Russia Vs. USA Nuclear Treaty

MR. GIBBS: All right, I’ll just get slightly organized.

Q Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said not too long ago that a signing on a START I replacement would happen soon, and I’m wondering if you can flesh that out and if that might be something that’s going to be happening in conjunction with the President’s trip to Copenhagen perhaps.

MR. GIBBS: We do not have an agreement yet. As you know, we continue to take part in negotiations with the Russians on a replacement START treaty. Obviously our hope is to get one done, but can’t plan for a signing ceremony until something is done and we’ve certainly made no arrangements for that.

Q Are you close to a signing?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we’re getting closer and making progress on an agreement. I know there are still issues that have to be worked out that stand in the way of that ultimate agreement. And our principals continue to meet and brief the President on what’s happening, and that will continue until we do get an agreement. We’re optimistic that we can get one. Whether or not that happens by Copenhagen at this point is just hard to say.

Q I’d like to ask about the jobs. Some congressional Democrats have said that they’d like a jobs package but could cost up to $200 billion. Now, the White House has been very careful to put no price tag on the President’s initiatives, but is there a cost ceiling that you’d impose on the efforts to boost jobs, given you’re trying to cut deficits in the future?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what the President would say is the ideas in the areas that he outlined yesterday are targeted approaches to creating an environment where businesses can start hiring again. I think the President believed he had a good meeting today with Democrats and Republicans, and began by outlining a couple of the things that he talked about yesterday — first and foremost, how do we help small businesses, zero capital gains tax for small business, incentives for hiring, incentives for depreciation, and things like that. And the President mentioned, along with infrastructure, the second thing he talked about, the President discussed with Democrats and Republicans that indeed those were initiatives that in the past have enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

So I think the President believes there’s a commonality to these ideas that he’s proposed and that he’s heard from Capitol Hill that they’ve proposed that we think we can find agreement on and hopefully get some progress on. I don’t know what that ultimate figure is. Obviously part of what the President wanted to discuss with leaders today was what might be in that package. This is not a one-way street.

I will say when it comes to the deficit, the President agreed with and reiterated the fact that we have to do — we have to have a plan for addressing in the medium- and long-term fiscal responsibility. The President also reiterated that we are not going, though, to solve that problem of our long-term fiscal health if our growth rate is where it was in the first quarter of this year, which is in excess of -6 percent.

Let me just, for your — some visual stuff that the President talked about. This just gives you a sense of where we’ve been, right? I’m going to go to that in a second. Don’t worry, the big board is coming. Save the big finale.

Again, this just gives you a sense of the average in quarters of our jobs picture. In the first quarter the average was nearly negative 700,000 jobs; in the second quarter, minus 428,000; in the third quarter, minus 199,000. In the previous two months we’ve gone from minus 111,000 to minus 11,000.
So obviously what happened in the beginning of the year — we’re seeing progress.

What I talked about a second ago, in terms of economic growth, the first quarter we saw our economic growth contract in excess of 6 percent; second quarter, negative 0.7; and then for the first time in a year, positive job growth — negative 11,000 jobs lost was, sadly, the most positive jobs report that the country has enjoyed in almost two years.

Now that Keith has spoiled my big surprise. This I think gives you a sense — and some of you have seen this when we did briefings on the Recovery Act — this gives you a sense of the genuine depth that we’re in in terms of employment. This number is employment, full employment, at the time that each recession began. So we have 1990, 2001, and 1981. This continuum shows the number of months since that recession began, and these percentages show you where we are in terms of employment. This gives you a sense of the sheer depth that we’re trying to pull ourselves out of. And it also gives you a sense of why the President believes we have to take strong, targeted, but continued action to address joblessness.

Q So the jobs hole is very large, but is there a ceiling, is there a price tag that’s too high?

MR. GIBBS: That’s something that we’ll work through Congress — work with Congress on. I will say I do think that — I mean, even Leader Boehner said that he would like to be there to support a plan for jobs. So I think that’s certainly a positive development. We hope that there will be bipartisan help and support for dealing with something that we know affects everybody.

Q Which of these charts was the one that the President showed John Boehner?

MR. GIBBS: This one. But I mean, this is what everybody in the meeting saw. This again is just — this is a chart we’ve used before. As you guys know, where these lines go from solid to dotted is where it’s marked that — by the dating committee that the recession ended. So you see that the point at which the recession ends is — and this is not updated, but shows you that in the most two previous examples, 1990 and 2001, when the “recession ended” wasn’t the bottom of the jobs picture.

Again, it just gives you a sense of the type of problem in employment that we have facing our country — why the President believes we need to take strong action. Plus I just wanted to use the board.

Q It looked really good.

Q Robert, two questions, the first one on the bipartisanship issue. I mean, you have the President coming out saying that he wants to work together, but just moments later you have Republican leaders coming out saying that the White House just wants to blame Republicans, saying that this administration just doesn’t get it. I mean, how do you move forward together if that’s the climate coming out of this meeting?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you come together understanding this. I mean, look, the American people have watched for decades the blame game. If the blame game put people to work we’d all be rolling in money. The blame game — I’m glad some people want to continue playing the blame game; that doesn’t work. That doesn’t get anybody a job. It doesn’t cut people’s taxes.

It is time — I will say the President — has the President been frustrated about this? Absolutely. We took some extraordinary actions. We wish there would have been more Republican support for taking those actions and pulling our economy back from an economic cliff, falling into another Great Depression.

Setting all that aside, we’re now at a certain point where we have got to begin to fill in the enormity of the hole that this economic downturn created. The President is willing to work with Democrats and Republicans — and again, I think it was important that the President started out the meeting by mentioning that two of the ideas that the President had talked about in his speech — two of the three ideas were ideas that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support.

We heard throughout the recovery debate that there needed to be more money put into infrastructure. That’s what the President outlined. We heard in — even up to as recently as the past few days, we have to help small business get access to capital, cut their taxes, ensure that we’re doing all that they can to create an environment for them to hire more. The President agrees. I think it’s time that everybody took “yes” for an answer.

