARNEST: Well, we've said for a number of weeks now that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is one of many options that remains on the table. But there are no specific proposals -- as we've said before, there are no specific proposals that have been floated at this point.
As it relates to the presidential determination related to the Iran sanctions, I would refer that question to this conference call that I referenced that will take place this afternoon.
Q Is the President talking to officials about this during the day between campaign stops, or has the determination already been made?
MR. EARNEST: I don't have any calls at this point to read out to you.
Q Can you comment on Congressman Ryan endorsing Mitt Romney today?
MR. EARNEST: As you know, this process -- the process of the Republican Party choosing their nominee has been going on for some time. We have, generally speaking, shown respect for that process by allowing the Republican candidates and other Republican officials and certainly Republican voters to make the decision about who they're going to support to be the Republican nominee. So I don't have a specific reaction to that.
Q -- Republicans are coalescing, though, around Romney now -- Bush and Rubio and now Ryan -- as the eventual nominee. It seems like that's moving in that direction, right?
MR. EARNEST: There is no -- there is a primary election scheduled in Wisconsin on Tuesday and I don't want to get ahead of Republican voters, members of the Republican Party making their own decisions about who they believe their nominee should be.
Q On the Vice President's remarks yesterday that an event in the Gulf could possibly cause the President to lose reelection -- was he referring to the Persian Gulf? And does the White House see Iran as a political problem, not just a geopolitical threat?
MR. EARNEST: I wasn’t at the fundraiser last night so I haven't seen the full context of the Vice President's remarks, so I'm not sure I could refer to them specifically. However, I have heard many other senior administration officials and other campaign officials note that it is not uncommon for significant outside events to influence elections. They certainly have in the past. And so my guess is, is what the Vice President was referring to is any series of outside events that could have an impact to some degree or another on the election. And so my sense is that he made that reference in the context of other kinds of things like this -- certainly the ongoing financial turmoil in Europe and other things.
So my sense is that he was referring to some of the turmoil in the Middle East and referring to that frankly being a news-making event, but not drawing any other conclusions.
Q Does the President plan to say anything at any of his events today about the Supreme Court's health care arguments?
MR. EARNEST: Well, you've certainly heard the President at previous events like this, where he's talking about his reelection campaign, make the case for the success that he's enjoyed in his first three years of fighting on behalf of middle-class families in Washington, D.C. And the health care has been an important -- health care reform, the Affordable Care Act was an important part of that achievement.
We're already seeing that there's significant benefits that the American people are enjoying because of passage of the Affordable Care Act. So there are 5 million seniors who have gotten some assistance in paying for their prescription medicine that saved them more than $3 billion --
Q I'm referring specifically to how the argument went this week.
MR. EARNEST: As I pointed out, it’s not uncommon for the President to talk about how proud he is of the passage of the Affordable Care Act and the important benefits that the American people are already enjoying as a result of that passage. I wouldn’t anticipate, however, that he would comment specifically on the hearings necessarily today.
Q Josh, gay marriage is on the ballot in Maine in November. Is the President going to weigh in on that ballot initiative or discuss his evolving position today?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t anticipate that the President would make news on either of those things today.
Q Back on the Supreme Court, Jay said yesterday that the President thought Solicitor General Verrilli had done a good job in the arguments. Did he listen to those himself, the audio of that?
MR. EARNEST: Has the President heard the audio?
Q Yes.
MR. EARNEST: I’m not sure if the President himself has heard the audio. As I pointed out on Wednesday, the President has been following the news coverage and received briefings from our staff at the White House about the arguments and how they've proceeded. I don’t know specifically whether or not the President has heard the audio of those -- of the arguments.
Q As a constitutional law professor, is he not sort of interested in that on two fronts?
MR. EARNEST: There are many reasons why the President is interested in it. As I pointed out earlier, the Affordable Care Act is certainly one of the significant achievements of the first term of this administration and so the President is both personally and professionally invested in the arguments that are taking place.
The President has been following them in the news reports and has gotten specific briefings from our legal staff at the White House. And I feel confident in saying that the President shares the opinion of our White House staff that Mr. Verrilli did a terrific job in representing the interests of the government for the Supreme Court, but also representing the interests of the 2.5 million young adults who have health insurance coverage through their parent’s plan because of the Affordable Care Act. And Mr. Verrilli effectively was an advocate for the 50 million Americans who have access to free preventative coverage -- or free preventative services through their private insurance coverage because of the Affordable Care Act. That’s essentially the role that Mr. Verrilli was charged with and everyone at the White House was pleased with his performance.
Q Are you still saying there are no contingency plans, though, if it does get voted down? There’s got to be something that you guys are doing as a backup.
MR. EARNEST: There’s a lot that we’re doing and it’s related to the implementation of this law to ensure that we can maximize benefits of the Affordable Care Act for the American people. And I can say that when the Supreme Court rules that we'll be prepared to deal with it.
Q Do you have any comment on the RNC web ad that apparently altered the audio from the hearing of Donald Verrilli, making him sound more halting than he was?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any specific reaction to that. I’d refer you to my colleagues at the DNC about that.
Q Can you do a week ahead and talk about the North American Leaders Summit on Monday?
MR. EARNEST: There’s a lot here, so write fast.
On Monday, the President will host Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico for the North American Leaders Summit in Washington, D.C. The meeting will build on wide-ranging and ongoing cooperation among the United States, Canada and Mexico, with a particular focus on economic growth and competitiveness, citizen security, energy and climate change.
The leaders will also discuss North America’s role in the Americas in anticipation of the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia later next month, as well as other global, economic, political and security issues.
On Tuesday, the President will attend meetings at the White House. And then on Wednesday the President will host an Easter prayer breakfast at the White House.
Q What kind of breakfast?
MR. EARNEST: An Easter prayer breakfast at the White House as he has done in previous years. Christian leaders from across the country will join the President at the breakfast for a time of prayer, reflection, and the celebration of Easter.
Also on Wednesday, the President will sign the STOCK Act, which makes clear that members of Congress are subject to the same insider trading laws that apply to everyone else. You will recall that this is legislation that the President called on Congress to pass in his 2012 State of the Union address.
On Thursday, the President will sign the Jobs Act. You will recall this is bipartisan legislation that was passed by the Congress a week or two ago and it includes key initiatives that the President proposed last fall in his American Jobs Act to help small businesses and startups grow and create jobs.
And then on Friday, the President will deliver remarks at the White House Forum on Women in the Economy. And later that day, the President and First Lady will mark the beginning of Passover with a seder at the White House with friends and staff.
Q -- we should be waiting for today, Josh, from the President?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t think so. I don’t -- I would anticipate that today’s events will be typical of the other campaign political events that the President has spoke at and participated in.
One other noteworthy thing about our trip is the illustrious Dr. Joynt Kumar informed me this morning that this is actually the first trip of a sitting President to the state of Vermont since July of 1995 -- a little noteworthy color for the morning.
Q The first trip of a sitting President to Vermont since July of ’95?
MR. EARNEST: President Bush never -- President Clinton did not travel to Vermont in his second term and President Bush did not visit Vermont as President.
Q Can I ask one question on NALS?
MR. EARNEST: Yes.
Q Why are they doing that now and not just waiting to Cartagena and doing it on the margins there? Is there some kind of thing that they’re teeing up, some kind of joint deliverable for the summit?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any sense of -- a preview of whether or not there might be anything that will come out of that meeting. I know that they had originally planned to do this on the margins of APEC and Hawaii.
Q And Calderon had to leave.
MR. EARNEST: Right, because of the tragic helicopter crash. So this was an effort to reschedule that. I’m not sure why they’re doing it -- they aren’t doing it on the margins of the Summit of the Americas. I don’t know if it’s a time constraint that they had in Colombia or if there’s something else that may have contributed to this.
But it certainly is -- the President does view this as an important opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Harper and President Calderon. He meets with them frequently and their staffs are obviously in close coordination. This will be another important opportunity for them to get together and talk.
Okay?
Q Thank you.
MR. EARNEST: All right. We have a long day, but I’ll be in touch over BlackBerry and I’ll try to come find you when we’re on the ground.
END
10:48 A.M. EDT
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.
Bush tax cuts Rubio Charlie Crist Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office
Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 4281
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
On Friday, March 30, 2012, the President signed into law:
H.R. 4281, the "Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012," which provides funding for programs funded from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) for the period April 1, 2012, through June 30, 2012; and extends the authority to make expenditures from the HTF for HTF-financed programs through June 30, 2012.
For Immediate Release
On Friday, March 30, 2012, the President signed into law:
H.R. 4281, the "Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012," which provides funding for programs funded from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) for the period April 1, 2012, through June 30, 2012; and extends the authority to make expenditures from the HTF for HTF-financed programs through June 30, 2012.
On Foreclosures: Too Little, But Not Too Late
The Obama administration and states around the country have taken important steps in recent months toward putting American homeownership and financial security back on track. But it?s clear that more ambitious solutions are needed.
After a lull due to negotiations over fraudulent bank practices, foreclosures are expected to come roaring back this year, with hundreds of thousands of Americans newly at risk of losing their homes. As the scourge of foreclosures continues, the economic security of families and the stability of communities remain at risk. The crisis has deepened inequality throughout the country, and continues to hold us back as a nation.
To be effective, America?s solutions to this crisis must match the scale and shape of the problem. They must stem foreclosures while ensuring that the abuses that caused this problem never happen again. They must help families and communities rebuild their economic security while ensuring that successful homeownership remains a firm steppingstone to opportunity for working Americans. They must protect people from discrimination and ensure fair housing and lending for all Americans.
Earlier this month, a group of housing experts that includes The Opportunity Agenda, National Council of La Raza, and the National Fair Housing Alliance released a�Compact for Home Opportunity. The Compact offers over a dozen practical policy solutions that, taken together, will reduce foreclosures, help families and communities restore their economic security, and rebuild the American Dream for the 21st century. It is a crucial part of the national�Home for Good�campaign that is gaining strength around the country.
One of the Compact?s calls is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the principal on loans they own or back to fair market value. A range of economists, experts, and Administration officials agree that doing so would prevent foreclosures while strengthening our economy, improving overall property values and, in the long term, benefiting Fannie and Freddie?s solvency. Yet, Edward DeMarco, acting head of the federal agency that governs Fannie and Freddie, has inexplicably refused to consider principal reduction as a broad-based solution. His position is particularly indefensible, given that Fannie and Freddie are currently owned by the American people after a massive federal rescue in 2008.
While keeping the pressure on DeMarco is key, the Compact for Home Opportunity offers many other things that federal, state, and local actors, as well as private industry, can do today to drastically improve Americans? housing prospects. One particularly effective example is supporting qualified counseling to Americans considering homeownership and those facing financial difficulty. Counseling by professionals certified by HUD significantly reduces the likelihood of being snagged by predatory lending practices and of running into financial trouble down the line. It?s an investment that saves homes and heartache, as well as tax dollars.
Principal reduction by Fannie and Freddie, housing counseling, and many other solutions exist that can strengthen home opportunity for everyone in our nation. It?s not too late to turn things around. But the clock is ticking.
After a lull due to negotiations over fraudulent bank practices, foreclosures are expected to come roaring back this year, with hundreds of thousands of Americans newly at risk of losing their homes. As the scourge of foreclosures continues, the economic security of families and the stability of communities remain at risk. The crisis has deepened inequality throughout the country, and continues to hold us back as a nation.
To be effective, America?s solutions to this crisis must match the scale and shape of the problem. They must stem foreclosures while ensuring that the abuses that caused this problem never happen again. They must help families and communities rebuild their economic security while ensuring that successful homeownership remains a firm steppingstone to opportunity for working Americans. They must protect people from discrimination and ensure fair housing and lending for all Americans.
Earlier this month, a group of housing experts that includes The Opportunity Agenda, National Council of La Raza, and the National Fair Housing Alliance released a�Compact for Home Opportunity. The Compact offers over a dozen practical policy solutions that, taken together, will reduce foreclosures, help families and communities restore their economic security, and rebuild the American Dream for the 21st century. It is a crucial part of the national�Home for Good�campaign that is gaining strength around the country.
One of the Compact?s calls is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the principal on loans they own or back to fair market value. A range of economists, experts, and Administration officials agree that doing so would prevent foreclosures while strengthening our economy, improving overall property values and, in the long term, benefiting Fannie and Freddie?s solvency. Yet, Edward DeMarco, acting head of the federal agency that governs Fannie and Freddie, has inexplicably refused to consider principal reduction as a broad-based solution. His position is particularly indefensible, given that Fannie and Freddie are currently owned by the American people after a massive federal rescue in 2008.
While keeping the pressure on DeMarco is key, the Compact for Home Opportunity offers many other things that federal, state, and local actors, as well as private industry, can do today to drastically improve Americans? housing prospects. One particularly effective example is supporting qualified counseling to Americans considering homeownership and those facing financial difficulty. Counseling by professionals certified by HUD significantly reduces the likelihood of being snagged by predatory lending practices and of running into financial trouble down the line. It?s an investment that saves homes and heartache, as well as tax dollars.
Principal reduction by Fannie and Freddie, housing counseling, and many other solutions exist that can strengthen home opportunity for everyone in our nation. It?s not too late to turn things around. But the clock is ticking.
The View gubernatorial candidate Howard Dean ethics charges washington bureaucrats
Statement by the Press Secretary on House Passage of the 90-Day Surface Transportation Extension
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
While it is critical that we not put American jobs and safety at risk and hurt our economic recovery by allowing funding to run out, it is not enough for us to continue to patch together our nation’s infrastructure future with short-term band-aids. States and cities need certainty to plan ahead and America’s construction workers deserve the peace of mind that they won’t have to worry about their jobs every few months.
The Senate has done its part, passing a bipartisan bill with 52 Democrats and 22 Republicans that would keep American workers on the job maintaining our roads, bridges, and railways. As soon as the House gets back to work, they should do their part and pass that bill in similarly bipartisan fashion.
For Immediate Release
While it is critical that we not put American jobs and safety at risk and hurt our economic recovery by allowing funding to run out, it is not enough for us to continue to patch together our nation’s infrastructure future with short-term band-aids. States and cities need certainty to plan ahead and America’s construction workers deserve the peace of mind that they won’t have to worry about their jobs every few months.
The Senate has done its part, passing a bipartisan bill with 52 Democrats and 22 Republicans that would keep American workers on the job maintaining our roads, bridges, and railways. As soon as the House gets back to work, they should do their part and pass that bill in similarly bipartisan fashion.
Michelle Obama Sean Hannity Glenn Beck Rush Limbaugh Hillary Clinton
Friday, March 30, 2012
Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:
Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, of California, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors for a term of five years. (New Position)
Patricia K. Falcone, of California, to be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, vice Philip E. Coyle, III.
Douglas M. Griffiths, of Texas, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Mozambique.
Maria Rosario Jackson, of California, to be a Member of the National Council on the Arts for a term expiring September 3, 2016, vice Terence Alan Teachout, term expired.
For Immediate Release
NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:
Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, of California, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors for a term of five years. (New Position)
Patricia K. Falcone, of California, to be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, vice Philip E. Coyle, III.
Douglas M. Griffiths, of Texas, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Mozambique.
Maria Rosario Jackson, of California, to be a Member of the National Council on the Arts for a term expiring September 3, 2016, vice Terence Alan Teachout, term expired.
washington bureaucrats John Kerry George Will George Bush global warming
Supreme Court Might Decide Their Second Election
It was a similar crew of conservative justices on the Supreme Court that decided that their long-held beliefs on states' rights were irrelevant and made George W. Bush our next president in 2000. Now, they're back!!! And they might decide yet another presidential election.
�
It was a similar crew of conservative justices on the Supreme Court that decided that their long-held beliefs on states' rights were irrelevant and made George W. Bush our next president in 2000. Now, they're back!!! And they might decide yet another presidential election.
Imagine the damage it does to President Obama to strip him of his signature accomplishment right before the election. It would also allow the Republicans to say -- "See, we told you so! It was unconstitutional all along. It was a wild, socialist over-reach of big government." It creates a permanent stain on the law -- as if there was something horribly wrong with it all along. And it takes it off the books at a moment when it is still relatively unpopular. So, before any of the popular provisions are put into effect it would go in the record books as a complete disaster.
Why don't you just hand the Republicans the election? Which is, of course, exactly what the conservatives of this court would love to do. These conservative justices are given far too much deference in the media. They are largely partisan hacks.
Antonin Scalia is a complete fraud. He will bend any so-called principle to get to the political result he wants. If it's upholding anti-gay legislation or striking down federal laws he doesn't like, he is a huge advocate for states' rights. But if it's marijuana legalization or euthanasia orBush v. Gore, then he hates states' rights. So, which one is it? Here's how you can tell -- which side is the Republican Party on?
