Politics Daily

Bill Clinton to Democrats: Health Care 'Doesn't Have to Be Perfect'

Patricia Murphy — 2010-03-16T15:22:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Bill Clinton, The Capitolist

Former President Bill Clinton went to the Senate Democrats' weekly policy lunch Tuesday to talk about climate change legislation, but health care reform was also on his mind.

"It doesn't have to be perfect," he told reporters on his way out the door. "Just remember that the economists at USC and Harvard said that if any version of these bills passes it will bend the cost curve in health care so much that it will add 250,000 to 400,000 jobs a year in the economy for a decade."

The former president speaks from hard-won experience. His efforts to pass health care reform in his first term went down in defeat and are blamed for Republicans' huge victories in the 1994 midterm elections.

Still, Clinton said Democrats must push ahead.

"Maybe Hillary will be the happiest person on earth, and I'll be the second-happiest person on earth -- even more than President Obama, even more than Rahm [Emanuel], even more than all the people who have been laboring for this for so long," he said. "I just want it to pass."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Six Reasons Barack Obama is Still the Odds-on Favorite in 2012

Carl M. Cannon — 2010-03-08T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Republicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Economy, Primaries, Media, Health Care, Polls, Bill Clinton, Republican Convention, Sarah Palin, Predictions, Obama Administration, 2012 President, 2010 Elections, Congress, Campaigns, Newt Gingrich, Liberals, Moderates, Unemployment, Jobs

Less than six months after he took office, Barack Obama was labeled a "lame duck" president by a few overeager conservative commentators. Before his first year in the White House was up, some nervous liberals began pronouncing their hero more Jimmy Carter than J.F.K. Now, independents are apparently casting gimlet eyes at the president. In a recent Gallup Poll, Obama was losing by 14 points among these swing voters in a 2012 matchup to something called the "generic Republican."

"The real bad news for the White House in the poll is the continued souring of independents on Obama," wrote Mark Hemingway in The Examiner. "It would be very hard to win re-election if that trend continues." True enough, but why should it continue? History is instructive, it is never static, and to those who believe President Obama will be easy pickings when he runs for re-election, I'd just say, "Wanna bet?"

So with no disrespect intended toward Mark Hemingway, or even Jimmy Carter, that human punching bag of ex-presidents, here are six reasons why the person who occupies the White House on Jan. 21, 2013 is most likely to be ... the man who occupies it now.

Reason 1: There is no such beast as a "generic Republican." To be sure, there will be a GOP presidential nominee, and that person will have a name, a history, a sex, a voting record, and -- unless the Second Coming takes place between now and the GOP convention in the summer of 2012 -- at least some of the normal human frailties. (No, Mitt Romney, despite never having a hair out of place you are not perfect!) In other words, the next Republican nominee will come before the electorate carrying baggage of his own -- or her own - whether that candidate hails from Wasilla, Alaska, or anywhere else in this big wonderful nation of ours.

In the summer of 2005, as he planned his own presidential run, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana told me he knew Hillary Rodham Clinton was a formidable front-runner and that going into New Hampshire against six or seven other Democratic candidates, most of them senators, she was likely to win. After that, the field would winnow rapidly, Bayh believed, until only one other strong contender remained. "Then it will be a binary election," he said, adding that Clinton could certainly lose a two-person race. This is indeed what happened, although it turned out to be a candidate not even on the scene at that early stage, Barack Obama, who pulled it off.

The point here is that in a "binary" general election campaign, voters won't be choosing between Obama and any idealized view of a "generic" Republican. This is important to keep in mind because we are in a politically polarized period in our nation's history. This doesn't mean that nastiness reigns in our political discourse - although polarization tends to lead to incivility -- it means that Democrats must hew to the views of their party's liberal base, as much as Republicans must pass various conservative purity tests. Thus, by the time the Republicans have chosen their standard-bearer, that candidate will almost certainly have staked out policy positions well to the right of the country as a whole. The upshot is that generic Republican numbers in 2010 are higher among independent or moderate voters than a real Republican's would likely be after surviving the cauldron of the primary season.

This is not sheer speculation on my part. That same Gallup Poll on the generic Republican issue put an open-ended question to respondents asking them to name "the leader" of the Republican Party. Officially (and unofficially) there is no designated leader, and this poll bore it out: Mitt Romney came in first at 14 percent; Sarah Palin was second with 11 percent. But neither Romney nor Palin defeat Obama in a mock 2012 matchup -- at least not so far.

Reason 2: It might not be a "binary" election, anyhow. Taking nothing away from the two winning presidential campaigns Bill Clinton ran in 1992 and 1996, each time it was a three-man race -- with Ross Perot being the third wheel. Clinton was clearly chagrined that Perot kept him from winning 50 percent of the vote in '96, but some of his top aides were more philosophical about it: They realized that Perot may have given Clinton the presidency in the first place. In 1992, Ross Perot siphoned 19.5 percent of the popular vote away from the two major candidates. That "giant sucking sound" Perot loved to talk about? That was not the sound of jobs going to Mexico. It was the sound of the twangy Texan vacuuming up disaffected Americans who likely would have shuffled into the voting booth, held their noses, and voted for George H.W. Bush.

Which histrionic populist could play a similar role in 2012? It's hard from watching his television performances to know exactly what Glenn Beck is thinking half the time, but "Glenn Beck for President" stickers were all the rage at this year's CPAC meeting in Washington, and there's a Facebook page and even a petition of those who'd like to see the Fox showman enter the fray. Likewise, there's a "Draft Lou Dobbs" movement that exists -- at least online -- seeking to transfer anger over immigration into a third party candidacy. These men cannot be elected, but they can run if they want to. And it ain't rocket science figuring out which political party would be hurt most in 2012 by a Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs (or any Beck-Dobbs imitators) candidacy.

Reason 3: He's already got the job. Incumbency is supposed to be a disadvantage in the current political environment, but that perception is worth a closer look. It's certainly true that people have a low opinion of Congress. A recent Gallup Poll put the percentage of Americans who approve of the job Congress is doing at 18 percent, the lowest figure in a year. A number of governors have seen the bottom fall out of their polling numbers, too. So yes, anti-incumbency is potent right now. But so is the bully pulpit. At this point in his presidency Ronald Reagan's job approval rating was in the mid-40s, lower than Obama's is now. In the 1982 midterm elections, Reagan's party lost 26 seats in the House. Two years later, Reagan carried 49 states while winning 58.5 percent of the popular vote in his re-election bid.

"In a midterm election, it's possible to get really far by just saying 'no,'" astute political observer Bill Schneider said at a breakfast meeting with political reporters last week. "In a presidential year, you have to present a real alternative."

In 1994 when I was covering the White House for the Baltimore Sun, I spent the week of the midterm elections vacationing in Arizona. It turned out I missed a pretty big political story -- the first GOP takeover of Congress in 40 years, to be precise -- and when on my return our congressional correspondent told me breezily, "While you were gone, your beat disappeared." I accepted the needle, but remember my private reaction, "I don't think the White House disappears."