Q But if the attitude is that this administration doesn’t get it, is this administration then willing to navigate this alone?

MR. GIBBS: The President will do what has to be done to help the American people. The President is hopeful, through this meeting today, that Republicans agree. But again, if the President outlines ideas that the Republicans have previously supported, and then Republicans seem unwilling to support the ideas they supported then now, you can leave it up to others to judge why it is they don’t want to participate in a solution that we all agree and we’ve said in the past would put people back to work.

Q They say they can’t sign on to spending more money. That’s all — they say he’s fiscally irresponsible.

MR. GIBBS: Well, rich, given the fact that the largest driver in our fiscal irresponsibility were a series of programs that weren’t paid for — tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that weren’t paid for; Medicare prescription drug benefit that wasn’t paid for; wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that weren’t paid for. Again, the debate that we’re having on health care now is partly about how to pay for it.

The second leading driver in our fiscal irresponsibility has been the downturn in the economy. As I said earlier, we are not going to find ourselves lifted out of our fiscal situation if our economy contracts at 6 or 6.5 percent a quarter. There isn’t an economist on the planet that you could find that would say, yes, your economy can contract at 6.5 a quarter, 6.4 percent a quarter, and you’ll be able to lift your way out of a budget deficit or increasing debt.

That’s what the President believes — that’s why the President believes we have to take some further steps to ensure that we get back to economic growth, but also that we get back to a medium- and long-term recipe for fiscal responsibility.

Yes, ma’am.

Q I have an unrelated question, on the military. At West Point last week, the President talked about signing a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in Iraq or Afghanistan. What about the families of military personnel who take their own lives — does the President believe that those families deserve a letter of condolence as well?

MR. GIBBS: The President believes that the previous policy that didn’t write those letters can and should be reviewed, and that review is ongoing.

Q How much longer — I know it’s been under review here for some time.

MR. GIBBS: I think the review was announced sometime in the past couple of weeks. I don’t have an update on it, but I can certainly get it. Obviously the President reviewed earlier in the administration the rules surrounding photography at Dover, leaving — based on the recommendation from the Secretary of Defense — leaving that decision up to the individual families of the deceased. Some have decided and some have not decided to make those transfers public. And hopefully we can conclude this review shortly.

Q After his speech, one military family told CNN that the President’s comments were painful to them because their son took his own life, and they have yet to receive a letter of condolence from the President.

MR. GIBBS: Well, that’s why we’re reviewing it. I mean, that’s –

Q Well, what would you say to that family?

MR. GIBBS: The first thing that I would say and I’m sure the President would say is to thank that family for the courageous service that they exhibited on behalf of all of us in this country so that we might enjoy the freedoms that we have. I don’t — regardless of what happens, nothing lessens the amazing contribution and sacrifice that’s made. I think that’s what the President would tell that family and would tell other families.

Q But they feel that the sacrifice has sort of been diminished or minimized.

MR. GIBBS: Well, that’s — again, that’s precisely why the President wanted to review this policy. If the President didn’t care, the policy would remain unchanged and unexamined. The President cares deeply and has asked for that review to take place.

Q But you don’t have a time frame on when he might –

MR. GIBBS: I will keep you updated on where they are.

Helen.

Q Two questions, Robert. How does the President feel about the dropping of the public option in health care?

THE PRESIDENT: I think you all should have heard the President’s comments at the announcement on community health care centers where he supports the ideas that we’ve read about from the Senate in the past few hours as good policy and a way to increase the choice that people have through greater competition and in helping to move legislation to reform our health care system forward.

Q The other question is, does the President feel any embarrassment upon accepting a peace prize when he’s escalating a war, a big war?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Helen, the President will obviously address the notion –

Q How?

MR. GIBBS: Well, in his speech, audibly — the President will address the notion that last week he authorized a 30,000- person increase in our commitment to Afghanistan, and this week accepts a prize for peace.

I will say, Helen, that the President understands and again will also recognize that he doesn’t belong in the same discussion as Mandela and Mother Theresa. But I think what the President is proud of is the steps that this administration has taken to reengage the world; that through that reengagement we see some of that reengagement is to bring increased peace and stability to this big planet, and is — he is proud that the committee recognized that this nation has once again reemerged and engaging the world in greater pursuits.

Q But we’re going to war and he’s accepting the peace prize.

MR. GIBBS: And something he will — something he will, again, address directly in the speech tomorrow.

Yes, sir.

Q And a follow-up? Obviously it’s a historic trip for the President. Has the President shared any of the thoughts that he shared, sentiments with the former Vice President who also was a recipient of the same prize?

MR. GIBBS: I think most of the discussion that was had with Vice President Gore was — dealt with upcoming meetings on climate change in Copenhagen.

Q Can you also give us a bit of a preview of the trip itself, who’s traveling, what’s happening over there, when they came back –

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me get those guys to send stuff around. Obviously the President and the First Lady, as I talked to you guys earlier — or yesterday, Maya and Konrad will also travel aboard Air Force One. And we’ll get any additional friends or family.

Q Robert, just to follow, the President was saying, when he was addressing a school in Virginia, that if he had a choice, he would have a dinner with Mahatma Gandhi. That means, as far as this award is concerned, peace award, he is also a believer in Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas of peace and nonviolence. Is that something fit –

MR. GIBBS: Is that something –

Q Something fit with Mahatma Gandhi and his — the President’s thoughts and ideas?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think what he’s — certainly he’s been asked if he could gather thoughts from those that walked on this Earth before him, there are a number of people, including Gandhi, that obviously he’d be interested in getting their thoughts on. I don’t think that’s addressed specifically tomorrow.

Q Well, he has a great respect in India.