Remember, this is a guy who goes�duck hunting with Dick Cheney�and�attends political fundraisers with the Koch brothers. Of course, he�doesn't recuse himself�from any cases that involve those people. In fact, he votes on their side nearly 100% of the time.
We've been hearing for at least thirty years about the dangers of activist judges. That it is so wrong for unelected officials, like judges, to invalidate laws made by the people's representatives. Now, all of a sudden, the Republicans love that idea! They want to interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that it has not been interpreted�since 1937. They want to invalidate a sitting president's signature piece of legislation for the�first time in 75 years. And their hack, partisan justices on the Supreme Court can't wait to do their bidding.
The way Scalia, Alito and Thomas are going to vote is certain. There isn't a single Republican position those guys haven't wanted to fondle. They will enthusiastically wrap their legs around the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional. And they will double down by saying it strikes down the rest of the law with it.
John Roberts plays a moderate on TV, so there is some questions about which way he'll go. But in the real world, he always votes with the conservatives because... he is deeply conservative (or more accurately, party line Republican, no matter where the so-called conservative position lies).
So, that leaves us with Justice Kennedy, who is a genuine swing vote. But remember he is the one that swung toward Bush and meddled with how Florida counts its votes despite decades of empty talk about states' rights. If he sides with the rest of the conservative justices, he will forever cement his place on the Hack Hall of Fame as one of the most deeply partisan justices we have ever had. If he helped to decide two presidential elections based on which party he likes rather than his so-called deeply held beliefs, like his oft-repeated deference to precedent, than it would be hard to find a more political and disingenuous justice.
One last thought, which is on the sad incompetence of the Democratic Party. They should be screaming "activist judges" from the rooftops. Instead they are meekly mumbling about how it's unclear which way the court is going to go and how we shouldn't pre-judge. I got news for you -- the Republicans have been pre-judging your bill for years now. You should consider fighting back.
But the primary responsibility is the president's. Why did you agree to the Republican idea of mandates in the first place?
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the�original sponsor of the mandate�in the Senate back in 1993.The Heritage Foundation championed the idea. Mitt Romney was applauded wildly by conservatives when he passed a mandate in Massachusetts. Did the president think they would like him more if he agreed to their idea? No, they have always opposed you at every turn, and they always will. They turned on their own idea the minute you agreed to it -- and now they're using it to kill your whole bill.
When is the president ever going to learn that agreeing with Republicans never helps him? It never helps the country. All it does is make it easier for them to beat you because you made the fatal mistake of agreeing with them.
�
�
It was a similar crew of conservative justices on the Supreme Court that decided that their long-held beliefs on states' rights were irrelevant and made George W. Bush our next president in 2000. Now, they're back!!! And they might decide yet another presidential election.
Imagine the damage it does to President Obama to strip him of his signature accomplishment right before the election. It would also allow the Republicans to say -- "See, we told you so! It was unconstitutional all along. It was a wild, socialist over-reach of big government." It creates a permanent stain on the law -- as if there was something horribly wrong with it all along. And it takes it off the books at a moment when it is still relatively unpopular. So, before any of the popular provisions are put into effect it would go in the record books as a complete disaster.
Why don't you just hand the Republicans the election? Which is, of course, exactly what the conservatives of this court would love to do. These conservative justices are given far too much deference in the media. They are largely partisan hacks.
Antonin Scalia is a complete fraud. He will bend any so-called principle to get to the political result he wants. If it's upholding anti-gay legislation or striking down federal laws he doesn't like, he is a huge advocate for states' rights. But if it's marijuana legalization or euthanasia orBush v. Gore, then he hates states' rights. So, which one is it? Here's how you can tell -- which side is the Republican Party on?
Remember, this is a guy who goes�duck hunting with Dick Cheney�and�attends political fundraisers with the Koch brothers. Of course, he�doesn't recuse himself�from any cases that involve those people. In fact, he votes on their side nearly 100% of the time.
We've been hearing for at least thirty years about the dangers of activist judges. That it is so wrong for unelected officials, like judges, to invalidate laws made by the people's representatives. Now, all of a sudden, the Republicans love that idea! They want to interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that it has not been interpreted�since 1937. They want to invalidate a sitting president's signature piece of legislation for the�first time in 75 years. And their hack, partisan justices on the Supreme Court can't wait to do their bidding.
The way Scalia, Alito and Thomas are going to vote is certain. There isn't a single Republican position those guys haven't wanted to fondle. They will enthusiastically wrap their legs around the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional. And they will double down by saying it strikes down the rest of the law with it.
John Roberts plays a moderate on TV, so there is some questions about which way he'll go. But in the real world, he always votes with the conservatives because... he is deeply conservative (or more accurately, party line Republican, no matter where the so-called conservative position lies).
So, that leaves us with Justice Kennedy, who is a genuine swing vote. But remember he is the one that swung toward Bush and meddled with how Florida counts its votes despite decades of empty talk about states' rights. If he sides with the rest of the conservative justices, he will forever cement his place on the Hack Hall of Fame as one of the most deeply partisan justices we have ever had. If he helped to decide two presidential elections based on which party he likes rather than his so-called deeply held beliefs, like his oft-repeated deference to precedent, than it would be hard to find a more political and disingenuous justice.
One last thought, which is on the sad incompetence of the Democratic Party. They should be screaming "activist judges" from the rooftops. Instead they are meekly mumbling about how it's unclear which way the court is going to go and how we shouldn't pre-judge. I got news for you -- the Republicans have been pre-judging your bill for years now. You should consider fighting back.
But the primary responsibility is the president's. Why did you agree to the Republican idea of mandates in the first place?
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the�original sponsor of the mandate�in the Senate back in 1993.The Heritage Foundation championed the idea. Mitt Romney was applauded wildly by conservatives when he passed a mandate in Massachusetts. Did the president think they would like him more if he agreed to their idea? No, they have always opposed you at every turn, and they always will. They turned on their own idea the minute you agreed to it -- and now they're using it to kill your whole bill.
When is the president ever going to learn that agreeing with Republicans never helps him? It never helps the country. All it does is make it easier for them to beat you because you made the fatal mistake of agreeing with them.
�
On Foreclosures: Too Little, But Not Too Late
The Obama administration and states around the country have taken important steps in recent months toward putting American homeownership and financial security back on track. But it?s clear that more ambitious solutions are needed.
After a lull due to negotiations over fraudulent bank practices, foreclosures are expected to come roaring back this year, with hundreds of thousands of Americans newly at risk of losing their homes. As the scourge of foreclosures continues, the economic security of families and the stability of communities remain at risk. The crisis has deepened inequality throughout the country, and continues to hold us back as a nation.
To be effective, America?s solutions to this crisis must match the scale and shape of the problem. They must stem foreclosures while ensuring that the abuses that caused this problem never happen again. They must help families and communities rebuild their economic security while ensuring that successful homeownership remains a firm steppingstone to opportunity for working Americans. They must protect people from discrimination and ensure fair housing and lending for all Americans.
Earlier this month, a group of housing experts that includes The Opportunity Agenda, National Council of La Raza, and the National Fair Housing Alliance released a�Compact for Home Opportunity. The Compact offers over a dozen practical policy solutions that, taken together, will reduce foreclosures, help families and communities restore their economic security, and rebuild the American Dream for the 21st century. It is a crucial part of the national�Home for Good�campaign that is gaining strength around the country.
One of the Compact?s calls is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the principal on loans they own or back to fair market value. A range of economists, experts, and Administration officials agree that doing so would prevent foreclosures while strengthening our economy, improving overall property values and, in the long term, benefiting Fannie and Freddie?s solvency. Yet, Edward DeMarco, acting head of the federal agency that governs Fannie and Freddie, has inexplicably refused to consider principal reduction as a broad-based solution. His position is particularly indefensible, given that Fannie and Freddie are currently owned by the American people after a massive federal rescue in 2008.
While keeping the pressure on DeMarco is key, the Compact for Home Opportunity offers many other things that federal, state, and local actors, as well as private industry, can do today to drastically improve Americans? housing prospects. One particularly effective example is supporting qualified counseling to Americans considering homeownership and those facing financial difficulty. Counseling by professionals certified by HUD significantly reduces the likelihood of being snagged by predatory lending practices and of running into financial trouble down the line. It?s an investment that saves homes and heartache, as well as tax dollars.
Principal reduction by Fannie and Freddie, housing counseling, and many other solutions exist that can strengthen home opportunity for everyone in our nation. It?s not too late to turn things around. But the clock is ticking.
After a lull due to negotiations over fraudulent bank practices, foreclosures are expected to come roaring back this year, with hundreds of thousands of Americans newly at risk of losing their homes. As the scourge of foreclosures continues, the economic security of families and the stability of communities remain at risk. The crisis has deepened inequality throughout the country, and continues to hold us back as a nation.
To be effective, America?s solutions to this crisis must match the scale and shape of the problem. They must stem foreclosures while ensuring that the abuses that caused this problem never happen again. They must help families and communities rebuild their economic security while ensuring that successful homeownership remains a firm steppingstone to opportunity for working Americans. They must protect people from discrimination and ensure fair housing and lending for all Americans.
Earlier this month, a group of housing experts that includes The Opportunity Agenda, National Council of La Raza, and the National Fair Housing Alliance released a�Compact for Home Opportunity. The Compact offers over a dozen practical policy solutions that, taken together, will reduce foreclosures, help families and communities restore their economic security, and rebuild the American Dream for the 21st century. It is a crucial part of the national�Home for Good�campaign that is gaining strength around the country.
One of the Compact?s calls is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the principal on loans they own or back to fair market value. A range of economists, experts, and Administration officials agree that doing so would prevent foreclosures while strengthening our economy, improving overall property values and, in the long term, benefiting Fannie and Freddie?s solvency. Yet, Edward DeMarco, acting head of the federal agency that governs Fannie and Freddie, has inexplicably refused to consider principal reduction as a broad-based solution. His position is particularly indefensible, given that Fannie and Freddie are currently owned by the American people after a massive federal rescue in 2008.
While keeping the pressure on DeMarco is key, the Compact for Home Opportunity offers many other things that federal, state, and local actors, as well as private industry, can do today to drastically improve Americans? housing prospects. One particularly effective example is supporting qualified counseling to Americans considering homeownership and those facing financial difficulty. Counseling by professionals certified by HUD significantly reduces the likelihood of being snagged by predatory lending practices and of running into financial trouble down the line. It?s an investment that saves homes and heartache, as well as tax dollars.
Principal reduction by Fannie and Freddie, housing counseling, and many other solutions exist that can strengthen home opportunity for everyone in our nation. It?s not too late to turn things around. But the clock is ticking.
Juan Williams racial controversy U.S. banks Charlie Rangel Arizona
A Challenge to Rush: Prove Your Ratings
How many listeners does Rush Limbaugh have? Well, in the press there are only two numbers you'll ever see -- 20 million or 15 million. Those are large numbers, so that is why Limbaugh is taken seriously and is believed to be influential.
�
I've got news for you -- those numbers are a total fabrication. They're made up out of whole cloth. You want to know where the 20 million number came from? It was first printed inBillboard�magazine back in 1993.�Here is the quote:
"Limbaugh's show is now heard on 610 stations and reaches approximately 20 million listeners, according to [Kit] Carson."
So who is Kit Carson? A guy known as Rush Limbaugh's "chief of staff." In other words, Rush's team simply made up the 20 million number and everyone believed it. He has never, ever presented any evidence to that effect.
The 15 million number comes from Michael Harrison of�Talkers�magazine. He is considered the leading expert on the talk radio industry. He is a good man and fights hard for his industry. You want to know where he came up with the number? Pretty much pulled it out of the sky. When Tommy Christopher of AOL News (at the time, he is now with�Mediate) asked him how he arrived at the figure, here is what Harrison said:
They are only our thumbnail estimates based upon our contacts in the field, tracking of Arbitron estimates and understanding of the business. We make no claims as to "scientific" accuracy... [T]hey are not "ratings" per se.
I love that -- they are not ratings, per se. In other words, those are not his ratings at all! Harrison might have well said, "We took blind guesses and added 5 million, divided by four, multiplied by 12 and then sprinkled some fairy dust on it."
There are no national numbers for Rush's radio audience.
And it gets worse. Until 2007 radio had the worst rating system ever invented. I know, I worked in the industry, and we all knew the numbers were total nonsense. They measured ratings by giving people "diaries." They would keep these diaries for three months and all along they were supposed to be recording what they listened to on the radio every fifteen minutes. What a joke. Most people would fill out the diary at the end and scribble down what they thought they remembered.
So, under that system, big names do much better. You might not remember that you were listening to DJ Ralph McClusky on 106.7FM, but everyone remembered Howard and Rush. The bigger your name (and hype), the more people wrote you down whether they actually listened to you or not. They also wrote down they listened to you more often -- another huge advantage. And does anyone believe that people actually remembered what they were listening to at 2:15PM two and a half months ago?
Then in 2007, radio started switching over to something called�Portable People Meters. This did not rely on human memory. It's a device that picks up the radio signal wherever you are and records the station you're actually listening to. So, what happened? It turns out people were listening to a lot more music than they realized and a lot less talk. So, the sports stations, the hot talk and the conservative talk stations were all hurt.
Last year, Crain's New York Business reported that Rush Limbaugh's�ratings were down 33 percent. The portable people meters have been expanding to different markets throughout these years (they didn't just replace all of the diaries instantly in 2007, it's taken a while). So, it's unclear how much Rush was hurt by the more accurate readings last year and how much people just stopped listening to him.
But one thing is for sure -- he's hurt, dog! That's why we see the�unprecedented apologyfrom him on Sandra Fluke. When this controversy first broke, I predicted on�our show�that more advertisers would drop him (at the time, only two had). Advertisers are much more likely to drop a controversial guy if his numbers are already down. They'll ride it out if he's still delivering the goods. This is the same thing that happened to Imus. His ratings were miserable already, so advertisers didn't have enough incentive to stick with him when trouble arose.
So, Rush is in big trouble now as�more and more advertisers peel off. He's in a tail spin. Why else would you�triple down on the "slut" comments�from Wednesday to Friday and then issue an apology on Saturday? He has over-reached (in his offensive comments) and undelivered (in his ratings). That's a lethal combo.
But Rush can easily prove me wrong. So, I'm issuing a challenge to him -- show us your ratings. He won't do it because he's embarrassed by them. He has never produced evidence of his ratings and he certainly won't do it now. In fact, I'll make a Mitt Romney like wager. I'll give him $10,000 if he can show us his 20 million listeners.
He claims that 20 million is daily listeners, so that'll be the standard we use. I laugh and laugh as I write that down. Some articles write it is a weekly number, some say monthly. There is no way he can prove even 15 million listeners weekly. I'd be shocked if he can show that kind of monthly number. And is it unique listeners or are they counting the same guys who tune in every day?
Rush's audience is a myth. He is a paper tiger. Do some people listen to him? Of course. Is it anywhere near the hype? Not remotely. Talk radio is a dying business. I wouldn't be surprised if his daily listeners didn't even reach a million. I wouldn't be surprised if we have more online viewers on�The Young Turks�(which are 100 percent Google verifiable) than he has radio listeners.
Rush is a sad, old man that a couple of other sad, old men listen to. His days are numbered. Rush, it definitely wasn't nice knowing you. Tick tock, tick tock.
Watch The Young Turks on�Current
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter:�www.twitter.com/CenkUygur
�
�
I've got news for you -- those numbers are a total fabrication. They're made up out of whole cloth. You want to know where the 20 million number came from? It was first printed inBillboard�magazine back in 1993.�Here is the quote:
"Limbaugh's show is now heard on 610 stations and reaches approximately 20 million listeners, according to [Kit] Carson."
So who is Kit Carson? A guy known as Rush Limbaugh's "chief of staff." In other words, Rush's team simply made up the 20 million number and everyone believed it. He has never, ever presented any evidence to that effect.
The 15 million number comes from Michael Harrison of�Talkers�magazine. He is considered the leading expert on the talk radio industry. He is a good man and fights hard for his industry. You want to know where he came up with the number? Pretty much pulled it out of the sky. When Tommy Christopher of AOL News (at the time, he is now with�Mediate) asked him how he arrived at the figure, here is what Harrison said:
They are only our thumbnail estimates based upon our contacts in the field, tracking of Arbitron estimates and understanding of the business. We make no claims as to "scientific" accuracy... [T]hey are not "ratings" per se.
I love that -- they are not ratings, per se. In other words, those are not his ratings at all! Harrison might have well said, "We took blind guesses and added 5 million, divided by four, multiplied by 12 and then sprinkled some fairy dust on it."
There are no national numbers for Rush's radio audience.