As it happened, Bill Clinton had some of those same feelings: "The president is still relevant here," he said somewhat defensively in a news conference the following April. Clinton was right, even if he was mostly bucking himself up. The president appoints judges, vetoes bad legislation (and sometimes legislation that isn't so bad), manages the executive branch, and serves as the commander-in-chief. He also is the person this nation turns to when tragedy strikes. They can rise to the occasion, or not. For Reagan it was the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger. In Clinton's case it was the Oklahoma City bombing.

"We needed a president," former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry recalled later. "That was a kind of a moment that turned around his presidency."

So, yes, presidents are relevant, and the past century or so has shown us that they are more than twice as likely to be re-elected (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush) than rejected after one term (Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush). Occasionally they are deemed a failure and the public tunes them out. That usually happens in the second term, not the first, and it has not yet happened to Barack Obama, who demonstrated as recently as the Feb. 25 health care summit that he can command any room of his fellow politicians, no matter how big the egos and ambitions around him.

Reason 4: The midterm elections can be cathartic. It's clear that Democrats in Congress are dragging Obama down a bit --- and that they are also paying a price for some of the disillusionment with the president. It's a mutually reinforcing problem like the drowning guy who grabs the lifeguard around the neck pulling them both toward the bottom of the lake. But nature often has a solution for this problem: There's a possibility that Obama won't have Nancy Pelosi to carry on his back after November.

If that turnaround occurred --- if the House (or the Senate) goes Republican in this year's midterms -- the Republicans would smell blood in the water. They would do well to make sure it isn't their own before letting the sharks loose. In 1954, Republicans lost both houses of Congress even though their party standard-bearer was in the White House. As it happened, this didn't do much to derail Dwight Eisenhower. It turned out that Ike could do just fine negotiating with fellow native Texans Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson, and he was re-elected easily in 1956. Likewise, that GOP takeover in 1994-95 actually enhanced Clinton's political prospects: He was always best in full-throated campaign mode, and he outfoxed then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and the other GOP leaders on issues ranging from the budget to impeachment.

Reason 5: Youth will be served. For four decades, it was the Democrats' recurring fantasy that young voters would buck their elders and put a hip liberal in the White House. Lowering the voting age to 18 gave George McGovern and his campaign brass visions of riding a tide of youthful disaffection into the White House. This hope proved to be delusional. Turns out young people voted like old people -- only less frequently. To the consternation of liberals, when a generational gap finally did emerge it helped Ronald Reagan, the oldest and most conservative candidate in memory. Young voters recoiled from the Carter malaise and embraced Reagan's aspirational appeal.

But that has all changed --- and Obama is the beneficiary. The trend began in 2004. Remember the old line about not trusting anyone over 30? If the only people who could vote in 2004 had been the 18-29 crowd, John Kerry might be president: He carried the Millennial Generation by some 9 points, the only demographic group the Democrats won. In 2008, this trend became a tsunami of support. It evidenced itself in the primaries, when young people probably made the difference for Obama -- and it crested in November when the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden defeated the GOP tandem of John McCain and Sarah Palin by a stunning 2-1 margin.

Much was made last month when a study by the Pew Research Center showed that the Democrats' support among Millennials had shrunk from a 32-point advantage to 14. Their love affair with Obama has tempered some, too. Pew's study, one of the most ambitious ever done of the so-called "We Generation," shows approval for Obama's job performance declined from 73 percent to 57 percent in just a year. It's not a great trend, for sure, but that's still solid support -- and it seems poised to rebound if conditions in the country improve. Young Americans still like Obama better than anyone else. Also, they are an uncommonly optimistic crowd: Although unemployment has hit the young disproportionately, they have a sunny view of their own futures.

The most immediate beneficiary of that positive outlook may be Barack Obama -- three years from now. Another in-depth survey of under-30s that will be released Tuesday by Harvard's Institute of Politics also found general slippage in support for Obama, and dissatisfaction about the president's job performance on the economy and health care. But, like the Pew poll, the IOP survey finds a residual reservoir of support for the president that ought to concern Republicans. "Among the Millennials who told us that they volunteered on behalf of the Obama campaign in 2008, 85 percent said they'd be likely to engage in similar activities in 2012," John Della Volpe, IOP's director of polling told me this weekend.

Reason 6: Bad news is driving the public dissatisfaction. This president inherited two wars and an abysmal economy. For a while, the public didn't blame him: But Iraq seems to have settled into a slog where progress is elusive -- and Obama's delay in forging a new Afghanistan strategy didn't help him either. Moreover, economic conditions worsened markedly during his first year in office while the president seemed obsessed with health care. But, again, nothing stays the same forever. Health care reform legislation will either pass or it won't, and either way Obama will likely be better off on this issue than he is now. If it passes, by 2012 the public is likely to have learned to live with it -- and may discover it actually likes elements of the new law. If it is not enacted, the failure is no more likely to be the campaign's driving narrative than it was in 1996, two years after the Clinton plan went nowhere.

As for the economy: If it goes up, so inevitably will the president's popularity. Like Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama is presiding over a deep recession in his first two years in office. Reagan famously vowed to "stay the course," which served him well when the economy came roaring back in late 1983 and 1984. Obama's critics have noted dryly that Obama has pointedly not told Americans he'd stay the course, perhaps because it's not clear what that course would be. Nor did Obama achieve the kind of legislative success in his first year in office that Reagan did. Still, the president of the United States retains the microphone even in times of trouble -- perhaps especially in times of trouble -- and if the chief executive keeps cool, makes sound decisions, and things actually get better, so do the president's own political prospects.

History offers no guarantees, of course. Most prominent economists seem confident that economic conditions will be much better in 2012. If that's true, Obama should be in good shape. If not, well, then this is no longer the Great Recession. It's the second Great Depression, and Obama won't be Reagan or Clinton -- or even Jimmy Carter. He'll be Herbert Hoover, and we'll all be in the soup (or soup kitchens) and Barack Obama's re-election chances will be the least of our worries.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Generals Wary of Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal; Navy to Let Women Serve on Subs

Tom Diemer — 2010-02-24T08:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Senate, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Iraq, Education, Gay Rights, Bill Clinton, Foreign Policy, National Security, Culture, Ethics

Two top Army and Air Force generals remain deeply concerned about the prospect of gays serving openly in the Armed Forces and the abandonment of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

With their public comments, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, his counterpart in the Air Force, may be giving political cover to balky lawmakers who oppose President Obama's call for repeal of the existing policy, which requires gays in the military to keep their sexual orientation private, The New York Times reported.

"I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that's fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years," Casey said before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. "We just don't know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness."

Schwartz, in a separate appearance before the committee, said little research existed to show how the policy shift might affect deployed personnel, surveillance and support missions.