Q AIDS advocates are taking a shot at the five-year plan for the President’s emergency program for AIDS because it decreases the number of people who will receive anti-retrovirals over the next five years — as opposed to the number who received them in the last five years — in favor of cheaper alternatives for health care at a lower level, something that apparently was proposed by Dr. Emanuel.

MR. GIBBS: Let me get some — I don’t have any guidance from OMB on that, on what their involvement has been. Obviously the President cares deeply about this issue and has talked not just about medicine but steps that have to be taken in terms of prevention to ensure anti-retrovirals are not necessary.

Yes, sir — yes, ma’am.

Q Did the President — sir, gosh — (laughter) –

MR. GIBBS: I was looking at Steve before you, so –

Q Okay, thanks. (Laughter.) Did the President in the meeting with Congress tell the Republicans and Minority Leader Boehner that they almost seem to be rooting against recovery?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President did mention, and I think Republicans agreed, that the room was not without politics, and that politics obviously has — I think politics has clearly played a role in many of their statements and votes on the Recovery Act. I don’t think that’s any big secret.

Q He thinks Republicans basically want the jobless rate to stay above 10 percent –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President would like Democrats and Republicans alike to prove to the American people that we can set aside whatever narrow political agendas anybody has in order to address the severity of the economic downturn and the joblessness that’s resulted from it. And I can think of nothing better than taking the President up on, again, two of the ideas that have normally enjoyed very bipartisan support: increasing our investment in infrastructure, which will create jobs; and help to hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the country in terms of getting access to credit; tax incentives for hiring.

Look, again, the most important thing is those things in a nonpartisan environment would get the support of Republicans and Democrats alike. I don’t think that should be any different with this President, nor would it or should it be with any other President. I think we have a challenge that the American people have laid before us, and that is to solve the problems that they have without getting involved in that blame game. And I think –

Q Isn’t the President part of that blame game, too? I mean, he took the partisan swipe yesterday in that speech. I mean, even here you talked about their failed stewardship on the deficit. I mean, this administration doesn’t miss an opportunity to blame the past administration.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look — well, Savannah, I appreciate the ability to forget what happened every — to forget every –

Q But my point –

MR. GIBBS: No, no, but understand we’ve — I appreciate the ability to forget anything that happened before we got here. The President didn’t — the President inherited an economic downturn, he inherited a massive budget deficit. He understands one thing: The American people put him here to solve the problems that were created however and by whoever they were created. That’s what the President is going to do. He’s going to make decisions that won’t be altogether wildly popular with the American people. But I think he believes that the American people will understand that we’re making those tough decisions to pull ourselves back from falling into another Great Depression.

It is hard to argue, Savannah, it is hard to argue that the steps taken in the Recovery Act didn’t directly lead to the first economic growth in a year. Don’t believe me; ask John McCain’s economist who said we created jobs, that we put ourselves on a path towards economic growth. That’s not me. That’s — that was our rival’s chief economist in the campaign.

I think what the President believes is we have a unique opportunity — setting aside all of that — to move forward on behalf of the American people; to do it in a way that truly addresses their problems without falling into the convenient political back-and-forth and games that have always governed Washington. We can show the American people this — at this time and this year that it’s possible to do that.

Q You said the President does recognize that he’s got the job now, so now it falls to him to fix it. Is there any statute of limitations, though, on how often he may mention what he inherited or the mess he inherited or how the past administration failed?

MR. GIBBS: Again, it would be easy to put it all in a box and just forget about it, but we didn’t get here overnight. We’re not going to get out of our problems overnight. It’s not part of the blame game. It’s just — it’s a fact of life.

Jonathan.

Q It’s part of the blame game.

MR. GIBBS: No, I don’t think it is. Again, people made conscious decisions to support tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. People made conscious decisions to support an increase in — to add a benefit to Medicare without paying for it, right? We know that. People made conscious decisions to authorize wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and not pay for them. The President recognizes that the era of continued free lunches is over.

Jonathan.

Q Back on health care. I’m going to see if I can get you to be a little more specific on this Senate tentative deal. It involves two pieces — a new health care plan put together by the Office of Personnel Management and an expansion of Medicare to the near-retired, 55 to 65. Does the President want to see — would the President need to see both of those pieces as the deal moves forward, are they dependent on each other?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think a lot of the details of this obviously are being examined currently by CBO. I hesitate — not having been in the room and the administration wasn’t in the room right before they walked out and announced this, my sense is — I don’t want to prejudge this, but my sense is that these two pieces fit together in a way that might be hard to break apart.

Q Okay. And my other question was what role did the White House play in brokering this?

MR. GIBBS: No different than the role we’ve played throughout this process in providing technical support and advice. Again, this was — throughout this process the — obviously we were aware of the negotiations that were ongoing, but not in the room as this was tentatively agreed to, as you said, and announced last evening.

Q And one thing on jobs. I understand that the President is never going to accept this demand that there would be no new spending for jobs. But the other two pieces –

MR. GIBBS: I don’t –

Q The Republicans had three suggestions: a freeze in federal spending, no tax increases until unemployment declined to a certain level –

MR. GIBBS: I think the President has been pretty — let’s be clear, the President has been pretty clear on taxes and the President has cut taxes.

Q And then the other was no new regulations. There are tax increases slated for when the Bush tax cuts expire. And I’m wondering if he would entertain this idea that you would create some kind of moratorium on tax increases until there’s –

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I don’t want to get ahead of the budget process that’s ongoing. I think the President reiterated his support for, in that room, some certainty on taxes, and reiterating again that he had cut taxes.

Mark.

Q Any clarity yet on the charity decision?

MR. GIBBS: No, the President is yet to make final decisions on that. If we have that — as soon as we have that we’ll pass it along.

Q Will it be announced before he accepts the prize?

MR. GIBBS: I hope so, but I don’t know the exact answer to that.

Q But for sure he’s not going to get a check with his medal, right?

MR. GIBBS: I do not believe that’s the case because that then becomes — then we fall into Jonathan’s problem about taxable income. (Laughter.)