And it gets worse. Until 2007 radio had the worst rating system ever invented. I know, I worked in the industry, and we all knew the numbers were total nonsense. They measured ratings by giving people "diaries." They would keep these diaries for three months and all along they were supposed to be recording what they listened to on the radio every fifteen minutes. What a joke. Most people would fill out the diary at the end and scribble down what they thought they remembered.
So, under that system, big names do much better. You might not remember that you were listening to DJ Ralph McClusky on 106.7FM, but everyone remembered Howard and Rush. The bigger your name (and hype), the more people wrote you down whether they actually listened to you or not. They also wrote down they listened to you more often -- another huge advantage. And does anyone believe that people actually remembered what they were listening to at 2:15PM two and a half months ago?
Then in 2007, radio started switching over to something called�Portable People Meters. This did not rely on human memory. It's a device that picks up the radio signal wherever you are and records the station you're actually listening to. So, what happened? It turns out people were listening to a lot more music than they realized and a lot less talk. So, the sports stations, the hot talk and the conservative talk stations were all hurt.
Last year, Crain's New York Business reported that Rush Limbaugh's�ratings were down 33 percent. The portable people meters have been expanding to different markets throughout these years (they didn't just replace all of the diaries instantly in 2007, it's taken a while). So, it's unclear how much Rush was hurt by the more accurate readings last year and how much people just stopped listening to him.
But one thing is for sure -- he's hurt, dog! That's why we see the�unprecedented apologyfrom him on Sandra Fluke. When this controversy first broke, I predicted on�our show�that more advertisers would drop him (at the time, only two had). Advertisers are much more likely to drop a controversial guy if his numbers are already down. They'll ride it out if he's still delivering the goods. This is the same thing that happened to Imus. His ratings were miserable already, so advertisers didn't have enough incentive to stick with him when trouble arose.
So, Rush is in big trouble now as�more and more advertisers peel off. He's in a tail spin. Why else would you�triple down on the "slut" comments�from Wednesday to Friday and then issue an apology on Saturday? He has over-reached (in his offensive comments) and undelivered (in his ratings). That's a lethal combo.
But Rush can easily prove me wrong. So, I'm issuing a challenge to him -- show us your ratings. He won't do it because he's embarrassed by them. He has never produced evidence of his ratings and he certainly won't do it now. In fact, I'll make a Mitt Romney like wager. I'll give him $10,000 if he can show us his 20 million listeners.
He claims that 20 million is daily listeners, so that'll be the standard we use. I laugh and laugh as I write that down. Some articles write it is a weekly number, some say monthly. There is no way he can prove even 15 million listeners weekly. I'd be shocked if he can show that kind of monthly number. And is it unique listeners or are they counting the same guys who tune in every day?
Rush's audience is a myth. He is a paper tiger. Do some people listen to him? Of course. Is it anywhere near the hype? Not remotely. Talk radio is a dying business. I wouldn't be surprised if his daily listeners didn't even reach a million. I wouldn't be surprised if we have more online viewers on�The Young Turks�(which are 100 percent Google verifiable) than he has radio listeners.
Rush is a sad, old man that a couple of other sad, old men listen to. His days are numbered. Rush, it definitely wasn't nice knowing you. Tick tock, tick tock.
Watch The Young Turks on�Current
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter:�www.twitter.com/CenkUygur
�
bill clinton Juan Williams racial controversy U.S. banks Charlie Rangel
Statement by the Press Secretary on Clashes along the Border of Sudan and South Sudan
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
The United States is alarmed by the fighting in Southern Kordofan, Sudan, and along a disputed area of the border between Sudan and South Sudan. Both sides must exert the greatest restraint in this situation.
It is critical that the two countries proceed with plans for meetings of the Joint Political Security Mechanism and the Abyei Joint Operations Committee in late March and the presidential summit on April 3. Only through direct contact and negotiations over fundamental issues of security and border management in Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and Abyei can Sudan and South Sudan avoid further fighting, achieve vitally needed economic cooperation, and coexist in peace. We also urge Darfur armed movements and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North to exercise restraint and cooperate fully with restoration of peace.
Achieving humanitarian access and protection of the civilian population must be the priority of all those concerned for the people of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile.
For Immediate Release
The United States is alarmed by the fighting in Southern Kordofan, Sudan, and along a disputed area of the border between Sudan and South Sudan. Both sides must exert the greatest restraint in this situation.
It is critical that the two countries proceed with plans for meetings of the Joint Political Security Mechanism and the Abyei Joint Operations Committee in late March and the presidential summit on April 3. Only through direct contact and negotiations over fundamental issues of security and border management in Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and Abyei can Sudan and South Sudan avoid further fighting, achieve vitally needed economic cooperation, and coexist in peace. We also urge Darfur armed movements and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North to exercise restraint and cooperate fully with restoration of peace.
Achieving humanitarian access and protection of the civilian population must be the priority of all those concerned for the people of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile.
Taxing days on the campaign trail
President Obama?s State of the Union address was one of the best in recent history, not judging by the number of applauses and ovations, but by the content. Sometimes it?s the lack of applause from parts of the audience that are most telling. The President mentioned the lack of troops in Iraq for the first time in years, and referred to a system where ?everyone plays by the same rules,? a clear reference to corporate misbehavior, income inequality, and other issues in the spotlight due to the Occupy movement. He discussed the most important issue to me in politics and society: ?The corrosive influence of money in politics.?
illegal immigrant Pakistani The View gubernatorial candidate Howard Dean
Murkowski Lauds Democrats
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who is running as a write-in candidate for re-election after losing in the Republican primary, lists two Democrat senators among those she admires the most. Murkowski was asked the question by the Anchorage Daily News, The Hill reports.
"The [senators] that immediately come to mind are those that are on the other side of the aisle and I have a good working relationship with," she says. Murkowski then listed Sen. Tom Carper, D-Delaware, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who like Murkowski sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Murkowski has lost her leadership position in the Senate Republican Conference for running against Joe Miller, who beat her in the primary. She says he is too extreme.
Murkowski has said she would remain a Republican if she is re-elected, but she repeatedly makes overtures to Democrats, obviously hoping for more votes.
� Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Joint Statement on National Legislation Implementation Kit on Nuclear Security
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
On the occasion of their participation in the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit, the governments of Australia, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, affirm their support to the initiative of Indonesia to draw up a National Legislation Implementation Kit on Nuclear Security.
The National Legislation Implementation Kit on Nuclear Security can help States develop a more comprehensive national legislation on nuclear security in accordance with their own respective internal legal processes. It can provide States with references to a wide array of consolidated elements and provisions from different nuclear security conventions/treaties, as well as international legal instruments and frameworks. The action to create a single and friendly reference kit shall involve all international organizations relevant to nuclear security, with the IAEA coordinating the task.
After the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit, States supporting this initiative will continue to backstop and encourage the IAEA and other relevant international organizations to explore concrete ways forward to draw up the national legislation implementation kit, particularly after the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit.
For Immediate Release
On the occasion of their participation in the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit, the governments of Australia, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, affirm their support to the initiative of Indonesia to draw up a National Legislation Implementation Kit on Nuclear Security.
The National Legislation Implementation Kit on Nuclear Security can help States develop a more comprehensive national legislation on nuclear security in accordance with their own respective internal legal processes. It can provide States with references to a wide array of consolidated elements and provisions from different nuclear security conventions/treaties, as well as international legal instruments and frameworks. The action to create a single and friendly reference kit shall involve all international organizations relevant to nuclear security, with the IAEA coordinating the task.
After the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit, States supporting this initiative will continue to backstop and encourage the IAEA and other relevant international organizations to explore concrete ways forward to draw up the national legislation implementation kit, particularly after the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit.
President Obama Announces Another Key Administration Post
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:
James C. Miller, III – Governor, Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service
President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:
James C. Miller, III, Nominee for Governor, Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service
James C. Miller, III is a Senior Advisor at the international law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. Mr. Miller previously served as a member of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service from 2003 to 2011. He was Chairman of the Board from 2005 to 2008, as well as Chairman of the Audit and Finance Committee and a member of the Governance and Strategic Planning Committee. Earlier in his career, he was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 1985 to 1988, and the first Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Mr. Miller served as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission from 1981 to 1985. He is a member of the Board of Americans for Prosperity and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University. Mr. Miller received his B.B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:
James C. Miller, III – Governor, Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service
President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:
James C. Miller, III, Nominee for Governor, Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service
James C. Miller, III is a Senior Advisor at the international law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. Mr. Miller previously served as a member of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service from 2003 to 2011. He was Chairman of the Board from 2005 to 2008, as well as Chairman of the Audit and Finance Committee and a member of the Governance and Strategic Planning Committee. Earlier in his career, he was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 1985 to 1988, and the first Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Mr. Miller served as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission from 1981 to 1985. He is a member of the Board of Americans for Prosperity and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University. Mr. Miller received his B.B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.
Bush tax cuts Rubio Charlie Crist Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office
Nuclear Security Summit, Seoul, March 2012: Multinational Statement on Nuclear Information Security
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
1. In the principal communiqué here at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, all participants reaffirm their commitment to the security of nuclear information as follows:
We recognize the importance of preventing non-state actors from obtaining information, technology or expertise required to acquire or use nuclear materials for malicious purposes, or to disrupt information technology based control systems at nuclear facilities. We therefore encourage States to: continue to develop and strengthen national and facility-level measures for the effective management of such information, including information on the procedures and protocols to protect nuclear materials and facilities; to support relevant capacity building projects; and to enhance cyber security measures concerning nuclear facilities, consistent with the IAEA General Conference Resolution on Nuclear Security (GC(55)/Res/10) and bearing in mind the International Telecommunication Union Resolution 174. We also encourage States to: promote a security culture that emphasizes the need to protect nuclear security related information; engage with scientific, industrial and academic communities in the pursuit of common solutions; and support the IAEA in producing and disseminating improved guidance on protecting information.
2. Without prejudice to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, we the parties to this additional statement on nuclear information security, declare our further commitment to:
a. Developing and strengthening our national measures, arrangements and capacity for the effective management and security of such information;
b. Enhancing our related national security culture;
c. Engaging with our national scientific, industrial and academic communities to further raise awareness, develop and disseminate best practice, and increase professional standards;
d. Supporting, drawing on and collaborating with the IAEA, other key international organizations and partner countries to facilitate mutual achievement of these aims.
3. In particular we commit to action including some or all of the following, as appropriate to our national contexts, standards and frameworks:
Conduct of a national assurance exercise to help identify strengths and areas for development in the current practice of information security;
Development and/or optimization of a set of national guidance and grading systems for nuclear information security, including on what information can be publicly disclosed;
Implementation into national practice of the IAEA’s guidance on Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities and its expected improved guidance on the Protection and Confidentiality of Nuclear Information;
Full national implementation of information security-related elements of international instruments such as UNSCRs 1540 and 1887 and, as appropriate, of export control regimes that assist in regulating material and technology transfers;
Recognition of the important role of industry in promoting and exchanging best practice as appropriate, including the promotion of the reflection in to national practice of best practice guides related to nuclear security culture and communicating nuclear security information;
Promotion of the reflection in to national practice of international standards related to information security and cyber security, such as those produced by the International Organisation for Standardisation and the International Telecommunication Union;
Further development of national expertise and skill levels in the practice of nuclear security, including information security, by drawing on the increasing opportunities offered by the IAEA’s International Nuclear Security Education Network and other international organizations;
Further improvement of security culture and information security practice through training or other professional development activities provided via existing or planned national and regional Nuclear Security Support Centres/Centres of Excellence;
Development and implementation of national legislation and/or regulation as necessary to ensure that all nuclear industry staff are vetted for security purposes to a high standard;
Specific provision in training or other professional development activities for raising awareness and skill levels among industrial security practitioners to reduce potential risk from the ‘insider threat’;
Encouragement and facilitation of the elaboration and implementation of ethical codes or other self-governance pledges on information security within the nuclear scientific and academic communities, including those working in dual-use areas;
Development of government processes to monitor and control the export of nuclear information, knowledge and expertise from academic institutions, in line with international obligations as appropriate;
Encouragement of the formation of professional communities of interest to facilitate further outreach, discussion, promotion and research of best practice in information security.
Nuclear Security Summit, Seoul, March 2012
Multinational statement on Nuclear Information Security
Parties to the Statement
Algeria
Australia
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Hungary
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Republic of Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Thailand
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Viet Nam
31 in total
For Immediate Release
1. In the principal communiqué here at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, all participants reaffirm their commitment to the security of nuclear information as follows:
We recognize the importance of preventing non-state actors from obtaining information, technology or expertise required to acquire or use nuclear materials for malicious purposes, or to disrupt information technology based control systems at nuclear facilities. We therefore encourage States to: continue to develop and strengthen national and facility-level measures for the effective management of such information, including information on the procedures and protocols to protect nuclear materials and facilities; to support relevant capacity building projects; and to enhance cyber security measures concerning nuclear facilities, consistent with the IAEA General Conference Resolution on Nuclear Security (GC(55)/Res/10) and bearing in mind the International Telecommunication Union Resolution 174. We also encourage States to: promote a security culture that emphasizes the need to protect nuclear security related information; engage with scientific, industrial and academic communities in the pursuit of common solutions; and support the IAEA in producing and disseminating improved guidance on protecting information.
2. Without prejudice to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, we the parties to this additional statement on nuclear information security, declare our further commitment to:
a. Developing and strengthening our national measures, arrangements and capacity for the effective management and security of such information;
b. Enhancing our related national security culture;
c. Engaging with our national scientific, industrial and academic communities to further raise awareness, develop and disseminate best practice, and increase professional standards;
d. Supporting, drawing on and collaborating with the IAEA, other key international organizations and partner countries to facilitate mutual achievement of these aims.
3. In particular we commit to action including some or all of the following, as appropriate to our national contexts, standards and frameworks:
Conduct of a national assurance exercise to help identify strengths and areas for development in the current practice of information security;
Development and/or optimization of a set of national guidance and grading systems for nuclear information security, including on what information can be publicly disclosed;
Implementation into national practice of the IAEA’s guidance on Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities and its expected improved guidance on the Protection and Confidentiality of Nuclear Information;
Full national implementation of information security-related elements of international instruments such as UNSCRs 1540 and 1887 and, as appropriate, of export control regimes that assist in regulating material and technology transfers;
Recognition of the important role of industry in promoting and exchanging best practice as appropriate, including the promotion of the reflection in to national practice of best practice guides related to nuclear security culture and communicating nuclear security information;
Promotion of the reflection in to national practice of international standards related to information security and cyber security, such as those produced by the International Organisation for Standardisation and the International Telecommunication Union;
Further development of national expertise and skill levels in the practice of nuclear security, including information security, by drawing on the increasing opportunities offered by the IAEA’s International Nuclear Security Education Network and other international organizations;
Further improvement of security culture and information security practice through training or other professional development activities provided via existing or planned national and regional Nuclear Security Support Centres/Centres of Excellence;
Development and implementation of national legislation and/or regulation as necessary to ensure that all nuclear industry staff are vetted for security purposes to a high standard;
Specific provision in training or other professional development activities for raising awareness and skill levels among industrial security practitioners to reduce potential risk from the ‘insider threat’;
Encouragement and facilitation of the elaboration and implementation of ethical codes or other self-governance pledges on information security within the nuclear scientific and academic communities, including those working in dual-use areas;
Development of government processes to monitor and control the export of nuclear information, knowledge and expertise from academic institutions, in line with international obligations as appropriate;
Encouragement of the formation of professional communities of interest to facilitate further outreach, discussion, promotion and research of best practice in information security.
Nuclear Security Summit, Seoul, March 2012
Multinational statement on Nuclear Information Security
Parties to the Statement
Algeria
Australia
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Hungary
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Republic of Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Thailand
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Viet Nam
31 in total
Connections Between Media Depictions of Black Men and Boys and Lower Life Chances
While there has been significant improvement in racial attitudes in the past half-century, the tragic death of�Trayvon Martin suggests that stereotypes and bias against African Americans, especially males, still persist.�The Opportunity Agenda?s new report, "Opportunity for Black Men and Boys: Public Opinion, Media Depictions, and Media Consumption," lays out evidence that African-American men and boys are grossly overrepresented in depictions of criminality and violence in the media, as compared to documented reality. These false portrayals, reasearch proves, can lead to distorted and negative perceptions as well as discriminatory treatment against African Americans.
Scholars have long documented that there is a correlation between media depictions, audiences' attitudes, and real life action. In the case of African American men and boys, extensive media audits conducted by scholars and researchers over the years show that the overall presentation of black men and boys in the media is a distortion of reality in a variety of ways, including that they:
are underrepresented, including as ?talking heads? or as users of computers,
are overrepresented in certain negative depictions, such as criminality or� unemployment,
are limited in their positive depictions and especially to sports or entertainment,
are overly associated with seemingly intractable problems,
have important dimensions of their lives largely ignored, such as fatherhood or work lives.