Both military men, however, pledged that they would fully carry out whatever decision Congress makes on the question of gay men and lesbians serving in the military. President Obama and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have called for doing away with "don't ask, don't tell" and permitting gays to serve openly. The policy was put in place in the early 1990s under former President Bill Clinton.

In a separate development at the Pentagon, the Defense Department notified Congress that the Navy had decided to lift its ban on women sailors serving aboard submarines, the Associated Press reported. Congress has 30 days to respond to the change. Young women graduating from the Naval Academy this year could be among the first to serve.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Bill Clinton Returns to Work After Heart Procedure

Christopher Weber — 2010-02-17T19:52:00+00:00

Filed under: Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton said stress and lack of sleep were to blame for his trip to the hospital last week for a heart procedure.

The former president spoke Wednesday in New York at an event to campaign against childhood obesity. He said his schedule had been harried ever since he started working to help victims of the devastating earthquake in Haiti.

"Once the Haiti earthquake happened I didn't sleep much for a month and that probably accelerated what was already going on with this failing vein," Clinton said, according to Reuters. "What happened to me wasn't all that rare, but what I have to conclude is I'm not going to do any more weeks where I do three overnight flights because I am going to have to help Haiti for several years. I can't get it all done in a week."

Clinton, 63, who had quadruple bypass surgery six years ago, underwent a procedure last Thursday to reopen a blocked bypass graft in an artery with the use of two metal stents.

Clinton promised to continue working but said he plans to exercise, get more rest, and eat a healthier diet. He said poor eating habits since childhood had caused his heart problems.

"The root causes were the habits I acquired in my childhood, mostly the way I ate and the way it interacted with my own biology and propensity to produce bad cholesterol," Clinton told The New York Times. "I ate too much fried food, too much ice cream, too much everything."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Democratic Pollster: 2010 Midterms Won't Be Repeat of 1994 GOP Takeover

Jill Lawrence — 2010-02-17T15:02:00+00:00

Filed under: Bill Clinton, 2010 Elections, Congress

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, who was an adviser to the Clinton White House in 1994, when Democrats lost their House and Senate majorities, Wednesday predicted Republicans will make "significant gains" but says a 1994-style congressional takeover is unlikely this year. Here are some of the reasons he gave at a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor:

- Democrats received an early warning of voter restiveness with the election of Sen. Scott Brown last month in Massachusetts. That has focused their minds and they won't be complacent going into November.

- Republican opposition to Bill Clinton in 1993 and 1994 drove up the GOP's numbers and improved the public's perception of the party. That's not true now, Greenberg said. GOP numbers collapsed in 2008 to a historic low in his polls and "they've not moved up one point in 15 months. The Republican Party is a cult. It is defined by Sarah Palin, defined by Fox News and its commentators."

- Clinton refused to criticize Republicans for wanting to return to Reagan policies. President Obama and Democrats aren't showing the same reluctance to blame George W. Bush and GOP economic policies for the recession. Obama is "effectively talking about Bush and responsibility for the lost decade."

- The climate for Democrats in 1993-94 was not just bad, it was "disastrous." There were the Whitewater and Travelgate investigations, and divisive debates about gays in the military and even a major crime bill. The crime bill failed because of Democratic infighting over the death penalty and an assault weapons ban. The defeat is "unimaginable" in retrospect. "Everybody's numbers crashed."

- The Clinton-era health reform debate raged until Sept. 26, 1994, when it was pulled from the Senate floor. "No announcement, no explanation from the president, just silence going into the election." The timing of the current debate is a blessing because it largely took place last year. Furthermore, the result may well be different: "It can't be dead. It shouldn't be dead and, I'm presuming, won't be dead."

- At this time in 1994, Clinton was at 58 percent job approval "and we were quite satisfied with ourselves." By fall, after health reform died, Clinton was at 39 percent. Obama has been stable at 48 percent since November, during the worst of the recession. If the economy continues to stabilize, that could rise by fall.

Update: Greenberg wrote a piece on this subject for The New Republic and it has just been posted here.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Starr vs. Clinton Revisited: Ruined Lives and Wasted Times

Walter Shapiro — 2010-02-17T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Bill Clinton

The 1994 scene from Bill Clinton's first trip to Russia is etched in my memory. As the bedraggled White House press corps staggered into Moscow's Metropol Hotel shortly before dawn after a midnight stopover in Kiev, Clinton press aides greeted reporters with these cheery instructions: "Check-in to the left, Whitewater statements to the right."

It seemed bizarre at the time that a domestic political scandal like Whitewater -- a small-time Arkansas land deal gone bad -- would dominate a presidential trip that cemented agreements with Ukraine and Belarus to relinquish the nuclear weapons they had inherited from the former Soviet Union. But, in hindsight, that White House statement announcing that Clinton had asked Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Whitewater was the political equivalent of a thermonuclear explosion.

That fateful Clinton decision to appoint a special prosecutor (who later was replaced by Kenneth Starr) culminated nearly five years later in the House of Representatives voting for only the second time in American history to impeach a president. Without excusing Clinton's predatory sexual behavior and his willingness to shade the truth and even lie under oath, this Starr-crossed chain of events ruined lives, marred reputations, and polarized a nation in a titanic struggle over what now seems like so little. An emblematic moment of ugliness came in a Virginia hotel room as federal prosecutors and FBI agents abusively questioned (and discouraged from calling her lawyer) a frightened 24-year-old former White House intern named Monica Lewinsky, who sobbed: "My life is ruined. Who's going to marry me now?"

This march of folly (legal, political, and human) is memorably retold by law professor Ken Gormley in his densely researched and grippingly readable new book, published this week, "The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr." Gormley, the interim dean at Duquesne University Law School, is primarily interested in the legal side of the equation, especially the inside story of the Office of Independent Counsel under Starr as its mission morphed from probing the Clinton family's finances to analyzing the DNA on a semen-stained size 12 blue dress from the Gap. But Gormley, who talked on the record to virtually everyone caught up in this depressing saga with the conspicuous exception of Hillary Clinton and Vernon Jordan, is out to do more than portray the impeachment drama as Watergate for the sex-obsessed. By avoiding cardboard-character heroes-and-villains journalism, Gormley's understated narrative ends up stressing all the quirks of fate and cosmic misjudgments that produced the out-of-control Starr investigation.

When galleys of this 769-page book first circulated last December, they were strip mined for revelations, such as Monica Lewinsky's belief that Clinton had lied under oath and betrayed her: "I guess my biggest disappointment was that he just turned out not to be the person that I thought he was, that I thought I knew." Perhaps most intriguing is Gormley's assertion at the end of the book (this one not buttressed by on-the-record evidence) that "there was a romantic affair, albeit brief in duration," between Clinton and Susan McDougal, who spent two years in prison for refusing to cooperate with the Starr investigation.