Q What charities are being considered?

MR. GIBBS: He’s given obviously to a very broad range of charities in the past. He has helped use money to create micro-financing projects much like his mother worked on in different parts of the world, and all of those are certainly actively under consideration.

Q Robert, on climate change, the omnibus bill has been assembled and there’s $1.3 billion in there to help developing nations meet the standards for global warming. Is that the figure that the President takes to Copenhagen next week?

MR. GIBBS: Let me get some guidance from the climate guys on this. I don’t know whether that’s a final number or not.

Q How does that sound? Does that sound about right? Is it adequate?

MR. GIBBS: I’ll ask them if that sounds about right.

Q Will there be any added values — will the U.S. be offering something else other than –

MR. GIBBS: Let me talk to — and see what he has on this.

Q Can I ask one other question, different subject?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q What’s the state of play with Japan and the negotiations over the airbase relocation?

MR. GIBBS: We’re continuing to engage the government of Japan in negotiations that will maintain our alliance as well as reduce the impact of our bases on local communities. We have an agreement with the previous administration in Japan. We set up a working group to discuss the implementation of that agreement and we’re anxious for those conversations to continue.

Q When you say we have an agreement, is the U.S. still opposed then to relocation under the new –

MR. GIBBS: Well, we have an agreement, but what this working group is going to discuss is the implementation of what’s already been agreed to.

Q There have been reports of a breakdown in talks.

MR. GIBBS: And I think the only way to make progress is to continue that working — standing up that working group and having that discussion.

Q On that, Robert –

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q — would the President be open to meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama in Copenhagen?

MR. GIBBS: We did that like a couple of weeks ago. I don’t know where — again, I think this is appropriately being handled right now with our ambassador there and others in terms of making progress. I think this was discussed just a couple of weeks ago and I think the working group working, we would believe, is the best way to continue that progress.

Q So not at the top level?

Q Robert, one group that didn’t like the President’s speech on jobs yesterday was the Congressional Black Caucus. You might say that’s just a group, but since he’s the first African American President –

MR. GIBBS: I didn’t say that.

Q All right, correct the record –

MR. GIBBS: You may say that –

Q No, no, no –

MR. GIBBS: Okay, all right, just — go ahead.

Q I’m just saying he’s the first African American President –

MR. GIBBS: Let’s be fair and balanced. (Laughter.)

Q Does the — is the President concerned that they are not satisfied with his jobs plan? Does the President plan to reach out to CBC members? Where do things stand on that?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President — Congressman Clyburn was a member — is a member, obviously, of the leadership and was in the meeting today. I think that — I will say, the President said yesterday that the three ideas that he outlined with some specificity don’t represent the totality of all of what the President would like to see. Obviously this was discussed in that larger meeting, that we need to extend safety nets in terms of unemployment insurance and COBRA extensions. Obviously the President discussed increases in both exports as well as continued aid to states and localities. And there may be other targeted ideas that the administration works through between now and even the beginning of the year.

I think that dialogue will continue, discussing with members of Congress from both parties about how we can best address the situation.

Q Maxine Waters says he doesn’t pick up the phone to call members. Does that bother the President?

MR. GIBBS: Does it bother the President why? That she said that?

Q Yes.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think it’s true.

Q Can I ask — another subject?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q The EPA carbon dioxide ruling, some businesses have expressed concerns about what more regulations may mean in terms of jobs. Does the White House believe in any way that these regulations could have a positive benefit regarding jobs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, there’s no question. First of all, this was a process started not under this EPA but under a previous EPA, based on a Supreme Court decision handed down in 2007 that required the EPA to look into this. Secondly, I think as the President talked about even yesterday, we have an ability through incentivizing a clean energy economy to create the type of demand that’s necessary to create more and more clean energy jobs.

Somebody is going to build, as I’ve said in here before, somebody is going to build the wind turbines that power our homes. Somebody is going to build those solar panels. The only question is who is going to do it. By locating those manufacturing facilities here it can be Americans that build those, rather than having us import them from somewhere else.

Keith.

Q Back on the Senate deal, in the past we’ve had some trouble getting you to say that the President supports a specific policy in the health care debate. Is it correct that he supports that, the policy of that deal–

MR. GIBBS: In this event the President went right around me and said it himself.

Q Okay, but is this sort of a second-best to the public option? I mean, he did support a public option. Is this something that he’s willing to accept, or would he rather have had –

MR. GIBBS: Not only would he — I quote the spokesperson who as recently as 45 seconds ago said he supports it.

Q Would he rather have had a public option –

MR. GIBBS: You know, you ask me if the President would rather have won the lottery. It’s an interesting hypothetical that –

Q We do hypotheticals now — (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: He’d disagree with you on that.

Q It’s not hypothetical, it’s in the House bill. I mean, does he support that –

MR. GIBBS: We’re making progress. The President supports this process in terms of both good policy and as a way of moving that process forward.

Q To follow, now that the Democratic senators have reached this compromise on the public option, does the President feel that he did everything he could to push specifically for a public option –

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q — especially since that was his preferred measure of choice and competition?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. And he’s continued to meet with senators in order to make progress. Absolutely.

Q I’m following up, too. I read his comments and heard his comments from the community health care thing, but is he saying that he supports this as a vehicle to a conference committee product, or is he saying as a final product that he would support this?

MR. GIBBS: Look, it is hard for me to deign what is going to happen a week from now. I can’t even tell you what I’m going to have for dinner. So instead of projecting and predicting the outcome of a conference committee, just quote the President on what he said in terms of supporting both the policy and the moving forward notion in progress.

But understand, again, sometimes we miss it. Sometimes we focus on the twigs in the forest, not even the trees, to understand that we’re, again, likely one step closer to seeing comprehensive health care reform that we’ve had Presidents talk about for 70 years. That’s important.

Q Without a public option.

MR. GIBBS: With increased choice and competition.