Social science research has long documented that people's conscious and unconscious attitudes are shaped, at least in part, by what people take in from the media, including news reporting, entertainment, video games, and advertising. With respect to distorted media images of black men and boys, the consequences are far reaching and can result in:
exaggerated views related to criminality and violence,
public support for punitive approaches to problems,
general antagonism toward black males, and
exaggerated views, expectations, and tolerance for race-based socio-economic disparities.
Perceptions are important because they determine, in part, people's decisions and actions. Consequently, attitudes and biases against black men and boys can negatively affect them every time their fate depends on how they are perceived by others. Examples of real world impact, documented in the literature, include:
a higher likelihood of being shot by police,
harsher sentencing by judges,
lower likelihood of being hired or admitted to school, and
lower odds of getting loans.
The report points to ways in which advocates, media makers, and others can redress this stereotyping and improve life chances for black men and boys. Donwload the report�here.�
�
�
Scholars have long documented that there is a correlation between media depictions, audiences' attitudes, and real life action. In the case of African American men and boys, extensive media audits conducted by scholars and researchers over the years show that the overall presentation of black men and boys in the media is a distortion of reality in a variety of ways, including that they:
are underrepresented, including as ?talking heads? or as users of computers,
are overrepresented in certain negative depictions, such as criminality or� unemployment,
are limited in their positive depictions and especially to sports or entertainment,
are overly associated with seemingly intractable problems,
have important dimensions of their lives largely ignored, such as fatherhood or work lives.
Social science research has long documented that people's conscious and unconscious attitudes are shaped, at least in part, by what people take in from the media, including news reporting, entertainment, video games, and advertising. With respect to distorted media images of black men and boys, the consequences are far reaching and can result in:
exaggerated views related to criminality and violence,
public support for punitive approaches to problems,
general antagonism toward black males, and
exaggerated views, expectations, and tolerance for race-based socio-economic disparities.
Perceptions are important because they determine, in part, people's decisions and actions. Consequently, attitudes and biases against black men and boys can negatively affect them every time their fate depends on how they are perceived by others. Examples of real world impact, documented in the literature, include:
a higher likelihood of being shot by police,
harsher sentencing by judges,
lower likelihood of being hired or admitted to school, and
lower odds of getting loans.
The report points to ways in which advocates, media makers, and others can redress this stereotyping and improve life chances for black men and boys. Donwload the report�here.�
�
�
bill clinton Juan Williams racial controversy U.S. banks Charlie Rangel
Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 3/28/2012
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Location:
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:25 P.M. EDT
MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. It's nice to see you all. I don’t know if there's anybody who made the trek back from Seoul and showed up -- oh, there's one in the back.
Q Just for you, Josh.
MR. EARNEST: I think in your -- I appreciate that. I take that as a compliment. I think on your body clock it's probably like 4 in the morning, so good evening to you. (Laughter.) Good afternoon to the rest of you.
Before we get started, I do have a brief announcement. The President will sign both the Stock Act and the startup bill at separate signing ceremonies here at the White House next week. We'll have more details on timing and logistics around those ceremonies in the coming days, but you should know that the bipartisan members who played a role in getting these bills to the President's desk will be invited to attend the ceremonies. So that's something to look forward to. There's a week ahead on Wednesday, so take the early thing there.
And with that, Ken, do you want to get us started?
Q Sure. Josh, there's been a lot of focus on the health care arguments before the Supreme Court the last few days. Is the administration concerned that the entire health care law may be in jeopardy, and, more specifically, the individual mandate portion of the law?
MR. EARNEST: Ken, I can tell you that the administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. One of the reasons for that is because the individual provision -- individual responsibility provision that you cite was originally a Republican idea.
This is a novel, policy solution that was conceived of by the Heritage Foundation, was promoted by conservative Republicans in Washington D.C. as a solution to difficult health care challenges, and it was an idea that was put forward as the central part of the plan that was advanced by the Republican governor of Massachusetts, who put in place his own health care reform proposal. So the Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan, and it's one that we believe is constitutional.
Q Does the White House think, though, that some of the questions that were raised in the oral argument could be indicative of where the justices are leaning in this?
MR. EARNEST: No. Anybody who has -- believes that you can try to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case based solely on the questions of the justices is not a very good student of the Supreme Court. In fact, there have been lower court cases on this very issue, on the Affordable Care Act, where conservative judges have posed difficult, tough questions to Department of Justice lawyers. And at least in a couple of those cases, these conservative judges, despite their tough questions, ended up ruling -- ended up upholding the Affordable Care Act. So I’m referring of course to Judges Sutton and Silberman.
So I would caution against anyone to try to make predictions about the outcome of this case based solely on the tenor of the questions.
Q And just a separate topic -- oil prices are down about 2 percent today amid reports that there may be a release of oil reserves. France’s government said that the U.S. asked it to consider releasing oil from its strategic reserves. I’m wondering if you could comment on that report, and whether there could be plans underway to release strategic reserves.
MR. EARNEST: I have seen those reports, Ken. I don’t have anything new for you, though. I mean, as we have said repeatedly, while this is an option that remains on the table, no decisions have been made and no specific actions have been proposed.
Q So is the administration saying that they have not contacted France about this?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any specific conversations to read out to you. I mean, it should be no surprise that on a whole range of energy issues -- I mean, this -- as we’ve gone through great pains to describe from this podium and from other places -- the challenges that are posed by the volatile gas prices is a global phenomenon. And so, it should be no surprise to you that the Obama administration, particularly folks at the State Department and others, have been in contact with their counterparts to talk about trying to address this challenge.
But as it relates to specific actions, I don’t have anything for you on that.
Jeff.
Q Thanks, Josh. I’d like to follow up on both of those topics.
MR. EARNEST: Okay.
Q I’ll start with energy. Without confirming your talks with France, Germany also responded to these reports today and said that they don’t think it is appropriate or that the conditions are there for a strategic oil release. Is that a concern to the administration as you’re pursuing these options?
MR. EARNEST: It’s not. As I mentioned, we are coordinating with our partners around the globe to confront the global phenomenon that is the volatility in the energy markets right now. But I don’t have anything -- any specific guidance for you on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve other than to tell you something that we’ve said many times, which is that it’s an option on the table.
But anybody who tries to convince you -- in this government or any other government, frankly -- that specific decisions have been made or actions have been proposed is not speaking accurately.
Q But even if decisions haven’t been made, clearly if it’s an option on the table you need to build up some support for it. And it doesn’t look like you have enough support, at least from some countries, to make it a viable option.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I’m not in a position, from this podium, to read out the details of the kinds of conversations that we’re having on this particular topic.
Q One follow up on health care. James Carville said yesterday that if the court did strike down the law, that that would politically actually be a winner for Democrats going into the election. Do you share that assessment?
MR. EARNEST: Mr. Carville has the freedom to make those kinds of political assessments from television studios and from other places. And there are many other people in Washington, D.C. who also avail themselves to the opportunity to draw some political connections. I’m not in a position to do that from here.
The policy that Mr. Verrilli has been defending before the Supreme Court is a policy -- is a bill, the Affordable Care Act, that was passed by a majority of the House, that was passed by a majority of the Senate, and was signed into law by the President of the United States. And there are people all across the country who are enjoying the benefits of that legislation’s passage already.
There are 2.5 million young adults who have health insurance on their parents’ plan because of the Affordable Care Act. There are 5.1 million seniors on Medicare who have saved more than $3 billion on their prescription drug costs. We are already seeing consumer protections being put in place that will reign in the power and the authority of insurance companies to take advantage of patients.
What we’re focused on are the benefits of this piece of legislation and implementing this bill -- all the provisions of this bill -- so that we can maximize for the American people the benefits of this piece of legislation. There are plenty of people who are willing to talk about the politics. What we’re focused on is putting in place a policy that’s going to have a tangible difference in the lives of people all across the country.
Jessica.
Q This morning, the White House Counsel put out a statement describing Solicitor General Verrilli as “extraordinarily talented advocate who ably and skillfully represented the U.S. before the court.” Why did the White House feel the need to put out a statement defending the Solicitor General?
MR. EARNEST: Because somebody asked. I would point out that --
Q You don’t always put out statements to everything -- in response to everything we ask. (Laughter.) You'd be very busy.
MR. EARNEST: You’re asking me now. I would point out that -- as I was thinking about getting this question today -- that it is a little bit ironic that you’re asking somebody who is standing behind a podium answering tough questions from people on the record about the performance of somebody else who is standing behind a podium asking tough questions on the record on a difficult issue.
What I can tell you is, is that staff at the White House agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments that were described by Ms. Ruemmler today. Mr. Verrilli is a very talented advocate and a skilled lawyer; he's one of the brightest legal minds in Washington D.C. And we've had complete confidence in his performance before the Supreme Court.
Q Has the President listened to any of the audio from the Supreme Court proceedings, and does he feel like he has the best person representing this case?
MR. EARNEST: As you know, the President was on a plane most of the day yesterday coming back from Seoul. So I don’t know whether or not he has listened to the actual audio recordings of the case. He has been kept apprised of the case by reading news reports and by talking to his staff.
And I think that the takeaway from the arguments of the last couple of days, that many of us at the White House here have concluded, is that Mr. Verrilli isn't just an effective advocate for the Obama administration, but he's also an effective advocate for the 5.1 million seniors that have saved $3.1, $3.2 billion in their prescription drug costs. He's somebody who isn't an advocate for the government; he's an advocate for the 54 million Americans who have enjoyed free preventative care through their private insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.
This is the reason that the President worked so hard to pass health care reform by working with Congress to pass it through the House, to pass it through the Senate. And these are the principles that we're focused on as we implement the bill moving forward.
Q Can I ask a quick one on Syria?
MR. EARNEST: Sure.
Q The Syrians have agreed to Kofi Annan's peace plan. I'm wondering if in any way this deters the -- if this encourages the White House or changes the President's view that Assad must go.
MR. EARNEST: It does not change that view. We've heard promises from the Assad regime before. And we will judge the Assad regime on their actions, not on their comments.
Ann.
Q Thanks, Josh. Maybe you can answer some of the questions that Mr. Verrilli didn’t seem to be able to satisfy the justices with yesterday. Is health care so special that requiring people to buy health insurance is a good idea? Is there anything this administration would ask Americans to buy, from cell phones to broccoli?
MR. EARNEST: I'm not going to weigh in from here, Ann. Mr. Verrilli is a very skilled advocate. I assume that -- he certainly is one of the brightest legal minds in Washington D.C. I assume he did very well in law school; I didn’t even do very well on the LSAT. (Laughter.) So I wouldn’t want to put up my legal analysis against his, frankly because I think that he did an extraordinarily good job of representing the opinion of the government on that issue.
Q Then why, then, the President has this confidence that the entire law and the mandate will be upheld?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think I referred to it in my earlier answer to Ken's question, which is that this is originally a Republican idea. Republicans, at one point in time, certainly thought the individual response --
Q But why -- so it's a Republican idea. But why does that remain to get constitutional?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think I'm merely citing that there are plenty of Republicans who at least one point in their career advocated this decision. I assume that one of the reasons they did that was because they thought it was a constitutional decision, or a constitutional way to lower costs and to expand access to health insurance for people all across the country. That is what this has achieved.
And again, I would caution you and others about interpreting, or assuming that they can predict the outcome in this case based solely on the tenor of the questions from the justices on the Supreme Court. That’s not a -- that’s a risky path to go down, if you're placing bets.
Q Does that mean there's still no work here on what if, if the mandate would be overturned?
MR. EARNEST: That’s correct. We're focused on implementing the bill -- and all of the provisions of the bill -- so that we can make sure that we maximize the benefits on behalf of the American people.
Let me move around a little bit. Christi.
Q Josh, thank you. Does the President view Russia as the big geopolitical foe to the U.S.?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Christi, you don’t have to be a foreign policy expert to know that the Cold War ended 20 years ago, and that the greatest threat that the President has been fighting on behalf of the American people is the threat posed by al Qaeda.
There are also significant threats that are posed by nations like Iran and North Korea that have failed to live up to their international obligations when it comes to nuclear weapons. And the irony is, is that Russia -- particularly in the cases of North Korea and Iran -- have worked very well with the international community to isolate those two regimes and to seek a diplomatic solution to hold those two regimes accountable for living up to their international obligations.
Q So who does the U.S. view as a geopolitical foe then?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think the one that I cited was al Qaeda. Certainly the President has been focused on disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but all across the globe. And certainly our men and women in uniform have been on the front lines of that effort, and many of them have borne a significant burden in the progress that we've made on that front.
Certainly the threat that’s posed by Iran and North Korea -- their unwillingness to live up to international obligations when it comes to nuclear weapons. That’s why the President has worked aggressively with our international partners, with people all across -- with countries all around the globe to isolate those regimes, to hold them accountable for flouting their international obligations, and to seek a diplomatic path to resolving those differences of opinion.
Q Was the President surprised to hear Speaker Boehner say that you shouldn’t -- people shouldn’t criticize the President when he's traveling overseas? What did he think of that remark?
MR. EARNEST: Because I didn’t travel with him to Seoul, I don’t know when he found out about that remark. I know that he was very focused on the work that he was doing in Seoul. So I'm not sure that I can gauge his reaction to those comments.
Cheryl.
Q Thanks, Josh. Is the White House at all concerned about the difficulties in Congress right now with the highway bill? And does it support a 60-day extension, which has been proposed today, for funding?
MR. EARNEST: Well, what I can tell you, Cheryl, is that we have an opportunity to keep American workers in good jobs maintaining America's roads, bridges and railways, but we're waiting on Congress.
In a matter of days, construction sites will go idle, workers will have to go home and our economy will take a hit. The Senate has done their part by passing a bill with strong bipartisan support, and now it's time for the House to follow suit. They should put the country -- the interests of the country before the interests of their party and pass a bipartisan bill to keep American workers on the job.
The President talked about this a little bit in the weekly address last week, as well. And so it's our view that the House should act quickly to ensure that the bill doesn’t expire, and to ensure that workers can stay on the job. And they should be able to act in bipartisan fashion to get that done.
Q Is a 60-day extension okay? Because it runs out at the end of the week and if they're --
MR. EARNEST: Well, what we've -- as I said in the statement, what we'd like to see the House do is to pass a bipartisan bill.
Roger.
Q Thank you. Back to oil -- were the talks with the French folks today, were they related to easing gasoline prices worldwide and in the U.S.? Or were they more aimed at the coming Iranian sanctions?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any specific conversations to read out to you, with the French government or any other government at this point.
Q Well, can you -- were they related to the Iranian sanctions?
MR. EARNEST: I'm not able -- I don’t have any conversations to read out to you.
Q Walk me through, more generally, what needs to happen before the oil is released.
MR. EARNEST: Well, my understanding is that the Department of Energy is the one that’s responsible for managing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And so in terms of the mechanics of that, I'd refer your questions to them.
Q Okay, but you're holding talks with foreign -- leaders in foreign capitals and stuff. So that’s got to come through first.
MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I don’t have any specific conversations to read out to you.
As I pointed out, we are constantly in contact with countries all around the world to try to confront the global phenomenon of volatile energy prices. But in terms of who we've been talking to or what kinds of conversations or what those conversations could lead to, I just don’t have any information for you right now.
Q I'll try one more. The President is supposed to be making a decision on sanctions on or around April 1, depending on supplies. Today, the DOE reported oil inventories were the highest in 20 months. Does that accelerate the prospects of a release?
MR. EARNEST: I'll have to take that question for you. I’m not sure of -- again, the mechanics of this decision -- if it were a decision that were to be made -- are something that I’m not steeped in. The Department of Energy may be able to shed some more light on if that’s a decision that’s made, how that would be effectuated.
Laura.
Q Thanks. Following up on one of Ann’s questions, are you saying that there are no conversations in the White House about what you would do if this law were fully or partly overturned?
MR. EARNEST: What I’m saying is that we believe the law is constitutional, and that we are focused on implementing all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Q Well, then, let me ask, are there any conversations going on? I mean, I understand you’re focused on that. But, I mean, I think the question that she was getting at and that I’d like to get at is, are you also doing a little bit of contingency planning just in case?
MR. EARNEST: We’re not, no.
Q Either on the policy side or on the political messaging side?
MR. EARNEST: That’s correct. We’re confident that the legislation is constitutional. We are focused on implementing all the provisions of the law, as I’ve described, because they’re important benefits that will be realized by the American public. That’s where our focus is.