But the enduring power of "The Death of American Virtue" lies not in its mini-scoops but in its implicit historical case against ever again appointing special federal prosecutors -- independent counsels who operate outside the Justice Department's chain of command, unfettered by budgetary concerns or time limits. This is a major departure for Gormley, whose prior book was an admiring biography of Archibald Cox, the original Watergate special prosecutor. But it is difficult to escape the revisionist conclusion that the exemplary ethical and practical records of Cox and his eventual successor Leon Jaworksi were aberrations -- that the far-reaching powers of independent counsels are an invitation to prosecutorial arrogance and self-righteous certainty.

This is a lesson constantly forgotten by both left and right amid the hurly-burly of American politics. Four years after denouncing the independent counsel's Starr-chamber tactics in pursuing Clinton, liberals were loudly clamoring for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the purportedly punitive leak of Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA operative. (Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, had angered the Bush administration by challenging its pre-Iraq War claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to obtain uranium yellowcake in Africa.) When the dust settled after prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's brass-knuckle investigation, the initial leaker was unexpectedly revealed to be former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (Colin Powell's ally as a work-through-the-U.N. dove on Iraq); the only conviction was for conduct after the Fitzgerald investigation began (Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice); and one reporter went to jail and another almost followed her because of Fitzgerald's contempt for the tradition that journalists should protect confidential sources. It is hard to make the case that Fitzgerald (a left-wing hero) came much closer to the mythical notion of impartial justice than Starr (a right-wing icon).

Gormley limits himself to the Starr vs. Clinton story -- and his excessively fair-minded approach underscores the flaws of the Inspector Javert monomania of special prosecutors. The original Whitewater investigation revolved around the business antics of a beguiling and manic Arkansas political rogue named Jim McDougal who, as Gormley put it, "began coming [mentally] unglued just as Bill Clinton's career in politics began soaring." The Clintons' 1978 small-stake, no-money-down investment in McDougal's ill-fated Whitewater vacation development was a mistake that haunted them all the way to the White House. But for all of McDougal's bizarre record keeping and Hillary Clinton's unconvincing explanations of her occasional legal work for this small-town hustler (who also owned the bankrupt Madison National Bank), it is nearly unfathomable in retrospect that this unprofitable investment by the Clintons was treated by the press, the Republicans, and the special prosecutor as a major scandal. As Bill Clinton crony, Hillary law partner, former associate attorney general, and convicted felon (for bilking his law firm) Webster Hubbell said to Gormley about the Starr investigation: "I'd love to know what they were really after. It's never clear to me -- what did they think the Clintons had done that they couldn't prove?"

But there remains a bigger mystery, one that Gormley fails to unravel despite his methodical interviews: "The precise impetus for Starr's switching gears in the Whitewater/Madison investigation, directly zeroing in on Bill Clinton's extramarital sexual liaisons, remains a puzzle within a puzzle." First, Starr became entangled with Paula Jones' Arkansas-based sexual harassment suit against the president, which was belatedly settled by Clinton in late 1998 for $850,000. One of Gormley's delightful little nuggets is the revelation that "evidence from confidential sources now establishes with near certainty that the alleged 'distinguishing characteristic' described by Paula Jones at the time of her encounter with then-Governor Clinton in 1991 did not exist, as an anatomical matter."

Even more problematic was Starr's justification for seizing on the tip from Linda Tripp (whose conduct has not aged well even in this non-judgmental re-telling) about Monica Lewinsky's involvement with Clinton. The key for Starr was, as he later told Gormley, the "connection between Vernon Jordan and Monica Lewinsky" in helping her find a job at Revlon in New York purportedly in exchange for her silence. There turned out to be only one problem: There is no evidence that this quid pro quo deal ever happened and Lewinsky has consistently denied it. As Gormley writes, "The concern about the Vernon Jordan connection, while valid on the surface, proved to be a colossal overstatement. OIC [Office of the Independent Counsel] had embraced the Jordan story (as told by Linda Tripp) with open arms -- largely because they wanted to believe it."

Just days after Bill Clinton's latest heart scare, it is tempting to relegate his exploitive treatment of Monica Lewinsky, now in her mid-30s, to a bin marked "Ancient History." But it is also sad to read Lewinsky's final interview last year with Gormley as she admits, "I have contemplated moving to a remote country or changing my name." In a world filled with youthful misjudgments, she is unfairly fated (thank you, Mr. President) to always be equated with the punch line of a dirty joke.

As for Ken Starr, he is in the news this week after being named president of Baylor University. To his credit, he belatedly recognizes that he badly erred in seizing jurisdiction over the Lewinsky matter, telling Gormley, "It had to be investigated, but I was a poor choice to do it." Of course, that rueful acknowledgment and $3 might buy you a small Starbucks coffee on the Baylor campus.

Too bad that -- thanks to Starr and Clinton -- America had to squander much of the 1990s on over-hyped scandals, over-zealous prosecutions and an over-sexed president.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Murtha Funeral: Bill Clinton, Military Brass, 50 Lawmakers Attend

Patricia Murphy — 2010-02-16T13:09:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Budget, Bill Clinton, Obama Administration, National Security, The Capitolist, Culture, Congress, Jobs

The funeral of John Murtha brought some of the most powerful people in America to a small, snowy town in western Pennsylvania today, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and more than 50 members of Congress and military leaders gathered to pay respects to the late congressman.

Also in attendance at the Johnstown service was former President Bill Clinton, who appeared for the first time at a public event since being rushed to a New York hospital late last week with chest pains. Clinton, released after two stents were implanted, appeared to be in good health this morning.

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, spoke at the funeral and also joined with the Pennsylvania congressional delegation in escorting Murtha's coffin into Westmont Presbyterian Church. The event was broadcast live on local Pennsylvania television stations.

Murtha (D-Pa.) served in the Marine Corps and Marine Reserves for 35 years, including two years in combat in Vietnam. He represented his western Pennsylvania district for 36 years, rising from back-bencher to the chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

In addition to Conway, Pelosi and Murtha's daughter, Donna, also spoke.

"My dad would be overwhelmed by all of this," Donna Murtha said though tears. "He was my buddy and my pal."

Pelosi, who counted Murtha as a friend and confidant, spoke of his dedication to the American military and his constant presence in the back of the House chamber, where he struck deals with Democrats and Republicans alike. "In Congress, Jack held court, in the 'Pennsylvania corner,'" she said. "It was a sight to behold -- there was Jack, always smiling, twinkling eyes... to watch Jack Murtha legislate was to see a master at work."

Murtha died on Feb. 9 from complications following gall bladder surgery.

Rev. William George, the president of Georgetown Preparatory School outside of Washington and a friend of Murtha's, spoke during the service and joked about Murtha's reputation for sending billions in federal money back to his hard-pressed district. "For everything there is a season," he said. "A time to make laws, a time to change laws, and yes, a time to earmark."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Update: Bill Clinton in 'Good Spirits' Following Heart Surgery in New York

Luisita Lopez Torregrosa — 2010-02-11T21:49:00+00:00

Filed under: Bill Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton is resting comfortably and in good spirits after undergoing heart surgery, his cardiologist said Thursday night at a news conference at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City.

