That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make. So the bottom line is this: Any agreement to reduce our deficit is going to require tough decisions and balanced solutions. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.
I think there is a conceptual framework that would allow us to make huge progress on our debt and deficit, and do so in a way that does not hurt our economy right here and right now.
Nobody wants to put the creditworthiness of the United States in jeopardy. Nobody wants to see the United States default. The Vice President and I will continue these negotiations with both leaders of both parties in Congress for as long as it takes, and we will reach a deal that will require our government to live within its means and give our businesses confidence and get this economy moving.
So, with that, I will take your questions. Starting off with Ben Feller, Associated Press. Q Thank you very much, Mr. You keep saying that there needs to be this balanced approach of spending cuts and taxes. So my question is will you insist, ultimately, that a deal has to include those tax increases that you just laid out? Is that an absolute red line for you? And if it is, can you explain to us how that can possibly get through the Congress?
The Republicans say they want to reduce the deficit. Democrats have to accept some painful spending cuts that hurt some of our constituencies and we may not like. I don't think that's a sustainable position. If you are a wealthy CEO or a health -- hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been.
And you can afford it. And if we -- I just want to emphasize what I said earlier. If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who are not getting college scholarships. If we do not have those revenues, then the kinds of cuts that would be required might compromise the National Weather Service.
It means that we would not be funding critical medical research. It means that food inspection might be compromised. And my belief is, is that the Republican leadership in Congress will, hopefully sooner rather than later, come to the conclusion that they need to make the right decisions for the country; that everybody else has been willing to move off their maximalist position -- they need to do the same. Q You think they'll ultimately give in?
Chuck Todd. Q Thank you, Mr. Do you believe that the debt limit is constitutional, the idea that Congress can do this? And do you believe that marriage is a civil right? Let me focus on, initially, the issue of Libya. Muammar Qaddafi, who, prior to Osama bin Laden, was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet, was threatening to massacre his people. And as part of an international coalition, under a U. I spoke to the American people about what we would do.
I said there would be no troops on the ground. We have done exactly what I said we would do. We have not put any boots on the ground. This operation is limited in time and in scope. We have carried out that narrow mission in exemplary fashion.
And throughout this process we consulted with Congress. So a lot of this fuss is politics. And as a consequence, a guy who was a state sponsor of terrorist operations against the United States of America is pinned down and the noose is tightening around him.
And I think that such consultation is entirely appropriate. But do I think that our actions in any way violate the War Powers resolution? The answer is no. There may be a time in which there was a serious question as to whether or not the War Powers resolution -- act was constitutional.
We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world -- somebody who nobody should want to defend -- and we should be sending a unified message to this guy that he should step down and give his people a fair chance to live their lives without fear. Come on. So you had, what, a three-parter? What are the other two?
Q There is some question about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. Q Inaudible. It was contentious; it was emotional; but, ultimately, they made a decision to recognize civil marriage. And so I think it is -- I think it is important for us to work through these issues -- because each community is going to be different and each state is going to be different -- to work through them. In the meantime, we filed a -- we filed briefs before the Supreme Court that say we think that any discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgenders is subject to heightened scrutiny, and we don't think that DOMA is unconstitutional [sic].
And I think that principle will win out. I only have a two-parter. Q Are you concerned that the current debate over debt and deficits is preventing you from taking the kind of decisive and more balanced action needed to create jobs in this country, which is the number one concern for Americans?
And also, one of the impediments to job growth that the business community repeatedly cites is the regulatory environment. That could put people back to work right now -- construction workers back to work right now. And it would get done work that America needs to get done. We used to have the best roads, the best bridges, the best airports. I think -- Q -- spending and inaudible. That's important. Making sure that SBA is helping to get financing to small businesses, that's important.
So there are a whole range of things that we can be doing. I think these trade deals will be important -- because right now South Korea, frankly, has a better deal when it comes to our trading relationship than we do.
Part of the reason I want to pass this trade deal is you see a whole bunch of Korean cars here in the United States and you don't see any American cars in Korea. That's why we should get this passed. So there are a range of things that we could be doing right now.
Now, one of the things that my administration has talked about is, is there, in fact, a bunch of -- a tangle of regulations out there that are preventing businesses from growing and expanding as quickly as they should. Keep in mind that the business community is always complaining about regulations.