If there’s a reason or a need for us to consider some contingencies down the line, then we’ll do it then. But, as I said, it’s foolhardy to try to predict the outcome of this decision based solely on the questions of the judges. I’m certainly not going to do that from here. But we’re going to stay focused on what we believe is most important, which is implementing this law in a way that maximizes the benefit to the American people.
Q But you’re not going to have any better indication between now and June as to where this comes out. So then, if it were to go the other way in June, you’re saying the White House would be basically starting from essentially square one in figuring out how to deal with it, if it goes the other way?
MR. EARNEST: Well, when you say, “it goes the other way,” it’s difficult to determine exactly what you mean.
Q I mean, if the mandate were overturned.
MR. EARNEST: Because there are a lot of different ways in which they could rule on this front, right? There are a lot of different things that they could find one way or the other. We remain confident that they’re going to find the entire thing constitutional. And so we’re focused on doing -- controlling what we control, which is implementing the Affordable Care Act in a way that promptly and efficiently maximizes the benefit for the American people.
Q I’m sure you understood my question, but I’ll ask it again just to make sure -- (laughter) -- one hundred percent sure, which is that --
MR. EARNEST: I’m not sure that I do. You maybe give me a little too much credit.
Q I know you. If the mandate was overturned -- which is the heart of the law -- or if the full law were overturned, in either of those circumstances are you saying that you’re not really worried about either one of those things, and, therefore, if it happens you’ll worry about it then?
MR. EARNEST: I can tell you that there is no contingency plan that’s in place. We’re focused on implementing the law. And we are confident that the law is constitutional.
Q Wouldn’t it be responsible to be ready though in case something happens? I mean, this is a real possibility. Even your supporters on the Hill are saying it’s possible.
MR. EARNEST: What we’re focused on, Ed, is we’re focused on maximizing the benefits of this law. And that is a function of controlling what we can control.
We put forward a talented advocate to stand before the Supreme Court and make the legal justification for why we believe the law is constitutional. He delivered a persuasive case. And we’re going to go back to the work that we’ve been focused on from the beginning, which is implementing this law in a way that maximizes the benefits of all the provisions.
Q When you say a “talented advocated” and “made a persuasive case,” how does that square with the audio of the Solicitor General coughing and stammering and seeming to struggle answering questions?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Ed, I know you’re a bit of a college basketball fan. And I know that there have been a lot of people who have had a lot of commentary about the Solicitor General’s performance. I’m looking forward to tuning in to the semifinal games this weekend; I assume that you are too. And when we tune in, we’re going to hear Clark Kellogg sitting on the sidelines delivering some color commentary of the game. I’m sure it will be analytical, I’m sure it will be insightful, It will probably be entertaining. But it’s not going to change the outcome.
Q Okay, a fair point. But it’s not just the commentary or the pundits. It’s the actual audio that people are hearing -- even you can hear it. Have people in the White House listened to him stammering, struggling? It’s not punditry. It’s actual listening to the audio. And to Jessica’s question earlier, you don’t respond to every question we have.
MR. EARNEST: I do my best.
Q No, no, and you guys pride yourself on saying, we don’t listen to the cable chatter out there.
MR. EARNEST: That’s true.
Q Well, there was cable chatter yesterday saying that he bombed. And you felt compelled to say, well, no, he did a great job. Aren't you on the defensive about that? Did you feel pressure to defend him?
MR. EARNEST: Not at all. What Mr. Verrilli delivered was a very solid performance before the Supreme Court. That’s just a fact. If there are questions about that, I’m happy to answer those questions. We feel good about his performance. And, like I said, there are a lot of people who are going to sit on the sidelines and weigh in with their commentary and probably try to assign style points to one advocate or the other.
What we’re confident in is we’re confident that this is a law that when you examine the constitutional ramifications of implementing the law, that you’ll find that the law is constitutional.
Q Last thing on the Trayvon Martin case -- since the President spoke out about it late last week, as you know, new facts have emerged in the case. They are still just allegations; nobody really knows exactly what happened, law enforcement is investigating. But in light of the new facts emerging, does the President have any regret about speaking out on it before that investigation is done?
MR. EARNEST: What I can tell you, Ed, is that the President began his comments in the Rose Garden on Friday by talking about the fact that he didn’t want to influence an investigation that he felt was important be conducted. He didn’t want to influence an investigation that he thought was important to conduct. And that’s how he began his remarks.
The remarks that he delivered were a sign of his own reflection and the way that he was personally impacted by the tragic death of this young man. And we'll let -- I don’t want to weigh in any further because, as the President has said, there should be an investigation here and there’s one that’s ongoing that’s being conducted by local law enforcement. I understand there is a state commission that’s involved, and I know that there is some level of Department of Justice involvement as well. And those investigations should proceed.
Mr. Vicara.
Q You’re not planning for a contingency if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA. Is that because we go back to the status quo ante state of health care in this country as it was two years prior to last Thursday? No need for a contingency -- status quo ante, right? What contingency could there be in the absence of a law that’s been passed and signed but now struck down by the Supreme Court?
MR. EARNEST: Well, what I can tell you is that there are Republicans, there are critics of this law who are advocating for going back to the status quo. We will have an opportunity to have a political debate about that. The President believes that the reforms that have been put in place are really important. They’ve already yielded significant benefits -- I’ve recited them a couple of times, I’ll spare you this time.
But there will be a robust debate between the President’s record on health care reform and the critics who think that we should go back to a system in which insurance companies wield outsized power and can put lifetime caps on your benefits or can kick you off your health insurance coverage if you get sick, or can discriminate against you if you have a preexisting condition. The President doesn’t believe that we should go back to the status quo.
Q You say there’s no contingency plan, but obviously you’re arguing on the severability on the third day today before the Supreme Court, the government is arguing that if in fact the mandate is struck down, it should not mean that the entire law comes down. So clearly, there’s a contingency in that respect, right? I mean, this is your belief that if the mandate is struck down, the law itself survives.
MR. EARNEST: I’m not in a position from here to comment on the specific legal arguments that were made before the Supreme Court.
Q But that’s the official position of the government, of the administration.
MR. EARNEST: It sounds like -- the way that you’ve described it does reflect the position that was argued. But what’s your question?
Q Well, I’m just trying to get at this question. I mean, there are in fact contingency plans, right? I mean, if the mandate is struck down, that’s a contingency.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I was asked about contingency planning; I said that there is no contingency planning going on. We remain fully confident in the belief that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
Yes, Alexis.
Q Josh, I’m still confused about this, because in answer to Laura’s question you said that -- your sentence was, "the Supreme Court could decide in a lot of different ways, even if the administration is confident." So it would seem -- I’m just confused about why it’s difficult to say that the administration would have plans to address if the administration is wrong. Because as head of government, the President does planning for all sorts of things; whether he is using Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or the debt ceiling fight. He is always planning if something goes awry. That’s all we’re asking.
So can you just address what would be the process even if he is confident?
MR. EARNEST: Well, mostly -- the reasons I don’t want to go down that road are numerous. The first is because we remain committed to the belief and are confident in the belief that the law is constitutional. The second is I don’t want to put myself in a position that many pundits have unwisely put themselves in, which is to try to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court, to try to predict what they’re going to rule months from now. I’m not going to put myself in that position.
What we are focused on doing -- that was the question I was asked, what kind of contingency planning is in place. And what we’re focused on is we’re focused on implementing all the provisions of the law.
Q Right, but if --
MR. EARNEST: And if something changes, then we’ll confront it. But what we’re doing right now is we’re focused on implementing all the provisions of the law to maximize the benefits of that law for the American people.
Q But do you also think through, as the head of government, what the President and the Executive Branch would need to do if something went in a different direction? You can do that at the same time as you’re working on the implementation. That’s all we’re asking. Wouldn’t it be responsible if, 12 weeks from now -- you just already talked about all the people who are already receiving benefits -- wouldn’t it be responsible to be thinking through around the corner, what if, what if, what if?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I’m not in a position to sort of speculate about the thoughts of all the people that work at the White House and all the people that work at the Department of Health and Human Services. But what I can speculate about and what I can tell you about is what the focus of our planning is on. And the focus of our planning is on implementing all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, not on any sort of contingency plan.
April.
Q Does this administration feel it has time between now and June or July to figure out other possibilities for outcomes, as it relates to what’s happening at the Supreme Court?
MR. EARNEST: No. It’s our view, as I’ve said a couple of times now, that trying to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case based solely on the questioning of the Justices is a fool’s errand.
And again, people who tried to do this when they were looking at lower court cases -- lower courts who heard the Affordable Care Act -- there were a couple of judges, who were conservative judges, who were appointed by Republican Presidents who asked very difficult, tough questions of Department of Justice lawyers. And based on the answers that those lawyers gave, and based on a careful review of the facts, those conservative judges actually ruled to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
Q Okay.
MR. EARNEST: So I don't want to be in a position of trying to predict who is going to end up where and what the final conclusion is going to be.
Q Josh, okay.
MR. EARNEST: What we’re focused on doing is controlling what it is that we can control. And we can control that by standing up for, and putting in place, and preparing an advocate to defend the constitutionality of the law before the Supreme Court -- that's something the Justice Department has done. And the Department of Health and Human Services is going to be focused on implementing the law in a way that maximizes the benefits of the law for people all across the country.
Q Okay, okay. You have 12 weeks -- and I’m just going to put it out there now -- 12 weeks between now and the time -- the end of this session of the Supreme Court where they will make a decision. I’ve been here long enough to know that there’s always a contingency plan from A to even possibly Z of whatever happens. You need to tell us affirmatively right now that there is nothing that you might be waiting between and those 12 weeks to figure out, what you’re feeling from whatever you’re feeling around town or hearing from around town, and then making a decision then. Are you going to tell me you're not -- you don't have anything in the works of the possibilities down the road when you’re closer to the time?
MR. EARNEST: Well, we’re not making any planning based on things that we’re hearing around town. We’re making planning based on a law that was passed by a majority of the House of Representatives, that was passed by a majority of the United States Senate, and was signed into law by the President of the United States.
This is a law that has yielded significant benefits for the American people. This is a law that says insurance companies can't kick you off your insurance coverage just because you get sick. There are kids right now who have health insurance coverage, even though they have a pre-existing condition because of the Affordable Care Act. The benefits of this law are what we’re focused on. Trying to guess the outcome of the Supreme Court decision based solely on the questions of the Supreme Court Justices is not something that we’re spending a second doing.
Q And one back on Verrilli -- you say he’s talented -- and then going back to some of what Ed and Jessica had to say. Listening to the tape -- to include the broccoli comment, the analysis of broccoli -- many people, critics are out here just lambasting him. Has the President or anyone from the White House, high-ranking official, called him to say good job, job well done, after all of these critics have come out against him?
MR. EARNEST: I can't speak to all the emails and phone calls that have -- that may have taken place between -- that emanate from this building.
But I can tell that -- to go back to my Clark Kellogg analogy that Ed and I were discussing just a few minutes ago -- one of the reasons that Mr. Kellogg sits on the sidelines and was hired by CBS for this job is because he was a stand-out performer at Ohio State; was drafted in the first round, by the Indiana Pacers. He knows something about basketball. He didn't just write a book about it.
Q But even before you come out, there’s preparation. He stood there -- again, he did not sound like someone standing before the U.S. Supreme Court to stand up for something that is a historic piece of law. He did not sound like someone who knew the ramifications, the significance of what he was standing up for.
MR. EARNEST: On this point, April, you and I may just have to agree to disagree.
Scott.
Q Thanks, Josh. Has the President gotten a specific briefing on -- an assessment of how these arguments have gone from someone from the General Counsel’s Office, from the Justice Department, from the Solicitor General’s Office, specifically dedicated to how this went, not predictions necessarily on where it’s heading? Or will he sort of rely on his own expertise in constitutional law to determine for himself how he thinks they went?
MR. EARNEST: Well, he’s both reading the news coverage of the arguments, but he’s also received briefing from the staff here to keep him up to date on the arguments.
Q Specifically on the arguments?
MR. EARNEST: Specifically on the arguments. That's correct. Okay?
Mara?
Q You earlier called the mandate the individual responsibility provision, and I have heard it referred that way just recently by other people at the White House and in the campaign. It seems very new. And I’m wondering -- I’ve never heard the President refer to it that way; I’ve never heard him call it the anti-free-rider tax. I’m just wondering why you decided to start calling it that recently.
MR. EARNEST: I think I disagree with that notion.
Q That it's recent, you mean?
MR. EARNEST: Yes.
Q When did it start?
MR. EARNEST: We could go -- maybe we could go back to my office afterwards and start doing some Googling to figure it out.
Q But the President doesn't refer to it that way?
MR. EARNEST: I’m sorry?
Q The President doesn't refer to it that way.
MR. EARNEST: I’m not sure that's accurate.
Q He rarely talks about it at all I guess. (Laughter.) But I guess my second question would be, why, in these years where the right has been laying this intellectual groundwork and talking about broccoli and kind of forming the underpinnings for what’s happening now before the Court, why have you guys not talked about the mandate much and why it was -- it’s so important?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I -- I’m not sure I agree with that premise, either. I think that there has been a lot of time and energy -- and anybody who has spent, like you did -- covering the White House very closely in the first year, year and a half of this administration knows how much time and energy was spent into getting --
Q On health care in general.
MR. EARNEST: -- into making this law a reality, into making sure that we put in these kinds of consumer protections for families all across the country, and securing help for seniors who need help paying their prescription drug costs.
Q Absolutely. I’m talking about the mandate.
MR. EARNEST: There was a lot of effort that went into fashioning a health care reform law that would maximize the benefits for the American people.
Q Right. But what seems to -- where you seem to be at a disadvantage now is in the debate about why the mandate is so important to this and actually something that people should support.
MR. EARNEST: Well, there are two things about this. One is the individual responsibility provision was something that was conceived of by the Heritage Foundation. It was a provision that was aggressively advocated by conservative Republicans in Washington, D.C., and it was something that is -- that was central to the health care reform initiative that was put in place by the Republican governor of Massachusetts.
So it seems to me that there are probably plenty of Republicans that agree that this is a helpful solution to this policy challenge. And in terms of talking about the benefits of the health care reform law, we look forward to having that debate with the critics. That's something that we’re not going to shy away from.
The President has a record to stand on. The President has a record that includes 5 million seniors getting help affording their prescription drug coverage, saving them $3 billion a year. The President has a record of ensuring that 2.5 million young adults can get covered under their parents’ plan because of the Affordable Care Act. The President has a record that you can evaluate that has allowed 55 -- 54 million Americans to access free preventative coverage through their private insurance plans.
We’re happy to contrast that record with Republicans who say we should go back to the status quo; we should go back to a system that empowers insurance companies to kick you off your health care plan if you get sick; that empowers insurance companies to discriminate against you if you have a preexisting condition. That’s a debate that we’re happy to have.
Goyal.
Q Two questions.
MR. EARNEST: Yes.
Q As far as the President’s trip to South Korea is concerned, most of the major and small nuclear nations were there including India and Pakistan. One, the President met with Pakistan’s Prime Minister. If Pakistan is going to fully agree with the President of the United States, as far as terrorism or Afghanistan situation is concerned. And second, if the President feels that Pakistan nuclears are safe and in the good hands from the terrorism.
MR. EARNEST: Well, Goyal, I know that Mr. Rhodes read out the bilateral meeting that the President had with Prime Minister Gilani yesterday. I know that the President was pleased to have the opportunity to have that meeting, was pleased with the way that the discussions went. But for details I’d refer to that -- for a detailed readout of that meeting I’d refer you to that conference call.
On the issue of nuclear security, as you know, this has been an issue that’s been at the front of the President’s agenda since before he was even elected President. This is an issue that he worked on in the Senate; he delivered a high-profile speech on this issue in Prague in his first year in office, hosted a nuclear security summit here in Washington, D.C., and, of course, attended the summit in 2012 in Seoul, Korea where they announced a number of advances on this front.
So this is an issue that remains a national security priority of the President’s, and the President was pleased with the -- with some of the announcements that were made in the course of the summit earlier this week.
Q And second, as far as U.S.-India relations are concerned -- since Prime Minister of India was in South Korea -- if the President had on the sideline the economic conversations as far as the U.S.-India (inaudible) are concerned. Because today, you’ll see hundreds of thousands of U.S. cars on every road in India, including Ford now, as I said last week, is investing over $1 billion dollars there. And a lot of things are going on now between U.S. and India through trade and security and defense and a lot of issues. Where do we stand on those and many other issues today?
MR. EARNEST: Well, that’s probably a pretty broad question, Goyal. I’d refer you to the National Security Staff who can talk to you about -- these were issues that obviously the President spent a lot of time discussing during his visit to India about a year and a half ago. But in terms of an update on some of those issues, I’d encourage you to check with our National Security Staff on that front.
Q Thank you.