"The prognosis is excellent," said Dr. Alan Schwartz.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton joined her husband Thursday night, traveling from Washington to be at his side. Their daughter, Chelsea, who lives in New York City, was at the hospital when her father had the procedure.

President Barack Obama called the former president to express his good wishes, and former President George W. Bush called Chelsea Clinton while Clinton was undergoing surgery. Bush's father, the former president George H. W. Bush and his wife, Barbara, called the Clintons to express their support.

Clinton, who underwent quadruple bypass surgery at the hospital five years ago, had two stents inserted into his native coronary artery. The procedure took about an hour.

Schwartz said Clinton felt chest discomfort for several days and was checked by his doctors and admitted to the hospital on Thursday morning. He had an angiography and other tests before undergoing the stent insertion.

In answer to a question, Schwartz emphasized that Clinton did not suffer a heart attack. "The process went smoothly. He's walking and visiting with his family, and I expect to have him go home tomorrow." The doctor said he expected Clinton would be back at his office, in Harlem, on Monday.

The cardiologist also said that Clinton's condition was not the result of diet or exercise. "All risk factors are excellent," the doctor said, adding that Clinton has followed a good diet and exercise routine and that his condition was "part of the natural history" of the treatment. "This is a chronic condition,'' Schwartz said.

Clinton's counselor, Douglas J. Band, earlier issued a statement saying, "President Clinton is in good spirits and will continue to focus on the work of his foundation and Haiti's relief and long-term recovery efforts.''

Mrs. Clinton was in Washington when she learned about her husband's condition. She received the news after concluding a meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office.

Clinton, 63, has a history of heart problems. He had quadruple coronary artery bypass surgery in 2004 and had complications affecting his lungs that required another operation six months later.

He resumed an active life with the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and its global projects and his wife's presidential campaign in 2008. He now serves as the United Nations special envoy to Haiti.

Obama appointed Clinton and George W. Bush to head the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund in the wake of the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti. Clinton traveled to Haiti for a quick visit about 10 days ago.

News of his surgery broke in late afternoon and became the subject of tributes and commentary on the cable news networks. Experts on cardiovascular disease were brought on air to discuss the former president's condition, and longtime political analysts and commentators talked about Clinton's presidential years and his commanding personality.

Tom Brokaw, who appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball," spoke about the Clinton era and video clips were shown of Clinton's speeches.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Hospitalized Bill Clinton Tells President Obama He is Feeling 'Absolutely Great'

Lynn Sweet — 2010-02-11T20:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Bill Clinton

President Obama phoned former President Bill Clinton on Thursday, hours after he was hospitalized at the Columbia Campus, New York Presbyterian Hospital for chest pains.
Clinton, 63, had two stents placed in a coronary artery.
The White House said in a statement, "The President spoke to former President Clinton shortly before 7pm tonight and wished him a speedy recovery. He said that the efforts in Haiti were too important for him to be laid up for too long and hopes he'll be ready to get back to work as soon as possible. President Clinton said he was feeling 'absolutely great.' "
Clinton is helping to raise money for earthquake relief in Haiti.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton rushed to New York from Washington after a meeting with Obama in the Oval Office.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Bill Clinton Hospitalized in New York

Christopher Weber — 2010-02-11T17:09:00+00:00

Filed under: Bill Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton was rushed to a Manhattan hospital Thursday where he underwent heart surgery, according to media reports.

An adviser said Clinton, 63, was taken to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital with chest pain and had two stents inserted into one of his heart arteries.

Clinton underwent a quadruple-bypass surgery in 2004.

One of the bypass grafts from that operation became obstructed, according to The New York Times.

"President Clinton is in good spirits and will continue to focus on the work of his foundation and Haiti's relief and long-term recovery efforts," spokesman Douglas J. Band said in a statement released by Clinton's office.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton left Washington and headed to New York to be with her husband.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Candy Crowley: Incoming Queen of Sunday Morning Talk

Bonnie Erbe' — 2010-02-07T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Education, Bill Clinton, Obama Administration, Culture, News Media, Jobs

This weekend, veteran CNN reporter Candy Crowley takes on a high-profile role in the often rough-and-tumble world of Sunday morning talk shows. As the new host of CNN's "State of the Union," Crowley will be the only female anchor in that time slot, and the first since Cokie Roberts stepped down as co-anchor of ABC's "This Week" in 2002.

Crowley has spent her adult life as a destroyer of heels and soles: a beat reporter and a political reporter, out on the streets, pounding pavements, getting on and off airplanes and spending nights in (some dingy, some palace-like) hotel rooms. From Bill Clinton's impeachment to Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House, Crowley has been in the front row asking questions.

Disclosure: I have known Candy for more than two decades -- since the time we covered Washington for two different radio networks. We worked as correspondents for NBC News back in the day, although in different bureaus and at different times. We've run into each other professionally on occasion (most recently last June, when we were honored with awards from the Women's Media Center ), but we have never socialized together.

After a half-hour phone conversation with Crowley this week, my impression is that she's up to her new task: She's a happy, smart, hard-working, well-grounded individual.

Is this your dream job?

You know, that would assume that I had dreamed of it. I didn't begin to dream of it until the opening came up. I said, "I'm going to call them up and say I want it." It was not in my sights.

Where was your career headed?

My whole career was not headed here. My career has been, well, organic. It's really good to have goals, but one shouldn't be so focused that you don't look right or left to see that there are other things out there. In many ways life has handed me many things I would not have expected, and this is one of them.

Do you feel like you're making history?

No, because I don't know what that feels like. In truth, I looked upon this first as a journalistic opportunity. It wasn't until Monday when my e-mail began to be flooded, that I realized this is something! I kind of expected that women might have written to me. But I didn't expect the outpouring from young women, strangers and people within and outside of our company. Then I said to myself: Wow! Well, good! If my new job is helpful to any young or old woman anywhere, then yay, I will raise the flag. But mainly I think of it as a journalistic challenge. At the same time, I'm clearly a woman. I'm telling the honest truth here. If you asked me: Who is Candy Crowley? I would say I'm a mother, I'm a journalist and I'm a daughter, a sister. I certainly am a woman and I would have gotten to that, but it's not my first self-identifier.

What was key to your rising in such a tough, competitive corporate environment?

Here at CNN we did a thing not too long ago that Dana Perino [former spokeswoman for President George W. Bush] suggested we do. She set up an event called "One Minute Mentoring." She brought together successful women and young women who were just starting out on Capitol Hill and at various media outlets. She asked the speakers to bring three top tips to give to these young women. My first and most important was to be who you are. Especially in journalism, which is about the truth. You also have to be lucky and I was enormously lucky. There is an enormous amount of being in the right place at the right time. But you have to stick with who you are and it's either got to work or it's not going to work. In the end, it was the most comfortable place for me to be. I guess if there's a secret, it's that I've been very, very lucky and I have an enormously supportive family.

Where has it not worked for you?