Q But you’re not saying you approve the Senate over the House version?

MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry?

Q But you’re not saying you prefer the Senate over the House version.

MR. GIBBS: I’m just trying to get the bill through the Senate. (Laughter.)

Q Since you guys were not in the room when it actually came down, do you feel that — does the White House feel that it has a clear understanding of what is actually in the Senate deal?

MR. GIBBS: Say again?

Q Does the White House feel that you all have a clear understanding of what’s in this deal? We’re waiting to hear from CBO. We’re not going to see anything on paper until CBO gets more involved, but do you understand –

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think anybody is going to see a full set of details until — obviously, a series of points have gone to CBO to make some estimates and some predictions on a full range of things, and we certainly will await that, as well.

Q Your general sense is it — is what the President saying is he supports in concept the notion of making available to the public something akin to what government employees have an option of?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, the President certainly talked about that.

Q Is that what this is? Is that what you think –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that’s certainly part of it. I mean, again, as Jonathan said, there’s two different — as I understand it and as I think people here understand it, there’s two different aspects to it that would increase choice and competition. Obviously one part of that is something akin to what is set up under FEHPB.

Q And is this akin to — would this turn health care into something like a regulated utility? Is that a good comparison? Is that how much regulation –

MR. GIBBS: I’d be out of my depth to discuss the — the truth is I don’t know enough about the regulation of utilities.

Bill, and then I’ll come back.

Q Robert, again, we don’t know all the details, but it seems — not talking about the Medicare part of it, but the other part that you were just discussing with Margaret — that it offers a choice among another whole set of private insurance plans. So how does that offer the competition that the President was talking about if it’s just more private insurance plans on top of the 1,300 they already have?

MR. GIBBS: Well, understand, Bill, that somebody is going to — there’s going to be 30-some-million people that will go into — have access to different plans. The person that puts together the best plan that’s the most affordable is what people are going to buy. That’s the incentive of a system that allows increased choice and competition.

I think it’s clear people will have more choices than they have now; that that competition, as we’ve talked about in here, will foster progress and costs. As I read I think in the morning papers, there are even incentives — not incentives, there’s a mandate for the fact that a certain percentage of money involved in health insurance has to be actually spent on — can’t be spent on paperwork. That’s what drives up a lot of these costs. Obviously that’s a series of different incentives that will improve the system.

Q And just a quick follow-up. You mentioned that the President does call some members of the Congressional Black Caucus. According to the Hill, John Conyers said the President called him, concerned that he had made some demeaning comments about him on a certain radio show. How would you describe the relationship between Congressman Conyers and the President?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has respect for Congressman Conyers. I think the President — I don’t know the exact word the President used. I think the President believed the criticism was untrue. Suffice to say he reached out and touched someone.

Peter. Only like the older people in the room got that joke. (Laughter.) And I just realized that I’ve suddenly dated myself with something that a healthy number of people –

Q You’re talking about landlines.

MR. GIBBS: I know, I know. (Laughter.) I’m trying, you know?

Peter.

Q Robert, on the issue of jobs in the African American community, obviously the jobless rate among blacks is much more severe than among white Americans. In the President’s job bill, apart from shoring up the social safety net, is there anything he’d like to see done, particularly targeted at helping the black community?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think what the President believes is that the plans that he outlined will help white America, black America, Hispanic America, Asian America. Go through the weatherization, the retrofitting alone, we believe that policy like this creates a huge incentive that will increase jobs, that hopefully will begin to provide important training and the development of a skill that is obviously desperately needed not simply to jumpstart an economy, but also to meet our goals for energy efficiency and clean energy.

So whether it is the unemployment rate in all of America, whether it’s the unemployment rate in black America, Hispanic America, or whether it’s the under-employment rate, the President believes the ideas that he outlined are targeted and responsible in addressing those problems.

Q Just a quick follow-up. Does he have any — as the first African American President, the President received strong support from the black community. Does he feel any special sense that the black community unemployment rate is something that he wants to make a special focus?

MR. GIBBS: Look, Peter, I don’t think the President believes that we should address only one part of the unemployment rate. I think this is a graph that impacts us all. As you mentioned, there’s a greater number of unemployment African Americans than the national rate. There’s a greater number of unemployed Hispanic Americans than the national rate. The President believes that the plans that he outlined have the ability to address both the national as well as the black and the Hispanic community.

Q Robert, a follow-up on that.

MR. GIBBS: I’ll get back to you in a second.

Q Earlier this year, the President didn’t seem too thrilled when he had to sign the omnibus for fiscal 2009. Is he at all upset now that the Congress is poised to pass another and has only gone through, I think, five of the 12 individual bills, despite being under total Democratic control?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know that we have — I don’t know the degree to which the omnibus as it is presently constituted — let me get some guidance from Legislative Affairs on sort of where we are. Obviously the President believed and was hopeful that we could get a budget and a series of appropriations bills on time, and believes we should continue to do that. I think that anybody would say that the process of either omnibus legislation or continuing resolutions that fund the government are not the ideal way to go about doing this.

Q But he will sign –

MR. GIBBS: Let me get some guidance from Legislative Affairs.

April.

Q Robert, back on the issue of jobs and the black and brown community — there’s some advocacy groups that are wondering if this administration will be working with SBA, because there seems to be a problem — the federal government is not meeting its goal of minority set-aside procurement contracts. And with that, they say if the federal government were to do that, that would create jobs.

MR. GIBBS: I’m happy to look at what those statements are and get an answer from folks at SBA on the exact –

Q A follow-up. Again, on the issue of jobs in the black and brown community — and the numbers are much higher than the average — there are unique circumstances to be detailed. Is the White House trying to push more of a green economy — caulking for cash, and things of that nature? Black and browns are not jumping for these green jobs. They’re not rushing to get training for this. How is the administration going to afford that, as they’re trying to balance out unemployment rate in those communities and push this project?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ll tell you what he has told people that have asked him this specifically in regards to the African American unemployment rate is what I said in here earlier. Somebody is going to build these wind turbines. Somebody is going to build these solar panels. Somebody is going to be involved in the skills necessary to retrofit individual houses, apartment buildings, businesses, and what have you, in order to make them more efficient.