MR. EARNEST: Mike.
Q Thank you. I wanted to go back to the issue of the off-camera remark with Medvedev. There are those critics that have been suggesting that it might indicate a major compromise, perhaps even a capitulation, on missile defense. And some have gone a step further and suggested it may indicate an intention on the part of the President to lean his policies leftward if he were to win reelection. Can you address those two issues?
MR. EARNEST: Sure. Well, I think -- I probably will briefly, but I can tell you that the President himself addressed this issue pretty directly on Tuesday when he was in Seoul.
The fact of the matter is that the President’s reset policy with Russia has already been successful. I’d point you to the Russian support of the Nuclear Security Council resolutions that included the toughest sanctions ever on North Korea and Iran, our work together on the new START Treaty, and our work to open up the Northern Distribution Network to get critical supplies to troops in Afghanistan, just to name a few of the advances that we’ve made as it relates to our relationship with Russia.
When it comes to missile defense, the fact of the matter is that the President is building -- has advocated for and the United States is building a missile defense system in Europe that will ensure the safety of our allies in Europe, and, yes, ensure the safety of the United States. From the beginning, that missile defense system has been oriented to address threats from Iran and other places. It’s not something that’s been oriented toward Russia.
But there is some work to be done to reach an agreement with Russia. I think the President talked about the need for some of the technical advisors on either side to spend some time clearing out the underbrush of detailed, technical concerns that have been raised by one side or the other. And the President is hopeful that in the next year or two we can start to demonstrate some tangible progress in finding common ground on this missile defense system.
Q And on the angle of those that are suggesting that perhaps the President might lean his policies towards the left after the election, using that same analogy that he’ll have a freer hand.
MR. EARNEST: You mean outside of issues of foreign policy?
Q Exactly.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think the President -- those of you who have had the opportunity to hear the President speak either at some of the political events that he’s attended or even some of the official events where the President has talked about his vision for the future of this country, the President believes that we are at a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and that we need to put in place the kinds of economic policies that will support an economy that ensure everybody gets a fair shot, everybody gets a fair shake and everybody does their fair share.
That is the -- that is the foundation of the President’s vision for a second term. And that gives you a pretty good indication -- should give the American people a pretty a good indication -- about the direction that the President would go if he’s elected to a second term by the American people.
Yes.
Q Thanks, Josh. What’s your response to the Senate resolution proposed by Senator Lieberman and five Republicans calling on the administration to arm the Syrian rebels?
MR. EARNEST: I’m not familiar with the specific amendment that you’re referring to. I can tell you that in the past, we have said that further militarization of the challenges in Syria is not the wise course moving forward. But in terms of -- I’m not in a position, however, to react to that specific piece of legislation because it’s the first time I’m hearing of it.
In the back.
Q Thanks, Josh.
MR. EARNEST: You've traveled all the way from Seoul, here, so I should at least give you a chance to ask a question.
Q Circling back to the conversation with partners on the Strategic Reserve for the IEA. The French are talking about it, the Germans are talking about, two weeks ago after David Cameron was here there was a British official who seemed to be okay confirming that it was talked about. Why is it so important to this administration that that be a subject that is just never talked about except in the context of just saying, oh, it’s always on the topic of discussion?
MR. EARNEST: Well, frankly, because we don’t believe that it’s wise to speculate about it. We have confirmed for you, I’ve confirmed for you, others have confirmed for you -- repeatedly -- that it’s an option on the table. But there also is an attempt by some observers to suggest that there’s been a decision that’s been made or there’s been a specific action that’s been proposed. And that’s just not true.
Q But isn’t it inherent that this sort of decision takes weeks and months to even set up? So just setting up the dominos to try to create this decision seems to be already underway. I mean how come you can’t even just confirm that that’s the case?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I might be more sympathetic to your question if we were in a position where a decision had been made or a specific course of action had been adopted, but that’s just not the case. As I point out, we’re engaged in conversations with countries all around the world on a regular basis, dealing with this challenging issue. There are a lot of ways to do that.
Q There's even a turnkey framework that he put in place --
MR. EARNEST: If only it were that simple.
Q -- so that everything is set up so that all you’ve got to do is make the decision, though.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I recognize that there are a lot of people who want to speculate, and I think that your curiosity about private conversations that are taking place between officials in this government and officials in governments around the world on this issue I think is understandable. But at this point, I’m not in a position to shed any addition light on those topics for you.
Glenn.
Q Josh. The President is a constitutional lawyer. Has he been watching any of these -- not watching any of -- listening to the proceedings, any -- reading the transcripts? And if so, how does he, in general, think the Court itself has been acting? I mean, what does he think of the line of questioning?
MR. EARNEST: Well, to be candid with you, Glenn, the President has been in South Korea. So that probably has limited his ability to investigate this a little bit. But I know that --
Q They have wi-fi.
MR. EARNEST: -- he’s been -- I’m sorry?
Q You have access to wi-fi?
MR. EARNEST: I’m not -- well, I -- what I said before is that the President has been following the news coverage. The President has gotten a briefing from members of his staff on this -- on the arguments as they’ve been proceeding. The President is interested in the progress of the case, certainly because of his own intellectual experience and background but also because of the important benefits that this law includes.
The President worked very hard with Congress and with the Senate to get this passed, and there are enormous benefits that are very important to him personally. And so the President has -- as you would expect -- been following this case.
Q You said that because of your belief that this is inherently constitutional, that you haven't made contingency planning, or haven’t begun contingency planning. Does that assume on the other side that you think if the Supreme Court were to strike down all or part of this that they would be acting in an irresponsible or excessively activist fashion?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I don’t want to jump ahead to speculating about what they would be doing if they were to decide one way or the other. So I think we’re going to -- we used the first three days of this week as an administration to put Mr. Verrilli and others forward to make the best case for the Affordable Care Act. That best case has led us to conclude that it’s constitutional. The Supreme Court is a separate branch of government, and they will reach their own conclusions. We felt like we had a good case to make and we had somebody who made that good case for us.
Yes. Donovan.
Q You said that the President got a briefing on the case. I was wondering if you could tell me is that today? Is that every day? How many has there been, and is there reactions from the President to those briefings?
MR. EARNEST: I have not spoken to him today so I can’t give you any specific readout about his reaction to reading them. I don’t know when he specifically got the briefings that he was given, but I can tell you that he’s been following closely, both through the news media and through the briefings that he’s received from his staff here.
Q I thought you meant in-person briefings. You just mean papers?
MR. EARNEST: I mean that he’s been informed of them.
Amy.
Q I almost feel like there’s been a communications failure. There are lots of people saying you guys haven’t explained the bill still two years later as a law, rather. Do you agree with that problem?
MR. EARNEST: I do not, primarily because the President has a record on health care reform that is pretty persuasive. I’m going to flip to the right page and talk to you about it.
We’re happy to have a debate with critics who would adopt a position that sends us back to the status quo that would give more power to insurance companies, allow them to kick you off your health insurance if you get sick, allow them to deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition -- to discriminate against you, if you will.
The President, on the other hand, has a record that he’s happy to run on, which actually speaks for itself -- that there are 5.1 million seniors who have obtained assistance in paying for their prescription drugs that has saved them more than $3 billion collectively, that there are 2.5 million young adults who are getting health care coverage under their parent’s plan. There are 54 million Americans who have obtained free preventative services through their private insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.
If we want to have a debate about the President’s efforts and successes on the Affordable Care Act and the policy objectives that have been put forward by Republicans that would only empower insurance companies, we’re happy to have that debate. And I -- we’ll let the American people decide but it’s one that we’re confident that we’ll win.
Q Do you think it's a problem that you still need to keep reading these facts and figures, that people aren’t really --
MR. EARNEST: No. Again, of all the questions that I’ve faced today, this is the one that’s easiest to defend. This is the one that’s easiest to explain. The President has a proactive case to make, and the critics of this law, they don’t. Unless they want to go out there and make the case to the American public that insurance companies deserve more power, that insurance companies deserve the right to kick you off your insurance if you get sick, that they deserve the right to put a lifetime cap on your benefits. The President doesn’t believe that they do. And that’s a debate that we’re happy to have with any of the critics of the law in the venue of their choice.
Yes, Lesley.
Q Does the President plan to make that case any time soon?
MR. EARNEST: Well, you’ve certainly seen that the President’s campaign has been pretty aggressive in making this case.
Q But will he himself?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any scheduling updates to offer you. But I can tell you that the organizational prowess of the campaign that is being operated by my colleagues in Chicago will make the case about how the President has used his first three years in office. An important part of what he has done during those three years is to put in place health care reform that has lowered costs, that has expanded access to coverage, that has reduced prescription drug cost for seniors, that has made it easier for young adults to get health insurance coverage, that has allowed 54 million Americans to get access to preventative services.
There’s a record to run on. And this is an important part of how the President has used his first three years in office, and is an indication of the President’s willingness to stand on the side of middle-class families and to fight against insurance companies and other special interests that are looking to take advantage of them.
Lesley. Last one.
Q Would there be a feeling that he shouldn’t speak on it now while it’s up before the Court? I mean, because there was all that brouhaha last week about how he hadn’t gotten a -- celebrated the anniversary. But has there been any thought about -- now that -- after the argument?
MR. EARNEST: Like I said, I don’t have any new scheduling announcements to put forward at this case. But I am confident that you can certainly talk to the campaign to see if they have plans that they want to tell you about. But I feel confident saying from here that both at the White House and at the campaign -- I’m willing to make this prediction -- that they will continue to talk about the President’s record during his first three years in office. And a centerpiece of that record is the progress that we’ve made on the issue of health care reform while the President has been in office.
Thanks, everybody. Enjoy the rest of your Wednesday.
END 3:16 P.M. EDT
For Immediate Release
Location:
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:25 P.M. EDT
MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. It's nice to see you all. I don’t know if there's anybody who made the trek back from Seoul and showed up -- oh, there's one in the back.
Q Just for you, Josh.
MR. EARNEST: I think in your -- I appreciate that. I take that as a compliment. I think on your body clock it's probably like 4 in the morning, so good evening to you. (Laughter.) Good afternoon to the rest of you.
Before we get started, I do have a brief announcement. The President will sign both the Stock Act and the startup bill at separate signing ceremonies here at the White House next week. We'll have more details on timing and logistics around those ceremonies in the coming days, but you should know that the bipartisan members who played a role in getting these bills to the President's desk will be invited to attend the ceremonies. So that's something to look forward to. There's a week ahead on Wednesday, so take the early thing there.
And with that, Ken, do you want to get us started?
Q Sure. Josh, there's been a lot of focus on the health care arguments before the Supreme Court the last few days. Is the administration concerned that the entire health care law may be in jeopardy, and, more specifically, the individual mandate portion of the law?
MR. EARNEST: Ken, I can tell you that the administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. One of the reasons for that is because the individual provision -- individual responsibility provision that you cite was originally a Republican idea.
This is a novel, policy solution that was conceived of by the Heritage Foundation, was promoted by conservative Republicans in Washington D.C. as a solution to difficult health care challenges, and it was an idea that was put forward as the central part of the plan that was advanced by the Republican governor of Massachusetts, who put in place his own health care reform proposal. So the Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan, and it's one that we believe is constitutional.
Q Does the White House think, though, that some of the questions that were raised in the oral argument could be indicative of where the justices are leaning in this?
MR. EARNEST: No. Anybody who has -- believes that you can try to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case based solely on the questions of the justices is not a very good student of the Supreme Court. In fact, there have been lower court cases on this very issue, on the Affordable Care Act, where conservative judges have posed difficult, tough questions to Department of Justice lawyers. And at least in a couple of those cases, these conservative judges, despite their tough questions, ended up ruling -- ended up upholding the Affordable Care Act. So I’m referring of course to Judges Sutton and Silberman.
So I would caution against anyone to try to make predictions about the outcome of this case based solely on the tenor of the questions.
Q And just a separate topic -- oil prices are down about 2 percent today amid reports that there may be a release of oil reserves. France’s government said that the U.S. asked it to consider releasing oil from its strategic reserves. I’m wondering if you could comment on that report, and whether there could be plans underway to release strategic reserves.
MR. EARNEST: I have seen those reports, Ken. I don’t have anything new for you, though. I mean, as we have said repeatedly, while this is an option that remains on the table, no decisions have been made and no specific actions have been proposed.
Q So is the administration saying that they have not contacted France about this?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any specific conversations to read out to you. I mean, it should be no surprise that on a whole range of energy issues -- I mean, this -- as we’ve gone through great pains to describe from this podium and from other places -- the challenges that are posed by the volatile gas prices is a global phenomenon. And so, it should be no surprise to you that the Obama administration, particularly folks at the State Department and others, have been in contact with their counterparts to talk about trying to address this challenge.
But as it relates to specific actions, I don’t have anything for you on that.
Jeff.
Q Thanks, Josh. I’d like to follow up on both of those topics.
MR. EARNEST: Okay.
Q I’ll start with energy. Without confirming your talks with France, Germany also responded to these reports today and said that they don’t think it is appropriate or that the conditions are there for a strategic oil release. Is that a concern to the administration as you’re pursuing these options?
MR. EARNEST: It’s not. As I mentioned, we are coordinating with our partners around the globe to confront the global phenomenon that is the volatility in the energy markets right now. But I don’t have anything -- any specific guidance for you on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve other than to tell you something that we’ve said many times, which is that it’s an option on the table.
But anybody who tries to convince you -- in this government or any other government, frankly -- that specific decisions have been made or actions have been proposed is not speaking accurately.
Q But even if decisions haven’t been made, clearly if it’s an option on the table you need to build up some support for it. And it doesn’t look like you have enough support, at least from some countries, to make it a viable option.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I’m not in a position, from this podium, to read out the details of the kinds of conversations that we’re having on this particular topic.
Q One follow up on health care. James Carville said yesterday that if the court did strike down the law, that that would politically actually be a winner for Democrats going into the election. Do you share that assessment?
MR. EARNEST: Mr. Carville has the freedom to make those kinds of political assessments from television studios and from other places. And there are many other people in Washington, D.C. who also avail themselves to the opportunity to draw some political connections. I’m not in a position to do that from here.
The policy that Mr. Verrilli has been defending before the Supreme Court is a policy -- is a bill, the Affordable Care Act, that was passed by a majority of the House, that was passed by a majority of the Senate, and was signed into law by the President of the United States. And there are people all across the country who are enjoying the benefits of that legislation’s passage already.
There are 2.5 million young adults who have health insurance on their parents’ plan because of the Affordable Care Act. There are 5.1 million seniors on Medicare who have saved more than $3 billion on their prescription drug costs. We are already seeing consumer protections being put in place that will reign in the power and the authority of insurance companies to take advantage of patients.
What we’re focused on are the benefits of this piece of legislation and implementing this bill -- all the provisions of this bill -- so that we can maximize for the American people the benefits of this piece of legislation. There are plenty of people who are willing to talk about the politics. What we’re focused on is putting in place a policy that’s going to have a tangible difference in the lives of people all across the country.
Jessica.
Q This morning, the White House Counsel put out a statement describing Solicitor General Verrilli as “extraordinarily talented advocate who ably and skillfully represented the U.S. before the court.” Why did the White House feel the need to put out a statement defending the Solicitor General?
MR. EARNEST: Because somebody asked. I would point out that --
Q You don’t always put out statements to everything -- in response to everything we ask. (Laughter.) You'd be very busy.
MR. EARNEST: You’re asking me now. I would point out that -- as I was thinking about getting this question today -- that it is a little bit ironic that you’re asking somebody who is standing behind a podium answering tough questions from people on the record about the performance of somebody else who is standing behind a podium asking tough questions on the record on a difficult issue.
What I can tell you is, is that staff at the White House agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments that were described by Ms. Ruemmler today. Mr. Verrilli is a very talented advocate and a skilled lawyer; he's one of the brightest legal minds in Washington D.C. And we've had complete confidence in his performance before the Supreme Court.
Q Has the President listened to any of the audio from the Supreme Court proceedings, and does he feel like he has the best person representing this case?
MR. EARNEST: As you know, the President was on a plane most of the day yesterday coming back from Seoul. So I don’t know whether or not he has listened to the actual audio recordings of the case. He has been kept apprised of the case by reading news reports and by talking to his staff.
And I think that the takeaway from the arguments of the last couple of days, that many of us at the White House here have concluded, is that Mr. Verrilli isn't just an effective advocate for the Obama administration, but he's also an effective advocate for the 5.1 million seniors that have saved $3.1, $3.2 billion in their prescription drug costs. He's somebody who isn't an advocate for the government; he's an advocate for the 54 million Americans who have enjoyed free preventative care through their private insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.
This is the reason that the President worked so hard to pass health care reform by working with Congress to pass it through the House, to pass it through the Senate. And these are the principles that we're focused on as we implement the bill moving forward.