Oh, you know, there have been setbacks all along. Certainly you think to yourself, "I should have been given that job or beat or assignment, et cetera." "Nightline" was nirvana for journalism and I would have loved to have had a job there. But they had incredibly talented people there and they didn't need me. It didn't work out. I look at it now and I think back and it makes so much more sense if you look backward. Now I can say to myself that if that had happened, this never would have happened. And the truth is, if I got what used to be my dream job, I wouldn't be sitting here doing a dream job that I never dreamed of. So setbacks can be small things, like why I didn't get assigned a story, or big things, like why I didn't get a job. But you keep going and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

Do women have parity in broadcasting?

I would say no, I don't think so. But neither do minorities. Things are better but we are not there. It is a work in progress and it will get better still.

From what you do, from what I do, from what Andrea Mitchell does -- any time young women can take sustenance from that to keep going, then hallelujah!

Are women closer to parity in other fields?

I know they are, but I don't know in which fields. One of my sons is spending year in New Zealand and he took us to a dinner with a lot of doctors. He and my daughter-in-law are both doctors there. And we got into a discussion of whether it helps or hurts to be a female doctor versus female as journalist. My daughter-in-law thinks it actually helped her to be female in certain ways. And so in some ways, it can help. It can also hurt. Depends on who's making the selection.

Do you mentor young women, young journalists?

I try. In some official capacity? No. Do I address women young when they come in here? Yes. I answer young women's questions and try to help anytime I can. But it all comes down to time.

Are you or have you been called a feminist?

I don't know if I've ever been called it, but it depends on your definition. If it means being for equal rights and equal opportunity for women, you betcha! I think the term used to be disparaged, but I think that era is over frankly. There was a point when feminism was used as a pejorative term in the political world. But it's not a pejorative to me. And it's not a loaded word anymore.

Will the audience change when you take over "State of the Union"?

I haven't the vaguest idea. That's the biggest change for me: thinking about audience, because when you appear all over the network for short periods at different times, you think about audience in generic terms, not about specific demographics. I hope to not worry too much about it. My target audience is anyone who's interested in politics, and quite frankly I think that should be everybody, because their lives are affected by the outcome of politics. I want to know what they want to know, because that's what I want to find out and deliver.

As someone who's covered Washington politics, do you believe in bipartisanship?

Sure, it can exist where there's mutual agreement on something. But let's face it, bipartisanship generally is used as a term with one side when the other disagrees. On the other hand, that's why we have two parties. Or more, actually. Our system was set up to tolerate political differences. The majority also has to have a brake somewhere, and that's always been the minority [which can put brakes on programs backed by the majority].

Has the angry cross-talk increased in recent years?

I think sometimes when people refer to a lack of bipartisanship, I think they mean civility. If you look at President Obama last week [speaking at a Republican gathering] they didn't agree on much but they weren't calling each other names. I think that's what people are talking about. Politics has gotten uncivil and that's what people don't like. It's become like some awful kindergarten class.

How do you think Secretary of State Clinton is handling her job and and accomplishing her goal of offering special help for women and girls?

I don't know. I haven't watched that. But I will tell you this: Take a look at her approval ratings. They're way higher than the president's. People think she's doing a great job and she's one smart woman who works very hard, and it's hard to fail with that combination.

What's your favorite story that you have covered?

Oh, they are all my children. So many times throughout my career I've thought that this is the best story I'm every going to cover. You think: Oh, this is such a big story and you're there and this is going to show up in a history book somewhere. You cover the impeachment of former President Clinton and you say this is the story of my life. Then you roll into the political campaign of 2000 and by December we still don't have a president. Then you roll into 9/11 and I was on the streets of New York thinking this is the biggest story of my lifetime. After the Kerry campaign I thought, "I don't think I can go on and off the bus, and the plane and in and out of hotel rooms anymore." Then Hillary ran for president. Then Obama won and I stood in Grant Park that night and I said I'll never cover anything as big as this again. As I said it, I knew it wasn't true, for good or for bad.

Any tips to young parents on juggling career and family?

I can only tell you that for all the mistakes that I made in the juggling game, like dropping a ball, you never get over the feeling when your kids are young that you are in the wrong place if you are away from them, or if you're with the kids that you should be out covering a story. So there's always going to be discomfort and worry that you're doing right by your kids and your job. As long as that is your goal, and you know where your priority is, and that's your kids, you're going to be OK. I have spectacular adult children, and not because I didn't make mistakes but because they knew I loved them. [Candy has four children: two biological and two from a blended family.]

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Vanquished Lawmakers to Capitol Hill Dems: Losing for a Good Cause Isn't the Worst Thing

Jill Lawrence — 2010-02-02T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, Budget, Bill Clinton, Obama Administration, Culture, 2010 Elections, Congress, Campaigns, Ethics

Karen Shepherd and Marjorie Margolies have a message for their former colleagues on Capitol Hill: There is life after Congress, so vote your conscience, explain your reasons and let elections turn out as they may. If you lose, you might even get some presidential help finding a new job.

It is, no doubt, a scary time for incumbents. Republicans are under pressure to meet conservative purity tests in the face of energized primary opponents who have access to money. Democrats, meanwhile, are still trying to recover from Republican Scott Brown's Senate win last month in Massachusetts. Does that mean they should abandon their ambitious drives to reform the health system, tighten financial regulation and change the country's energy habits?

Even as they try to figure it all out, President Obama added yet more trepidation to the lives of Democrats. Last week, guaranteeing an uprising among social conservatives, he said he wants them to repeal the military's don't ask, don't tell policy toward gay troops. And now comes the president's $3.8 trillion budget -- a juicy target if ever there was one.

Principles or survival? That was the question Kansas Republican Edmund G. Ross faced in 1868 when he cast the deciding vote to acquit President Andrew Johnson in his Senate impeachment trial. The career consequences for Ross were grim, but his historic choice earned him a chapter in John F. Kennedy's Profiles In Courage.

The issue at hand was more practical in 1993, when Shepherd and Margolies were vulnerable freshmen called on to support then-President Bill Clinton's budget. While the bill cut taxes for low-income people and small businesses, it raised the gasoline tax and, for the better off, Social Security taxes. Democrats passed it all by themselves -- 218-216 in the House, 51-50 in the Senate (with Vice President Al Gore voting).

That budget was key to putting the nation on a sound fiscal footing. But in the short term, that is the 1994 campaign, Republicans attacked Democrats as tax-hikers; they took credit for blocking Clinton's "government takeover" of health care, and anti-incumbent fever swept the land. Sound familiar?

Margolies -- then married and known as Margolies-Mezvinsky -- was the deciding Democratic vote on the floor, which made her highly visible and vulnerable in her Republican-leaning district outside Philadelphia. She says she regrets not being a better politician and she regrets losing her seat, but she doesn't regret her vote. "I don't want to sound holier than thou. These decisions are very difficult," she told me. "But you really have to do what is right and not what you have justified is right" because you can't bear to lose.