We have to decide as a country that we’re going to do that — not import wind turbines, not import solar panels, and not seek somebody else to do the type of skilled retrofitting that’s necessary to meet our clean energy goals, to save individuals and businesses money on their heating and cooling bills, as well as creating jobs. I think the President believes that that is a special challenge that we have and a special challenge that all of us must meet.

Thanks, guys.

END

MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody, and thanks for your patience today; we’ve been waiting for the traveling press corps, who’s in West Point today to cover the speech in person — for them to be screened and for them to be available to jump on this call. So I think many of them have now had the chance to do that.

For those that haven’t, we will be circulating a transcript of this as soon as we can turn it around, just so we can keep everybody in the loop here.

Just as a reminder, this call is going to be conducted on background, but it is not embargoed, so you can report as you find appropriate.

We’ll have opening comments from senior administration officials and then we will take your questions. Administration official number one, would you like to begin?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Senior administration official number one, I’m just going to give briefly the fact that the President talked this morning with Chancellor Merkel of Germany; Prime Minister Tusk of Poland. As many of you know, the President spoke last night over secure video teleconference at 10:00 p.m. eastern time with President Karzai of Afghanistan. That took place over the course of about an hour. And at 10:35 a.m., this morning, again over secure video teleconference — I’m sorry, telephone, excuse me — the President briefed Pakistani President Zardari on our way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

To save time on this call we will momentarily be sending out some readouts on those two calls. And I’m going to turn it over to senior administration official number two.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In his speech tonight at West Point the President will begin by reaffirming the core goal of the United States in the region, which comes — draws from the March 2009 strategic review. And just to be clear, that goal is to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

In order to achieve that goal we have subordinate goals for first Pakistan and then Afghanistan, which I’ll outline briefly before getting to your questions.

In Pakistan we need to sustain our focus on al Qaeda and we need to help the Pakistanis stabilize their state. That second part, stabilizing Pakistan, really has three dimensions: a political dimension, an economic dimension and a security dimension. The Pakistanis require help across all three of these aspects, in particular on the security front where they face internal extremists, the Pakistani Taliban, if you will, who actually threaten their state. But also on the political and economic front, the Pakistanis require our assistance, and our long-term aim with Pakistan is to establish and then sustain a strategic partnership, which helps them bring stability to their state; in turn, to the region.

Let’s shift to Afghanistan. There, our goal is to prevent the return of the Taliban — I’m sorry, of al Qaeda — and to prevent the Taliban from overthrowing the Afghan government. The President tonight will announce a new approach as to how we will accomplish those goals in Afghanistan. The concept that he’ll describe is to surge American forces to do several things: first, to reverse the Taliban’s momentum, which has been building steadily over the last three or four years; to secure key population centers, especially in the south and the east; to train Afghan forces, and then as quickly as possible transfer responsibility to a capable Afghan partner.

Just to review the bidding, in terms of what that means for troops, today there are just at 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan; 33,000 of those were committed this year, in 2009. The President will announce tonight that those 68,000 will be joined by an additional 30,000 Americans by next summer, by the summer of 2010. He will also announce that this surge, if you will, will be for a defined period of time. For more details on the timelines and so forth, you should tune in to the speech tonight.

Now, what will these troops be doing? They’ll have the following military mission. First of all, they aim to degrade the Taliban in order to provide time and space to develop Afghan capacity. Most directly, the Afghan capacity we’re developing are the Afghan security forces, so the army and the police. They also want to degrade the Taliban for a second purpose, and that is so that as we begin to hand off responsibility to the Afghan army and police, those emerging security forces are able to handle the Taliban because it’s at a diminished strength.

The other key task for the military, this additional 30,000 over the coming months, is to train and partner with the Afghan security forces to accelerate their development. The broad aim here is to open a new window of opportunity for Afghanistan and to create conditions to begin to transfer to Afghan responsibility by a date which the President will specify in his speech.

So let me just cover that again, because this is a point — this is a point which can easily be confused. What the President will talk about tonight is a date by which he has given the mission that we will begin to transfer our lead responsibility — that is, the U.S. and NATO lead responsibilities from that operation — to Afghan counterparts. He will not, however, tonight specify the end of that transition process, nor will he specify the pace at which it will proceed. Those variables — pace and end — will be dictated by conditions on the ground.

The President will make a strong point tonight that this is not an open-ended commitment. And the idea here is that all of us are — have to have a sense of urgency about this opportunity in the coming months to shift the momentum in Afghanistan. That sense of urgency has to be imparted first to our own government, both on the military side and the civilian side, but equally important to our NATO counterparts, and perhaps more important of all to our Afghan partners and our Pakistani partners.

While we do not intend — and the President will make this very clear tonight — to commit American combat forces indefinitely to Afghanistan, we do reaffirm our long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan, but not at anything like 100,000 U.S. troops in their country.

Let me just quickly remind that this is not a U.S. mission alone. There are about 40,000 other ISAF or NATO forces in Afghanistan, above and beyond the 68,000 Americans who are there today. Those come from 44 other countries, so it’s a pretty broad-based coalition. And we believe that by the time NATO holds its ministerial meetings at the end of this week, that the NATO Secretary General will have positive indicators that those 44 additional countries will also step forth with more contributions of troops.

Before we go to your questions, let me just remind that the military side of this equation is only one side of the coin. The civilian side is equally important. The President will announce some refinements in our approach on the military side. He will talk about how we’re sending additional civilian experts to Afghanistan to team up, to partner with our military units. He’ll emphasize that our approach has to be well beyond the Afghan capital of Kabul and the central government ministries, and has to reach out, in a bottom’s up approach, out into the provinces and districts so that we generate a bottom-up dynamic in terms of meeting the sharp timelines that he has put us on.