Q Can I ask a quick one on Syria?
MR. EARNEST: Sure.
Q The Syrians have agreed to Kofi Annan's peace plan. I'm wondering if in any way this deters the -- if this encourages the White House or changes the President's view that Assad must go.
MR. EARNEST: It does not change that view. We've heard promises from the Assad regime before. And we will judge the Assad regime on their actions, not on their comments.
Ann.
Q Thanks, Josh. Maybe you can answer some of the questions that Mr. Verrilli didn’t seem to be able to satisfy the justices with yesterday. Is health care so special that requiring people to buy health insurance is a good idea? Is there anything this administration would ask Americans to buy, from cell phones to broccoli?
MR. EARNEST: I'm not going to weigh in from here, Ann. Mr. Verrilli is a very skilled advocate. I assume that -- he certainly is one of the brightest legal minds in Washington D.C. I assume he did very well in law school; I didn’t even do very well on the LSAT. (Laughter.) So I wouldn’t want to put up my legal analysis against his, frankly because I think that he did an extraordinarily good job of representing the opinion of the government on that issue.
Q Then why, then, the President has this confidence that the entire law and the mandate will be upheld?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think I referred to it in my earlier answer to Ken's question, which is that this is originally a Republican idea. Republicans, at one point in time, certainly thought the individual response --
Q But why -- so it's a Republican idea. But why does that remain to get constitutional?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think I'm merely citing that there are plenty of Republicans who at least one point in their career advocated this decision. I assume that one of the reasons they did that was because they thought it was a constitutional decision, or a constitutional way to lower costs and to expand access to health insurance for people all across the country. That is what this has achieved.
And again, I would caution you and others about interpreting, or assuming that they can predict the outcome in this case based solely on the tenor of the questions from the justices on the Supreme Court. That’s not a -- that’s a risky path to go down, if you're placing bets.
Q Does that mean there's still no work here on what if, if the mandate would be overturned?
MR. EARNEST: That’s correct. We're focused on implementing the bill -- and all of the provisions of the bill -- so that we can make sure that we maximize the benefits on behalf of the American people.
Let me move around a little bit. Christi.
Q Josh, thank you. Does the President view Russia as the big geopolitical foe to the U.S.?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Christi, you don’t have to be a foreign policy expert to know that the Cold War ended 20 years ago, and that the greatest threat that the President has been fighting on behalf of the American people is the threat posed by al Qaeda.
There are also significant threats that are posed by nations like Iran and North Korea that have failed to live up to their international obligations when it comes to nuclear weapons. And the irony is, is that Russia -- particularly in the cases of North Korea and Iran -- have worked very well with the international community to isolate those two regimes and to seek a diplomatic solution to hold those two regimes accountable for living up to their international obligations.
Q So who does the U.S. view as a geopolitical foe then?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think the one that I cited was al Qaeda. Certainly the President has been focused on disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but all across the globe. And certainly our men and women in uniform have been on the front lines of that effort, and many of them have borne a significant burden in the progress that we've made on that front.
Certainly the threat that’s posed by Iran and North Korea -- their unwillingness to live up to international obligations when it comes to nuclear weapons. That’s why the President has worked aggressively with our international partners, with people all across -- with countries all around the globe to isolate those regimes, to hold them accountable for flouting their international obligations, and to seek a diplomatic path to resolving those differences of opinion.
Q Was the President surprised to hear Speaker Boehner say that you shouldn’t -- people shouldn’t criticize the President when he's traveling overseas? What did he think of that remark?
MR. EARNEST: Because I didn’t travel with him to Seoul, I don’t know when he found out about that remark. I know that he was very focused on the work that he was doing in Seoul. So I'm not sure that I can gauge his reaction to those comments.
Cheryl.
Q Thanks, Josh. Is the White House at all concerned about the difficulties in Congress right now with the highway bill? And does it support a 60-day extension, which has been proposed today, for funding?
MR. EARNEST: Well, what I can tell you, Cheryl, is that we have an opportunity to keep American workers in good jobs maintaining America's roads, bridges and railways, but we're waiting on Congress.
In a matter of days, construction sites will go idle, workers will have to go home and our economy will take a hit. The Senate has done their part by passing a bill with strong bipartisan support, and now it's time for the House to follow suit. They should put the country -- the interests of the country before the interests of their party and pass a bipartisan bill to keep American workers on the job.
The President talked about this a little bit in the weekly address last week, as well. And so it's our view that the House should act quickly to ensure that the bill doesn’t expire, and to ensure that workers can stay on the job. And they should be able to act in bipartisan fashion to get that done.
Q Is a 60-day extension okay? Because it runs out at the end of the week and if they're --
MR. EARNEST: Well, what we've -- as I said in the statement, what we'd like to see the House do is to pass a bipartisan bill.
Roger.
Q Thank you. Back to oil -- were the talks with the French folks today, were they related to easing gasoline prices worldwide and in the U.S.? Or were they more aimed at the coming Iranian sanctions?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any specific conversations to read out to you, with the French government or any other government at this point.
Q Well, can you -- were they related to the Iranian sanctions?
MR. EARNEST: I'm not able -- I don’t have any conversations to read out to you.
Q Walk me through, more generally, what needs to happen before the oil is released.
MR. EARNEST: Well, my understanding is that the Department of Energy is the one that’s responsible for managing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And so in terms of the mechanics of that, I'd refer your questions to them.
Q Okay, but you're holding talks with foreign -- leaders in foreign capitals and stuff. So that’s got to come through first.
MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I don’t have any specific conversations to read out to you.
As I pointed out, we are constantly in contact with countries all around the world to try to confront the global phenomenon of volatile energy prices. But in terms of who we've been talking to or what kinds of conversations or what those conversations could lead to, I just don’t have any information for you right now.
Q I'll try one more. The President is supposed to be making a decision on sanctions on or around April 1, depending on supplies. Today, the DOE reported oil inventories were the highest in 20 months. Does that accelerate the prospects of a release?
MR. EARNEST: I'll have to take that question for you. I’m not sure of -- again, the mechanics of this decision -- if it were a decision that were to be made -- are something that I’m not steeped in. The Department of Energy may be able to shed some more light on if that’s a decision that’s made, how that would be effectuated.
Laura.
Q Thanks. Following up on one of Ann’s questions, are you saying that there are no conversations in the White House about what you would do if this law were fully or partly overturned?
MR. EARNEST: What I’m saying is that we believe the law is constitutional, and that we are focused on implementing all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Q Well, then, let me ask, are there any conversations going on? I mean, I understand you’re focused on that. But, I mean, I think the question that she was getting at and that I’d like to get at is, are you also doing a little bit of contingency planning just in case?
MR. EARNEST: We’re not, no.
Q Either on the policy side or on the political messaging side?
MR. EARNEST: That’s correct. We’re confident that the legislation is constitutional. We are focused on implementing all the provisions of the law, as I’ve described, because they’re important benefits that will be realized by the American public. That’s where our focus is.
If there’s a reason or a need for us to consider some contingencies down the line, then we’ll do it then. But, as I said, it’s foolhardy to try to predict the outcome of this decision based solely on the questions of the judges. I’m certainly not going to do that from here. But we’re going to stay focused on what we believe is most important, which is implementing this law in a way that maximizes the benefit to the American people.
Q But you’re not going to have any better indication between now and June as to where this comes out. So then, if it were to go the other way in June, you’re saying the White House would be basically starting from essentially square one in figuring out how to deal with it, if it goes the other way?
MR. EARNEST: Well, when you say, “it goes the other way,” it’s difficult to determine exactly what you mean.
Q I mean, if the mandate were overturned.
MR. EARNEST: Because there are a lot of different ways in which they could rule on this front, right? There are a lot of different things that they could find one way or the other. We remain confident that they’re going to find the entire thing constitutional. And so we’re focused on doing -- controlling what we control, which is implementing the Affordable Care Act in a way that promptly and efficiently maximizes the benefit for the American people.
Q I’m sure you understood my question, but I’ll ask it again just to make sure -- (laughter) -- one hundred percent sure, which is that --
MR. EARNEST: I’m not sure that I do. You maybe give me a little too much credit.
Q I know you. If the mandate was overturned -- which is the heart of the law -- or if the full law were overturned, in either of those circumstances are you saying that you’re not really worried about either one of those things, and, therefore, if it happens you’ll worry about it then?
MR. EARNEST: I can tell you that there is no contingency plan that’s in place. We’re focused on implementing the law. And we are confident that the law is constitutional.
Q Wouldn’t it be responsible to be ready though in case something happens? I mean, this is a real possibility. Even your supporters on the Hill are saying it’s possible.
MR. EARNEST: What we’re focused on, Ed, is we’re focused on maximizing the benefits of this law. And that is a function of controlling what we can control.
We put forward a talented advocate to stand before the Supreme Court and make the legal justification for why we believe the law is constitutional. He delivered a persuasive case. And we’re going to go back to the work that we’ve been focused on from the beginning, which is implementing this law in a way that maximizes the benefits of all the provisions.
Q When you say a “talented advocated” and “made a persuasive case,” how does that square with the audio of the Solicitor General coughing and stammering and seeming to struggle answering questions?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Ed, I know you’re a bit of a college basketball fan. And I know that there have been a lot of people who have had a lot of commentary about the Solicitor General’s performance. I’m looking forward to tuning in to the semifinal games this weekend; I assume that you are too. And when we tune in, we’re going to hear Clark Kellogg sitting on the sidelines delivering some color commentary of the game. I’m sure it will be analytical, I’m sure it will be insightful, It will probably be entertaining. But it’s not going to change the outcome.
Q Okay, a fair point. But it’s not just the commentary or the pundits. It’s the actual audio that people are hearing -- even you can hear it. Have people in the White House listened to him stammering, struggling? It’s not punditry. It’s actual listening to the audio. And to Jessica’s question earlier, you don’t respond to every question we have.
MR. EARNEST: I do my best.
Q No, no, and you guys pride yourself on saying, we don’t listen to the cable chatter out there.
MR. EARNEST: That’s true.
Q Well, there was cable chatter yesterday saying that he bombed. And you felt compelled to say, well, no, he did a great job. Aren't you on the defensive about that? Did you feel pressure to defend him?
MR. EARNEST: Not at all. What Mr. Verrilli delivered was a very solid performance before the Supreme Court. That’s just a fact. If there are questions about that, I’m happy to answer those questions. We feel good about his performance. And, like I said, there are a lot of people who are going to sit on the sidelines and weigh in with their commentary and probably try to assign style points to one advocate or the other.
What we’re confident in is we’re confident that this is a law that when you examine the constitutional ramifications of implementing the law, that you’ll find that the law is constitutional.
Q Last thing on the Trayvon Martin case -- since the President spoke out about it late last week, as you know, new facts have emerged in the case. They are still just allegations; nobody really knows exactly what happened, law enforcement is investigating. But in light of the new facts emerging, does the President have any regret about speaking out on it before that investigation is done?
MR. EARNEST: What I can tell you, Ed, is that the President began his comments in the Rose Garden on Friday by talking about the fact that he didn’t want to influence an investigation that he felt was important be conducted. He didn’t want to influence an investigation that he thought was important to conduct. And that’s how he began his remarks.
The remarks that he delivered were a sign of his own reflection and the way that he was personally impacted by the tragic death of this young man. And we'll let -- I don’t want to weigh in any further because, as the President has said, there should be an investigation here and there’s one that’s ongoing that’s being conducted by local law enforcement. I understand there is a state commission that’s involved, and I know that there is some level of Department of Justice involvement as well. And those investigations should proceed.
Mr. Vicara.
Q You’re not planning for a contingency if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA. Is that because we go back to the status quo ante state of health care in this country as it was two years prior to last Thursday? No need for a contingency -- status quo ante, right? What contingency could there be in the absence of a law that’s been passed and signed but now struck down by the Supreme Court?
MR. EARNEST: Well, what I can tell you is that there are Republicans, there are critics of this law who are advocating for going back to the status quo. We will have an opportunity to have a political debate about that. The President believes that the reforms that have been put in place are really important. They’ve already yielded significant benefits -- I’ve recited them a couple of times, I’ll spare you this time.
But there will be a robust debate between the President’s record on health care reform and the critics who think that we should go back to a system in which insurance companies wield outsized power and can put lifetime caps on your benefits or can kick you off your health insurance coverage if you get sick, or can discriminate against you if you have a preexisting condition. The President doesn’t believe that we should go back to the status quo.
Q You say there’s no contingency plan, but obviously you’re arguing on the severability on the third day today before the Supreme Court, the government is arguing that if in fact the mandate is struck down, it should not mean that the entire law comes down. So clearly, there’s a contingency in that respect, right? I mean, this is your belief that if the mandate is struck down, the law itself survives.
MR. EARNEST: I’m not in a position from here to comment on the specific legal arguments that were made before the Supreme Court.
Q But that’s the official position of the government, of the administration.
MR. EARNEST: It sounds like -- the way that you’ve described it does reflect the position that was argued. But what’s your question?
Q Well, I’m just trying to get at this question. I mean, there are in fact contingency plans, right? I mean, if the mandate is struck down, that’s a contingency.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I was asked about contingency planning; I said that there is no contingency planning going on. We remain fully confident in the belief that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
Yes, Alexis.
Q Josh, I’m still confused about this, because in answer to Laura’s question you said that -- your sentence was, "the Supreme Court could decide in a lot of different ways, even if the administration is confident." So it would seem -- I’m just confused about why it’s difficult to say that the administration would have plans to address if the administration is wrong. Because as head of government, the President does planning for all sorts of things; whether he is using Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or the debt ceiling fight. He is always planning if something goes awry. That’s all we’re asking.
So can you just address what would be the process even if he is confident?
MR. EARNEST: Well, mostly -- the reasons I don’t want to go down that road are numerous. The first is because we remain committed to the belief and are confident in the belief that the law is constitutional. The second is I don’t want to put myself in a position that many pundits have unwisely put themselves in, which is to try to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court, to try to predict what they’re going to rule months from now. I’m not going to put myself in that position.
What we are focused on doing -- that was the question I was asked, what kind of contingency planning is in place. And what we’re focused on is we’re focused on implementing all the provisions of the law.
Q Right, but if --
MR. EARNEST: And if something changes, then we’ll confront it. But what we’re doing right now is we’re focused on implementing all the provisions of the law to maximize the benefits of that law for the American people.
Q But do you also think through, as the head of government, what the President and the Executive Branch would need to do if something went in a different direction? You can do that at the same time as you’re working on the implementation. That’s all we’re asking. Wouldn’t it be responsible if, 12 weeks from now -- you just already talked about all the people who are already receiving benefits -- wouldn’t it be responsible to be thinking through around the corner, what if, what if, what if?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I’m not in a position to sort of speculate about the thoughts of all the people that work at the White House and all the people that work at the Department of Health and Human Services. But what I can speculate about and what I can tell you about is what the focus of our planning is on. And the focus of our planning is on implementing all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, not on any sort of contingency plan.
April.
Q Does this administration feel it has time between now and June or July to figure out other possibilities for outcomes, as it relates to what’s happening at the Supreme Court?
MR. EARNEST: No. It’s our view, as I’ve said a couple of times now, that trying to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case based solely on the questioning of the Justices is a fool’s errand.
And again, people who tried to do this when they were looking at lower court cases -- lower courts who heard the Affordable Care Act -- there were a couple of judges, who were conservative judges, who were appointed by Republican Presidents who asked very difficult, tough questions of Department of Justice lawyers. And based on the answers that those lawyers gave, and based on a careful review of the facts, those conservative judges actually ruled to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
Q Okay.
MR. EARNEST: So I don't want to be in a position of trying to predict who is going to end up where and what the final conclusion is going to be.
Q Josh, okay.
MR. EARNEST: What we’re focused on doing is controlling what it is that we can control. And we can control that by standing up for, and putting in place, and preparing an advocate to defend the constitutionality of the law before the Supreme Court -- that's something the Justice Department has done. And the Department of Health and Human Services is going to be focused on implementing the law in a way that maximizes the benefits of the law for people all across the country.
Q Okay, okay. You have 12 weeks -- and I’m just going to put it out there now -- 12 weeks between now and the time -- the end of this session of the Supreme Court where they will make a decision. I’ve been here long enough to know that there’s always a contingency plan from A to even possibly Z of whatever happens. You need to tell us affirmatively right now that there is nothing that you might be waiting between and those 12 weeks to figure out, what you’re feeling from whatever you’re feeling around town or hearing from around town, and then making a decision then. Are you going to tell me you're not -- you don't have anything in the works of the possibilities down the road when you’re closer to the time?