For Utah's Shepherd, the budget vote was a loser whatever she did. "My constituency was evenly split on the subject. So I was damned either way," she told me. She went with her gut, supported the bill and never looked back: "The result of that vote was that the United States ended up with a surplus instead of a deficit. And it was absolutely the right thing to do."

The principle-vs.-survival calculus is different for each member.

Margolies recalled a colleague telling her that he voted 95 percent on principle and 5 percent "to stay." But not all 5 percents are created equal. No one should vote on comprehensive health reform, unattainable for a century so far, "to stay." Too much is at stake, from the 31 million uninsured people who would get coverage, to the "exchanges" or marketplaces that would force private insurers to compete and give consumers more affordable choices.

Most Democrats in the House, and all Democrats in the Senate, already have voted for initial versions of health reform bills. Both Margolies and Shepherd say the party will face a debacle in November if it doesn't somehow get the package to final passage and on Obama's desk.

Shepherd has been on the phone urging her liberal former colleagues to pass the Senate bill to start the country on the road to reform, even though it has elements they -- and she -- dislike. "I think that it has to pass or else in my lifetime there will never be comprehensive health care in America," Shepherd told me. "I just can't imagine having the opportunity to start the process (toward that), and dropping it."

The two former congresswomen don't minimize what it means to lose. "I counted it as one of the most dramatic experiences I've ever had," Shepherd said of her 1994 loss to Enid Greene Waldholz. "It's horrible to have your state say 'we don't like you.' It's embarrassing, it feels degrading, it feels like failure, everything about it is hard."

But life went on. After Shepherd lost, Clinton named her to represent the United States at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London; she held the post for six years. In 1995, using leftover campaign money, she founded the Karen Shepherd Fund to pay interns on Democratic campaigns in Utah; so far 173 interns have received stipends. Shepherd sits on the board of that group and two others, and calls the work "challenging."

Margolies also had a little help from the Clinton White House (and this was long before she was on track to become Chelsea Clinton's mother-in-law). She was named to head the U.S. delegation to the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing. That led her to form Women's Campaign International, a non-profit organization that helps women learn political skills and become decision-makers in their countries. Margolies chairs the group and teaches classes on politics, media and women in emerging democracies at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Obama administration cushioned the pain of defeat for former Rep. Nancy Boyda. She won a GOP House seat in Kansas in 2006 but lost it in 2008. Last July, Boyda was sworn in as deputy assistant secretary of defense for manpower and personnel issues. How did she lose in such a Democratic year? The Almanac of American Politics gives at least a partial answer: She came under attack for backing Democratic budgets that sought to phase out President Bush's tax cuts for wealthy people.

The GOP argument hasn't changed, but it has expanded. Soon after the Obama budget came out Monday, the National Republican Congressional Committee shot a press release into more than 60 targeted House districts. The headline: "Will Target Dems Vote for Another Budget that Spends Too Much, Borrows Too Much, and Taxes Too Much?"

It's not etched in stone -- yet -- that Democrats are headed for catastrophe at the polls or a run for the hills on issues they care about. They are 90 percent of the way to passage on health reform, and when people find out what's in the bill, polls show they like a lot of it. Congress is also nearly halfway to passing financial reform and energy bills. And speaking of polls, there was one bright spot Monday to counter-act anxieties over the budget: Gallup released 2009 data showing that most states are still more Democratic than Republican.

That said, there's certainly no assurance voters will come to love the Obama agenda or decide the president deserves more time to pursue it. I'd love to see Obama guarantee soft landings for all those who put their necks on the line to pass it. Even signals would be helpful. Then again, there could be quite a few Democrats losing this fall, because the economy is bad, or people are tired of one-party rule, or -- the irony -- Democrats can't seem to get anything done.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Urged to Keep Talking to Political Rivals

Tom Diemer — 2010-01-30T18:40:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, State of the Union, Bill Clinton, Governors, 2010 Elections, Congress, Conservatives

Democratic strategist Lanny Davis says President Barack Obama's openness before the House Republican conference in Baltimore was "his finest public moment since he became president."

"If only he could produce the same attitude of tolerance, civility and openness to differing opinions by the rabid, vitriolic right and left of both parties -- and to the House Democratic and Republican leaders," Davis told Politico.

The give-and-take meeting at a GOP retreat came two days after the president's State of the Union speech in which he chided Republican congressmen for rejecting virtually all of the health care reform proposals put forth by the majority Democratic side.

The Washington Post questioned whether the 90 minutes of political theater in Baltimore would be remembered as a moment when partisan tensions eased, or as simply an asterisk during a time of polarization. The newspaper said Obama may have helped himself politically in his call for bipartisanship during a strong, knowledgeable performance that easily eclipsed his State of the Union address.

Lanny Davis said Obama should follow up by holding a similar meeting with House Democrats and, for his part, pledge to "stop listening to the voices of stridency and hate on the left blogs and on TV cable shows..."

Davis, a special White House counsel during former President Clinton's second term, is a frequent guest on political talk shows and is close to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Coincidentally -- but certainly in a bipartisan vein -- former President George H.W. Bush and his son former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush visited Obama at the White House on Saturday, the AP reported.

The former president. 85, used a cane as he entered the White House for a social call on a snowy day in the nation's capital. After the 35-minute get-together Bush senior told reporters it was "good meeting, good meeting." He was in Washington to attend a dinner.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Debates with Republicans at GOP House Retreat

Bruce Drake — 2010-01-29T16:26:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Obama Administration

Following is a transcript of President Obama's give-and-take with Republicans at a retreat for GOP House members in Baltimore, Md. on Friday.

SPEAKERS: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

REP. MIKE PENCE, R-IND., CHAIR, HOUSE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE

REP. PAUL D. RYAN, R-WIS.

REP. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, R-W.VA.

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, R-UTAH

REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN, R-TENN.

REP. TOM PRICE, R-GA.

REP. PETER ROSKAM, R-ILL.

REP. JEB HENSARLING, R-TEXAS

[*] OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you so much. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, John, for the gracious introduction.

To Mike and Eric, thank you for hosting me.

Thank you to all of you for receiving me. It is wonderful to be here.

I want to also acknowledge Mark Strand, the president of the Congressional Institute.

To all the family members who are here and who have to put up with us who are in elective office each and every day, thank you, because I know that's tough.

(APPLAUSE)

I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know what they say, "Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every few months."

(LAUGHTER)

Now, part of the reason I accepted your invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not just to all of you. So I'm looking forward to taking your questions and having a real conversation in a few moments.

And I hope that the conversation we begin here doesn't end here, that we can continue our dialogue in the days ahead.

It's important to me that we do so; it's important to you, I think, that we do so. But, most importantly, it's important to the American people that we do so.

I've said this before, but I'm a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security; that's not something that's only good for our country, it's absolutely essential.

It's only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back-and-forth, that imperfect, but well-founded process, messy as it often is, is at the heart of our democracy. It's what makes us the greatest nation in the world.