When unemployment is at 3 percent and they're making record profits, they're going to still complain about regulations because, frankly, they want to be able to do whatever they think is going to maximize their profits. Essentially, the NLRB made a finding that Boeing had not followed the law in making a decision to move a plant.
So I don't want to get into the details of the case. I don't know all the facts. That's going to be up to a judge to decide. What I do know is this -- that as a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate. And obviously, the airplane industry is an area where we still have a huge advantage, and I want to make sure that we keep it.
Mark Lander. What message do you have for American men and women in uniform who are undertaking missions, like the very risky one to capture and kill bin Laden, about what they should do in the event that they capture someone alive? And does the lack of these clear procedures raise the risk that forces might be more inclined to kill suspected terrorists in the field, rather than capture them alive, thus depriving the U. And, frankly, there are going to be different dispositions of the case depending on the situation.
And there are going to be sometimes where a military commission may be appropriate. Take the pace of their public speeches. President Eisenhower and President Kennedy had a few more than speeches and remarks, big and small, during their presidencies. For President Eisenhower those public remarks covered eight years and for Kennedy, it was less than three years.
Many of those speeches got to the public either through their being televised or through news broadcasts. Because of the high demand by reporters for seats, the conferences had to be moved from the White House compound where they were held first in the president's office — Wilson through to Truman — and then moved to the larger Indian Treaty Room in the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.
Even that room turned out to be a cramped space. President Kennedy's press conferences brought with them the glamour of a young leader, an activist policy agenda, and a tension between the president and his press corps. Young reporters flocked to Washington to cover the new president. Reporters were more willing to challenge the new president than was true in the Eisenhower years when the goodwill from World War II was still in the air. At the end of the Eisenhower administration, reporters lost their willingness to take at face value the government's accounting of events.
The U2 spy plane incident changed the relationship for many reporters with their government. It was an incident where the US government was caught in a lie — it was a spy plane the Soviets shot down, not the weather plane the White House said it was. When reporters found out they were lied to, they became wary of the accounts they received from White House officials. The incoming team of reporters, many of whom followed Senator Kennedy as he campaigned for the presidency, caught in a lie — it was a spy plane the Soviets shot down, not the weather plane the White House said it was.
The incoming team of reporters, many of whom followed Senator Kennedy as he campaigned for the presidency, caught the public eye as did the new president. They all prospered from press conferences where each side sought to establish control in its relationship with the other. In the period following the Kennedy administration, presidents have gradually adapted to high-risk high-reward nature of the on the record press conference. For Presidents Nixon and Reagan, they cut back the number of press conferences they held to approximately one every two months.
At the same time, the press conferences they did hold differed from those of their predecessors by holding them at night in prime time in the East Room. That way, the president did indeed get to the public. Before Nixon, no president had held a prime time press conference. Gradually, news organizations were less willing to give over their profitable entertainment time to the news division for ad-free time for presidential news conferences.
Since the Reagan years, presidents have searched for ways they can respond to reporters' queries but do so in environments that suit their own strengths. President George H. Bush brought in a variation of the presidential press conference that suited the diplomatic and personal needs of chief executives. President Bush established the joint press conference, most often with foreign leaders. When heads of state made an official visit to Washington, the two leaders held a joint news conference.
With a limited number of questions asked two for each side in this administration, the joint news conference is seen as of limited value to reporters but an important diplomatic tool for presidents. It is the solo news conference reporters want to take part in. With solo sessions less frequent than in Kennedy's era, White House officials gradually added in short question and answer sessions where the president answered a few questions between press conferences on current events.
With press conferences held relatively frequently in Kennedy's time, there was little need for the exchanges with reporters that presidents have today.
Recent presidents have also added in interviews with individual reporters or groups of reporters. Instead of holding a standard press conference, presidents today can choose from among the type of press session where they feel most comfortable responding to reporters.
One can see the variation among the presidents in the forums they choose to answer reporters' questions. Looking at the last four presidents at the two-year mark, we see the choices presidents now have in the venues where they meet reporters. With live television a presidential resource, presidents have increased their contacts with reporters. But they do so on their own terms. Bush 7, President Clinton 29, and George H.
And some of it is just simple math. The payroll tax cut that we passed is set to expire. The jobs plan includes an extension of the payroll tax cut. That means businesses are going to have less customers. Q Thank you, Mr. We put forward what we thought was a solid approach to paying for the jobs bill itself. Q My question has to do with your powers of persuasion. During the debt ceiling debate, you asked for the American public to call members of Congress and switchboards got jammed.