MR. EARNEST: Well, we’re not making any planning based on things that we’re hearing around town. We’re making planning based on a law that was passed by a majority of the House of Representatives, that was passed by a majority of the United States Senate, and was signed into law by the President of the United States.
This is a law that has yielded significant benefits for the American people. This is a law that says insurance companies can't kick you off your insurance coverage just because you get sick. There are kids right now who have health insurance coverage, even though they have a pre-existing condition because of the Affordable Care Act. The benefits of this law are what we’re focused on. Trying to guess the outcome of the Supreme Court decision based solely on the questions of the Supreme Court Justices is not something that we’re spending a second doing.
Q And one back on Verrilli -- you say he’s talented -- and then going back to some of what Ed and Jessica had to say. Listening to the tape -- to include the broccoli comment, the analysis of broccoli -- many people, critics are out here just lambasting him. Has the President or anyone from the White House, high-ranking official, called him to say good job, job well done, after all of these critics have come out against him?
MR. EARNEST: I can't speak to all the emails and phone calls that have -- that may have taken place between -- that emanate from this building.
But I can tell that -- to go back to my Clark Kellogg analogy that Ed and I were discussing just a few minutes ago -- one of the reasons that Mr. Kellogg sits on the sidelines and was hired by CBS for this job is because he was a stand-out performer at Ohio State; was drafted in the first round, by the Indiana Pacers. He knows something about basketball. He didn't just write a book about it.
Q But even before you come out, there’s preparation. He stood there -- again, he did not sound like someone standing before the U.S. Supreme Court to stand up for something that is a historic piece of law. He did not sound like someone who knew the ramifications, the significance of what he was standing up for.
MR. EARNEST: On this point, April, you and I may just have to agree to disagree.
Scott.
Q Thanks, Josh. Has the President gotten a specific briefing on -- an assessment of how these arguments have gone from someone from the General Counsel’s Office, from the Justice Department, from the Solicitor General’s Office, specifically dedicated to how this went, not predictions necessarily on where it’s heading? Or will he sort of rely on his own expertise in constitutional law to determine for himself how he thinks they went?
MR. EARNEST: Well, he’s both reading the news coverage of the arguments, but he’s also received briefing from the staff here to keep him up to date on the arguments.
Q Specifically on the arguments?
MR. EARNEST: Specifically on the arguments. That's correct. Okay?
Mara?
Q You earlier called the mandate the individual responsibility provision, and I have heard it referred that way just recently by other people at the White House and in the campaign. It seems very new. And I’m wondering -- I’ve never heard the President refer to it that way; I’ve never heard him call it the anti-free-rider tax. I’m just wondering why you decided to start calling it that recently.
MR. EARNEST: I think I disagree with that notion.
Q That it's recent, you mean?
MR. EARNEST: Yes.
Q When did it start?
MR. EARNEST: We could go -- maybe we could go back to my office afterwards and start doing some Googling to figure it out.
Q But the President doesn't refer to it that way?
MR. EARNEST: I’m sorry?
Q The President doesn't refer to it that way.
MR. EARNEST: I’m not sure that's accurate.
Q He rarely talks about it at all I guess. (Laughter.) But I guess my second question would be, why, in these years where the right has been laying this intellectual groundwork and talking about broccoli and kind of forming the underpinnings for what’s happening now before the Court, why have you guys not talked about the mandate much and why it was -- it’s so important?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I -- I’m not sure I agree with that premise, either. I think that there has been a lot of time and energy -- and anybody who has spent, like you did -- covering the White House very closely in the first year, year and a half of this administration knows how much time and energy was spent into getting --
Q On health care in general.
MR. EARNEST: -- into making this law a reality, into making sure that we put in these kinds of consumer protections for families all across the country, and securing help for seniors who need help paying their prescription drug costs.
Q Absolutely. I’m talking about the mandate.
MR. EARNEST: There was a lot of effort that went into fashioning a health care reform law that would maximize the benefits for the American people.
Q Right. But what seems to -- where you seem to be at a disadvantage now is in the debate about why the mandate is so important to this and actually something that people should support.
MR. EARNEST: Well, there are two things about this. One is the individual responsibility provision was something that was conceived of by the Heritage Foundation. It was a provision that was aggressively advocated by conservative Republicans in Washington, D.C., and it was something that is -- that was central to the health care reform initiative that was put in place by the Republican governor of Massachusetts.
So it seems to me that there are probably plenty of Republicans that agree that this is a helpful solution to this policy challenge. And in terms of talking about the benefits of the health care reform law, we look forward to having that debate with the critics. That's something that we’re not going to shy away from.
The President has a record to stand on. The President has a record that includes 5 million seniors getting help affording their prescription drug coverage, saving them $3 billion a year. The President has a record of ensuring that 2.5 million young adults can get covered under their parents’ plan because of the Affordable Care Act. The President has a record that you can evaluate that has allowed 55 -- 54 million Americans to access free preventative coverage through their private insurance plans.
We’re happy to contrast that record with Republicans who say we should go back to the status quo; we should go back to a system that empowers insurance companies to kick you off your health care plan if you get sick; that empowers insurance companies to discriminate against you if you have a preexisting condition. That’s a debate that we’re happy to have.
Goyal.
Q Two questions.
MR. EARNEST: Yes.
Q As far as the President’s trip to South Korea is concerned, most of the major and small nuclear nations were there including India and Pakistan. One, the President met with Pakistan’s Prime Minister. If Pakistan is going to fully agree with the President of the United States, as far as terrorism or Afghanistan situation is concerned. And second, if the President feels that Pakistan nuclears are safe and in the good hands from the terrorism.
MR. EARNEST: Well, Goyal, I know that Mr. Rhodes read out the bilateral meeting that the President had with Prime Minister Gilani yesterday. I know that the President was pleased to have the opportunity to have that meeting, was pleased with the way that the discussions went. But for details I’d refer to that -- for a detailed readout of that meeting I’d refer you to that conference call.
On the issue of nuclear security, as you know, this has been an issue that’s been at the front of the President’s agenda since before he was even elected President. This is an issue that he worked on in the Senate; he delivered a high-profile speech on this issue in Prague in his first year in office, hosted a nuclear security summit here in Washington, D.C., and, of course, attended the summit in 2012 in Seoul, Korea where they announced a number of advances on this front.
So this is an issue that remains a national security priority of the President’s, and the President was pleased with the -- with some of the announcements that were made in the course of the summit earlier this week.
Q And second, as far as U.S.-India relations are concerned -- since Prime Minister of India was in South Korea -- if the President had on the sideline the economic conversations as far as the U.S.-India (inaudible) are concerned. Because today, you’ll see hundreds of thousands of U.S. cars on every road in India, including Ford now, as I said last week, is investing over $1 billion dollars there. And a lot of things are going on now between U.S. and India through trade and security and defense and a lot of issues. Where do we stand on those and many other issues today?
MR. EARNEST: Well, that’s probably a pretty broad question, Goyal. I’d refer you to the National Security Staff who can talk to you about -- these were issues that obviously the President spent a lot of time discussing during his visit to India about a year and a half ago. But in terms of an update on some of those issues, I’d encourage you to check with our National Security Staff on that front.
Q Thank you.
MR. EARNEST: Mike.
Q Thank you. I wanted to go back to the issue of the off-camera remark with Medvedev. There are those critics that have been suggesting that it might indicate a major compromise, perhaps even a capitulation, on missile defense. And some have gone a step further and suggested it may indicate an intention on the part of the President to lean his policies leftward if he were to win reelection. Can you address those two issues?
MR. EARNEST: Sure. Well, I think -- I probably will briefly, but I can tell you that the President himself addressed this issue pretty directly on Tuesday when he was in Seoul.
The fact of the matter is that the President’s reset policy with Russia has already been successful. I’d point you to the Russian support of the Nuclear Security Council resolutions that included the toughest sanctions ever on North Korea and Iran, our work together on the new START Treaty, and our work to open up the Northern Distribution Network to get critical supplies to troops in Afghanistan, just to name a few of the advances that we’ve made as it relates to our relationship with Russia.
When it comes to missile defense, the fact of the matter is that the President is building -- has advocated for and the United States is building a missile defense system in Europe that will ensure the safety of our allies in Europe, and, yes, ensure the safety of the United States. From the beginning, that missile defense system has been oriented to address threats from Iran and other places. It’s not something that’s been oriented toward Russia.
But there is some work to be done to reach an agreement with Russia. I think the President talked about the need for some of the technical advisors on either side to spend some time clearing out the underbrush of detailed, technical concerns that have been raised by one side or the other. And the President is hopeful that in the next year or two we can start to demonstrate some tangible progress in finding common ground on this missile defense system.
Q And on the angle of those that are suggesting that perhaps the President might lean his policies towards the left after the election, using that same analogy that he’ll have a freer hand.
MR. EARNEST: You mean outside of issues of foreign policy?
Q Exactly.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think the President -- those of you who have had the opportunity to hear the President speak either at some of the political events that he’s attended or even some of the official events where the President has talked about his vision for the future of this country, the President believes that we are at a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and that we need to put in place the kinds of economic policies that will support an economy that ensure everybody gets a fair shot, everybody gets a fair shake and everybody does their fair share.
That is the -- that is the foundation of the President’s vision for a second term. And that gives you a pretty good indication -- should give the American people a pretty a good indication -- about the direction that the President would go if he’s elected to a second term by the American people.
Yes.
Q Thanks, Josh. What’s your response to the Senate resolution proposed by Senator Lieberman and five Republicans calling on the administration to arm the Syrian rebels?
MR. EARNEST: I’m not familiar with the specific amendment that you’re referring to. I can tell you that in the past, we have said that further militarization of the challenges in Syria is not the wise course moving forward. But in terms of -- I’m not in a position, however, to react to that specific piece of legislation because it’s the first time I’m hearing of it.
In the back.
Q Thanks, Josh.
MR. EARNEST: You've traveled all the way from Seoul, here, so I should at least give you a chance to ask a question.
Q Circling back to the conversation with partners on the Strategic Reserve for the IEA. The French are talking about it, the Germans are talking about, two weeks ago after David Cameron was here there was a British official who seemed to be okay confirming that it was talked about. Why is it so important to this administration that that be a subject that is just never talked about except in the context of just saying, oh, it’s always on the topic of discussion?
MR. EARNEST: Well, frankly, because we don’t believe that it’s wise to speculate about it. We have confirmed for you, I’ve confirmed for you, others have confirmed for you -- repeatedly -- that it’s an option on the table. But there also is an attempt by some observers to suggest that there’s been a decision that’s been made or there’s been a specific action that’s been proposed. And that’s just not true.
Q But isn’t it inherent that this sort of decision takes weeks and months to even set up? So just setting up the dominos to try to create this decision seems to be already underway. I mean how come you can’t even just confirm that that’s the case?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I might be more sympathetic to your question if we were in a position where a decision had been made or a specific course of action had been adopted, but that’s just not the case. As I point out, we’re engaged in conversations with countries all around the world on a regular basis, dealing with this challenging issue. There are a lot of ways to do that.
Q There's even a turnkey framework that he put in place --
MR. EARNEST: If only it were that simple.
Q -- so that everything is set up so that all you’ve got to do is make the decision, though.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I recognize that there are a lot of people who want to speculate, and I think that your curiosity about private conversations that are taking place between officials in this government and officials in governments around the world on this issue I think is understandable. But at this point, I’m not in a position to shed any addition light on those topics for you.
Glenn.
Q Josh. The President is a constitutional lawyer. Has he been watching any of these -- not watching any of -- listening to the proceedings, any -- reading the transcripts? And if so, how does he, in general, think the Court itself has been acting? I mean, what does he think of the line of questioning?
MR. EARNEST: Well, to be candid with you, Glenn, the President has been in South Korea. So that probably has limited his ability to investigate this a little bit. But I know that --
Q They have wi-fi.
MR. EARNEST: -- he’s been -- I’m sorry?
Q You have access to wi-fi?
MR. EARNEST: I’m not -- well, I -- what I said before is that the President has been following the news coverage. The President has gotten a briefing from members of his staff on this -- on the arguments as they’ve been proceeding. The President is interested in the progress of the case, certainly because of his own intellectual experience and background but also because of the important benefits that this law includes.
The President worked very hard with Congress and with the Senate to get this passed, and there are enormous benefits that are very important to him personally. And so the President has -- as you would expect -- been following this case.
Q You said that because of your belief that this is inherently constitutional, that you haven't made contingency planning, or haven’t begun contingency planning. Does that assume on the other side that you think if the Supreme Court were to strike down all or part of this that they would be acting in an irresponsible or excessively activist fashion?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I don’t want to jump ahead to speculating about what they would be doing if they were to decide one way or the other. So I think we’re going to -- we used the first three days of this week as an administration to put Mr. Verrilli and others forward to make the best case for the Affordable Care Act. That best case has led us to conclude that it’s constitutional. The Supreme Court is a separate branch of government, and they will reach their own conclusions. We felt like we had a good case to make and we had somebody who made that good case for us.
Yes. Donovan.
Q You said that the President got a briefing on the case. I was wondering if you could tell me is that today? Is that every day? How many has there been, and is there reactions from the President to those briefings?
MR. EARNEST: I have not spoken to him today so I can’t give you any specific readout about his reaction to reading them. I don’t know when he specifically got the briefings that he was given, but I can tell you that he’s been following closely, both through the news media and through the briefings that he’s received from his staff here.
Q I thought you meant in-person briefings. You just mean papers?
MR. EARNEST: I mean that he’s been informed of them.
Amy.
Q I almost feel like there’s been a communications failure. There are lots of people saying you guys haven’t explained the bill still two years later as a law, rather. Do you agree with that problem?
MR. EARNEST: I do not, primarily because the President has a record on health care reform that is pretty persuasive. I’m going to flip to the right page and talk to you about it.
We’re happy to have a debate with critics who would adopt a position that sends us back to the status quo that would give more power to insurance companies, allow them to kick you off your health insurance if you get sick, allow them to deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition -- to discriminate against you, if you will.
The President, on the other hand, has a record that he’s happy to run on, which actually speaks for itself -- that there are 5.1 million seniors who have obtained assistance in paying for their prescription drugs that has saved them more than $3 billion collectively, that there are 2.5 million young adults who are getting health care coverage under their parent’s plan. There are 54 million Americans who have obtained free preventative services through their private insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.
If we want to have a debate about the President’s efforts and successes on the Affordable Care Act and the policy objectives that have been put forward by Republicans that would only empower insurance companies, we’re happy to have that debate. And I -- we’ll let the American people decide but it’s one that we’re confident that we’ll win.
Q Do you think it's a problem that you still need to keep reading these facts and figures, that people aren’t really --
MR. EARNEST: No. Again, of all the questions that I’ve faced today, this is the one that’s easiest to defend. This is the one that’s easiest to explain. The President has a proactive case to make, and the critics of this law, they don’t. Unless they want to go out there and make the case to the American public that insurance companies deserve more power, that insurance companies deserve the right to kick you off your insurance if you get sick, that they deserve the right to put a lifetime cap on your benefits. The President doesn’t believe that they do. And that’s a debate that we’re happy to have with any of the critics of the law in the venue of their choice.
Yes, Lesley.
Q Does the President plan to make that case any time soon?
MR. EARNEST: Well, you’ve certainly seen that the President’s campaign has been pretty aggressive in making this case.
Q But will he himself?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any scheduling updates to offer you. But I can tell you that the organizational prowess of the campaign that is being operated by my colleagues in Chicago will make the case about how the President has used his first three years in office. An important part of what he has done during those three years is to put in place health care reform that has lowered costs, that has expanded access to coverage, that has reduced prescription drug cost for seniors, that has made it easier for young adults to get health insurance coverage, that has allowed 54 million Americans to get access to preventative services.
There’s a record to run on. And this is an important part of how the President has used his first three years in office, and is an indication of the President’s willingness to stand on the side of middle-class families and to fight against insurance companies and other special interests that are looking to take advantage of them.
Lesley. Last one.
Q Would there be a feeling that he shouldn’t speak on it now while it’s up before the Court? I mean, because there was all that brouhaha last week about how he hadn’t gotten a -- celebrated the anniversary. But has there been any thought about -- now that -- after the argument?
MR. EARNEST: Like I said, I don’t have any new scheduling announcements to put forward at this case. But I am confident that you can certainly talk to the campaign to see if they have plans that they want to tell you about. But I feel confident saying from here that both at the White House and at the campaign -- I’m willing to make this prediction -- that they will continue to talk about the President’s record during his first three years in office. And a centerpiece of that record is the progress that we’ve made on the issue of health care reform while the President has been in office.
Thanks, everybody. Enjoy the rest of your Wednesday.
END 3:16 P.M. EDT
Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office Michael Steele John Boehner Speaker Pelosi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)