And finally I’d just mention that we have established — and the President will announce tonight — that our top development priority in Afghanistan will from here forward be agriculture, which is very much sort of swimming with the stream and with the traditions of the agriculturally-based Afghan economy, and also offers the best promise for quickest results in terms of our economic assistance.

Let me stop there and turn to my counterpart, official number one, to handle questions.

Q Thank you. First of all, can I ask that you identify yourselves — not for the transcript, just for our background information? Also I wanted to drill down on your statement that the President will talk about a date to begin the transfer of power. It’s been reported widely that three years is that date. Is that correct or not? And what does that mean, the beginning — what is he going to announce? What exactly does that date signify, how should we understand it? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, let’s let — let me — the three-year figure, in all honesty, is not in the speech. Let me give you a sense of what my colleague just said and what the President will reiterate tonight, that the strategy that he outlined to accelerate — will accelerate handing over security responsibilities to the Afghan forces and thus allow the United States to begin to transfer our forces out of Afghanistan beginning in July of 2011.

As my colleague mentioned previously, the slope thereafter is something that will be determined by the Commander-in-Chief, but the date that he will use tonight to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan would begin in July of 2011.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL: Just to clarify, this will probably be the most misunderstood and misreported point out of this whole saga, as is already the case, I think. This is the beginning of a process which is not yet defined in terms of the length of the process or the end point. And that’s because the pace of transition from our lead to the Afghan lead, and how long it will take, will be dominated by conditions on the ground, which, because they’re at least 18 months from now, are not possible to foresee with accuracy.

Q Hi, thank you very much, indeed, for taking the question and for doing this. What has happened to the goal of 400,000-strong Afghan national security forces, and what is the role of local militias in that? Is it the central army and police? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me take those in reverse sequence. We believe that all our efforts — our security efforts, our governance efforts, and our development efforts — have to generate this sort of bottom-up dynamic. On the security front, that means that we are experimenting now, the ISAF forces are experimenting now with a number of approaches or models to how we can link the traditional security structures of Afghan culture into the security structure of the Afghan state. None of these has proved definitive yet, but bottoms up security arrangements — community arrangements, tribal arrangements — are absolutely supported by this concept and are an important way to potentially accelerate security progress.

As for 400,000, we know that that number is out there. We’re actually taking this in smaller increments because we think that a goal that large and that far out — roughly four to five years in the future — is more than we can accurately program for and predict the requirement for at this stage. We see the Afghan security forces developed based on repetitive assessments on the ground more effectively in probably annual increments, rather than projecting three or four years out.

So 400,000 doesn’t have much weight with us. We’re going to aim to do what we’ve set ourselves out to do in 2010; and then based on that experience, adapt our milestones for 2011 and beyond.

Q I wanted also to ask you about the training of the Afghan army. The figure I have is from 97 [thousand] to 134,000. Some say that the army is ethnically unbalanced and that could be a potential problem for the administration. Are you aware of this, and how are you going to involve the Pashtun, mainly, into the army and security forces?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, today the army is at about 90,000 and its goal for 2010 is 134,000. So those are two good data points. As for the ethnic makeup of the Afghan national army, nationwide it is widely representative, roughly proportionate to the population base, to the demographics of Afghan population.

However, in the most contested areas — especially in the south — there is an under-representation in some of those units. And General McChrystal’s command has identified this as a challenge and understands that they must adequately retain the proportional balance, ethnic balance in the Afghan national army. Though to be fair, in the places that are most contested by the Taliban, recruiting and retention obviously struggle or is hindered. So that’s one reason that securing the population actually is a core principle of our approach here.

With additional security in those population centers in the south and the east, in the Pashtun belt, we think we’ll do better with recruiting and retention.

Q Thank you very much. Two quick questions, related. One, on the issue of the timetable, I know you want to make sure this is not misinterpreted, but even the July 2011 timeframe there have been arguments that setting up any date just encourages the Taliban, the insurgents to lay low and to wait people out. Can you address that criticism? And point two, the ability to get to 30,000 into theater by the summer — there’s been some noise already out of the Pentagon this morning that that may be logistically impossible. Can you address that? Is it actually doable to get that many troops into an infrastructure-free country that quickly?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me, again, take them in reverse sequence. As for the deployment timeline, first of all, this is, as you know, an imprecise science in terms of exactly which units flow when based on the infrastructure available and so forth. So I think the best — as precise as we wish to get here, and we refer you to the Pentagon for greater precision, is that the 30,000 troop surge is due to arrive in Afghanistan in the summer of 2010. For additional precision you’ll have to go to the experts in the Pentagon.

I’m sorry, the first point had to do with?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The Taliban –

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, yes. Well, remember what July 2011 represents. It represents the beginning of a process which will be conditions-based. So if the Taliban thinks they can wait us out, I think that they’re misjudging the President’s approach. On the other hand there’s a value in setting a date like this as a sort of strategic inflection point because it does put everyone on pressure — under pressure to do more sooner. And that pressure of the timeline begins with the U.S. government itself, but also extends to our allies and our Afghan and Pakistani partners.

So, you know, it may be misinterpreted, but the Taliban will do that at its own risk.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me add to each of those just real quickly, again in reverse order. Let me simply say what I think you’ve seen administration officials say today. The force option that the President has chosen gets more troops into Afghanistan faster than any option that was previously presented to him. That’s point number one. By the way, that’s more U.S. troops faster and more NATO troops faster than any other option presented.

Secondly, the logic of the Taliban waiting anybody out would subscribe to the logic that we will all be there forever. And the President’s viewpoint on that is, as you’ve heard my colleague say, this is not an open-ended commitment on behalf of the President.