You have done a similar thing while going around the country doing this. Are you worried about your own powers of persuasion, and maybe that the American public is not listening to you anymore?
The American people are very frustrated. They get a sense that folks in this town are thinking about their own jobs, their own careers, their own advancement, their party interests. And so if the question is, Chuck, are people feeling cynical and frustrated about the prospects of positive action in this city -- absolutely.
And I can go out there and make speeches, but until they actually see action, some of that cynicism is going to be there. As you said, during the debt ceiling debate, a very solid majority -- I think maybe even higher than 70 percent -- agreed with the approach that I talked about, which was we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
They had their own agenda. And so if they see that over and over again, that cynicism is not going to be reduced until Congress actually proves their cynicism wrong by doing something that would actually help the American people.
This is a great opportunity to do it. We can afford it without affecting our deficit. Our proposal is paid for. So there may be some skepticism that I personally can persuade Republicans to take actions in the interest of the American people.
As you travel the country, you also take credit for tightening regulations on Wall Street through the Dodd-Frank law, and about your efforts to combat income inequality. Are you following this movement, and what would you say to its -- people that are attracted to it? So, yes, I think people are frustrated, and the protestors are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works. Now, keep in mind I have said before and I will continue to repeat, we have to have a strong, effective financial sector in order for us to grow.
And that was the right thing to do, because had we seen a financial collapse then the damage to the American economy would have been even worse. This is a guy who is well regarded in his home state of Ohio, has been the treasurer of Ohio, the attorney general of Ohio.
Republicans and Democrats in Ohio all say that he is a serious person who looks out for consumers. He has a good reputation. That does not make sense to the American people. They are frustrated by it. I will be hugely supportive of banks and financial institutions that are doing the right thing by their customers.
We need them to be lending. We need them to be lending more to small businesses. We need them to help do what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing business and families resources to make productive investments that will actually build the economy.
But until the American people see that happening, yes, they are going to continue to express frustrations about what they see as two sets of rules. Are you worried at all about how this is -- how your administration is running? The financial sector is very creative and they are always looking for ways to make money. And if there are loopholes and rules that can be bent and arbitrage to be had, they will take advantage of it. He has been very aggressive in going after gun running and cash transactions that are going to these transnational drug cartels in Mexico.
There has been a lot of cooperation between the United States and Mexico on this front. And I think both he and I would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the United States of America.
Solyndra -- this is a loan guarantee program that predates me that historically has had support from Democrats and Republicans as well. We will give siting. We will do whatever it takes for you to get started here. Now, we knew from the start that the loan guarantee program was going to entail some risk, by definition. But the overall portfolio has been successful. It has allowed us to help companies, for example, start advanced battery manufacturing here in the United States.
There were going to be some companies that did not work out; Solyndra was one of them. But the process by which the decision was made was on the merits. It was straightforward. But I have confidence that the decisions were made based on what would be good for the American economy and the American people and putting people back to work.
And by the way, let me make one last point about this. Well, you know what? Q Just a follow-up on Wall Street. Are you satisfied with how aggressive your administration has been when it comes to prosecuting? Because I know a lot of it was legal, but a lot of was not.
There was fraud that took place. But as a general principle, if somebody is engaged in fraudulent actions, they need to be prosecuted.
If they violated laws on the books, they need to be prosecuted. And do you think that your government has a right to dictate how much profits American companies make? I was trying to make a broader point, which is that people have been using financial regulation as an excuse to charge consumers more.
It contributed to overall weakness in the economy. And, yes, I think it is entirely appropriate for the government to have some oversight role to make sure that consumers are protected. So banks -- and any business in America -- can price their products any way they want.
And I think that Congress could make determinations with respect to whether or not a certain practice was fair or not. Why has that industry been so slow to respond to the investment that your administration has provided?
And what do you see going forward as to how it will respond? And there are a lot of upfront investments that have to be made in research and capital and so forth, a lot of barriers for companies that are trying to break in. Keep in mind that clean energy companies are competing against traditional energy companies. And traditional energy is still cheaper in a lot of ways. So, look, I have confidence in American businesses and American technology, and American scientists and entrepreneurs being able to win that competition.
0コメント