Q One quick question about the composition of the force, of the 30,000. Can you give a rough breakdown of how many of those will be trainers versus combat personnel? And then I have a quick follow-up.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Of the 30,000, there’s still some assessment going on at the Pentagon as to how many combat brigades that 30,000 will include, but it will be several — two or three probably. We anticipate that in the 30,000 will be another brigade-sized element that will be completely committed to embedded training, not unlike the brigade that was committed just a couple months ago.

But on the training front, should make clear that the President has directed that all U.S. combat forces will pick up full-time partnering with the Afghan national security forces. So therefore, in a way, virtually all the U.S. forces who are there conducting combat operations also have a training or a developing role.

Q Thanks for taking our questions. Could you give us a little more granularity about the NATO commitment here? The number of 5,000 troops has been thrown out there, but can you talk for a second about what those troops — how many troops and what they will be doing?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, Secretary General Rasmussen of NATO and the Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis has been hard at work generating additional allied support; that is, new troop commitments based on the President’s decision to surge U.S. troops. I don’t want to preempt their work. They are — that is, NATO is conducting a foreign ministerial meeting on Thursday and Friday of this week. So I suspect by the end of that conference in Brussels — that is, by Friday — that Secretary General Rasmussen will have an announcement of a significant number of fresh NATO troops to be committed. And I think we should leave that announcement to NATO.

Q Thank you for taking our questions. On the strategic partnership with Pakistan, could you elaborate some? You mentioned the internal security threat posed to Pakistan by the Pakistan Taliban. What does the President intend to say about the threat posed by the Afghan Taliban? And what help, in specific terms, does the U.S. anticipate giving to the Pakistan military?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, you’ll appreciate that — first of all, our assistance to the Pakistani military extends back years, so there’s a whole series of programs that are underway to try assist them with materiel support; with financial support, to help them with the costs that they’ve incurred because of ongoing operations having to do with internal security; and with training support.

We should, I think from the outset, underscore that the Pakistani military is a developed, fully functional military with a standing chain of command and a full — pretty much a full capacity military. However, it’s adjusting from largely conventional tactics to what’s required to fight its internal extremists.

So we’re very much partnered with the Pakistani military to make them as capable as possible, to shift from their conventional standards to what you might call counterinsurgency or internal security.

I don’t want to go into individual programs, some of which are sensitive, but the bottom line is that we have, by way of this strategic review just conducted, reaffirmed our aim for a long-term enduring strategic partnership not only with the Pakistani military, but also with the Pakistani civilian government to meet their political and economic needs.

Q Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Mehmanparast already responded today to President Obama’s coming announcement and he said that Iran regards the U.S. government’s policy of surging forces as following Bush policy and that they see no change in U.S. policy, and the solution to security is actually the pullout of foreign forces and the cooperation of regional countries to provide security. So my question is that, would you please respond to this statement by defining Iran’s role so far in Afghanistan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, Afghanistan lives in a tough neighborhood, and also in that neighborhood is Iran to the west. Iran has traditionally played a very important role in the stability of Afghanistan. And we expect that that’s the kind of role we’ll see Iran play in the future.

One reason that this policy may seem to Iran as consistent with previous policies is that it’s founded on the same national interest, and that is that fundamentally, at the very core of this, is the U.S. national interest to protect America and America’s allies. And the threat that emanates from this region, centered on al Qaeda, persists.

So that’s why there — it’s easy to understand Iran’s perspective perhaps that there is some continuity here in the U.S. policy. That’s because the interest is consistent.

MR. EARNEST: Once again, I just want to thank everybody for participating in the call and for your patience today. We will be circulating a transcript. One final reminder that this call was conducted on background, so any comments that you use in your reporting should be attributed to senior administration official.

Thanks, everybody.

END

Submitted by Betty, Age 50, Kentucky

I am concerned about the healthcare / medical insurance issue. My husband and I are low income and are the people this so-called bill is supposed to be able to help; however, due to our ages and other circumstances, we are more than likely to be rejected for any help.

Underwater on the mortgage ? Walk away ! Of course the banks are furious at the suggestion that their debt slaves follow their own practices.

” Norms governing homeowner behavior stand in sharp contrast to norms governing lenders, who seek to maximize profits or minimize losses irrespective of concerns of morality or social responsibility. This norm asymmetry leads to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate burden from the housing collapse.”

Gone walkabout

Building war memorials will be a growing business, as Obama compounds Bush’s errors. Propping up corrupt puppet leaders and killing their subjects seems to be the preferred folly of US presidents.

How to Lose Afghanistan

Michigan legislators see sense. Perhaps they will begin locking up bankers instead. After all, it is the biggest cash crop in the USA.

High Times in Michigan

Built on slave labor and borrowed money, an extravaganza of opulence and misery is set to echo Shelley’s “Ozymandias.” Now all the money is gone, the slaves flee, and kleptocrat rulers fight usurious moneylenders in a background of half built dreams and pooling sewage.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer buncha thieves.

Soon, as Shelley said:
“The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Slaves and Masters

No Mo’ Money

Operating in secrecy, the USA and other countries conspire to remove free speech protections. Orwell was right. How long before we see “Newspeak” and “Thoughtcrime” ?

Global DMCA

In a very unusual legal decision, Judge Jeffrey Spinner ruled against a California bank that he said behaved in a “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” manner.

The ruling against OneWest and the IndyMac mortgage division has relieved the homeowners of their $291,000 original mortgage, as well as, $235,000 in interest.

The judge wrote that OneWest’s conduct was “inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious”, canceling the debt to prevent “imposing further mortifying abuse” against the couple.

The homeowner told the New York Post : “I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta. It was like dealing with organised crime.”

I was using Proctor & Gamble’s Puffs tissue with Vicks for a recent cold, and now I keep smelling and tasting camphor-eucalyptus, Vicks Vapor rub-like scent in my mouth. This is the 2nd day, and I find myself holding my breath when I eat just so my food doesn’t taste/smell like camphor. I’m
nervous that by using this product, my sense of smell and taste has changed. Help!
– Laura from Astoria, New York