So, yes, I want you to challenge my ideas. And I guarantee you that, after reading this, I may challenge a few of yours.

(LAUGHTER)

I want you to stand up for your beliefs. And knowing this caucus, I have no doubt that you will. I want us to have a constructive debate.

The only thing I don't want -- and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don't want either -- is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks when we're in -- in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That's their obsession.

And I'm not a pundit; I'm just a president. So take it for what it's worth.

But I don't believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: I don't think they want more gridlock. I don't think they want more partisanship. I don't think they want more obstruction. They didn't send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel cage match to see who comes out alive. That's not what they want.

They sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they're grappling with every single day.

And I think your constituents would want to know that, despite the fact it doesn't get a lot of attention, you and I have actually worked together on a number of occasions.

There have been times where we've acted in a bipartisan fashion, and I want to thank you and your Democratic colleagues for reaching across the aisle.

There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny Al Qaida safe haven, to break the Taliban's momentum and to train Afghan security forces. There's been broad support for disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaida.

And I know that we're all united in our admiration of our troops.

(APPLAUSE)

So it may be useful for the international audience right now to understand, and certainly for our enemies to have no doubt, whatever divisions and differences may exist in Washington, the United States of America stands as one to defend our country.

(APPLAUSE)

It's that same spirit of bipartisanship that made it possible for me to sign a defense contracting reform bill that was co-sponsored by Senator McCain and members of Congress here today.

We've stood together on behalf of our nation's veterans. Together we passed the largest increase in the V.A.'s budget in more than 30 years and supported essential veterans health care reforms to provide better access and medical care for those who serve in uniform.

Some of you also joined Democrats in supporting a credit card bill of rights and in extending unemployment compensation to Americans who were out of work.

Some of you joined us in stopping tobacco companies from targeting kids, expanding opportunities for young people to serve our country, and helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes.

So we have a track record of working together. It is possible. But, as John, you mentioned, on some very big things we've seen party- line votes that -- I'm just going to be honest -- were disappointing.

OBAMA: Let's start with our efforts to jump-start the economy last winter when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large.

I didn't understand then, and I still don't understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people or COBRA coverage to help Americans who'd lost jobs in this recession to keep the health insurance that they desperately needed, or opposition to putting Americans to work laying broadband and rebuilding roads and bridges and breaking ground on new construction projects.

There was an interesting headline in -- in CNN today: Americans disapprove of stimulus, but like every policy in it. And there was a poll that showed that if you broke it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, 80 percent approved of the assistance to the unemployed.

Well, that's what the Recovery Act was, and I -- you know, let's face it, some of you have been at the ribbon cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities.

Now, I understand some of you had some philosophical differences, perhaps, on just the concept of government spending, but as I recall, opposition was declared before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas. And I saw that as a missed opportunity.

Now, I am happy to report this morning that we saw another sign that our economy is moving in the right direction. The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent. That's the most since 2003.

To put that in perspective, this time last year we weren't seeing positive job. We were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent. So we've seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year.

This turnaround is the biggest in nearly three decades, and it didn't happen by accident. It happened, as economists, conservative and liberal, will attest, because of some of the steps that we took.

OBAMA: And, by the way, you know, you mentioned the Web site out here, John. If you want to look at what's going on in the Recovery Act, you can look on recovery.gov, a Web site, by the way, that was Eric Cantor's idea.

Now, here's the point: These are serious times. And what's required by all of us, Democrats and Republicans, is to do what's right for our country, even if it's not always what's best for our politics.

I know it may be heresy to say this, but there are things more important than good poll numbers. And on this, no one can accuse me of not living by my principles.

(LAUGHTER)

A middle class that's back on its feet, an economy that lifts everybody up, an America that's ascendant in the world: That's more important than winning an election.

Our future shouldn't be shaped by what's best for our politics. Our politics should be shaped by what's best for our future.

But, no matter what's happened in the past, the important thing for all of us is to move forward together.

We have some issues right in front of us on which I believe we should agree because, as successful as we've been in spurring new economic growth, everybody understands that job growth has been lagging.

Some of that's predictable. Every economist will say jobs are a lagging indicator. But that's no consolation for the folks who are out there suffering right now.

And since 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in this recession, we've got to do everything we can to accelerate.

So, today, in line with what I stated in the State of the Union, I've proposed a new jobs tax credit for small business. And here's how it would work.

Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010.

They'd get a tax break for increases in wages as well. So if you raise wages for employees making under $100,000, we'd refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation.

It's a simple concept. It's easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses.

So I hope you join me. Let's get this done.

I want to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business investment and take some of the bailout money the Wall Street banks have returned and used it to help community banks start lending to small businesses again.

So join me.

I am confident that we can do this together for the American people. And there's nothing in that proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predispositions of this caucus. The question is, what's going to keep us from getting this done.

OBAMA: I've proposed a modest fee on the nation's largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover the taxpayers' money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. And it's designed to discourage them from taking reckless risks in the future.

If you listen to the American people, John, they'll tell you they want their money back. Let's do this together, Republicans and Democrats.

I've proposed that we close tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas, and instead give companies greater incentive to create jobs right here at home -- right here at home. Surely that's something that we can do together, Republicans and Democrats.

We know that we've got a major fiscal challenge in reining in deficits that have been growing for a decade and threaten our future. That's why I've proposed a three-year freeze in discretionary spending, other than what we need for national security. That's something we should do together. That's consistent with a lot of the talk, both in Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses. We can't blink when it's time to actually do the job.

At this point, we know that the budget surpluses of the '90s occurred in part because of the pay-as-you-go law, which said that, well, you should pay as you go and live within our means, just like families do every day. Twenty-four of voted for that, and I appreciate it, and were able to pass it in the Senate yesterday.

But the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long term died in the Senate the other day, so I'm going to establish such a commission by executive order.

And I hope that you participate fully and genuinely in that effort. Because if we're going to actually deal with our deficit and debt, everybody here knows that we're going to have to do it together, Republican and Democrat.

No single party is going to make the tough choices involved on its own. It's going to require all of us doing what's right for the American people.

And as I said in the State of the Union speech, there's not just a deficit of dollars in Washington, there's a deficit of trust. So I hope you'll support my proposal to make all congressional earmarks public before they come to a vote. And let's require lobbyists who exercise such influence to publicly disclose all their contacts on behalf of their clients, whether they are contacts with my administration or contacts with Congress.

OBAMA: Let's do the people's business in the bright light of day, together, Republicans and Democrats.

I know how bitter and contentious the issue of health insurance reform has become, and I will eagerly look at the ideas and better solutions on the health care front.

If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, I respect your right to say so, but I just don't agree and neither would millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who can't get coverage today, or find out that they lose their insurance just as they're getting seriously ill. That's exactly when you need insurance, and for too many people, they're not getting it. I don't think a system is working when small businesses are gouged, and 15,000 Americans are losing coverage every single day, when premiums have doubled and out-of-pocket costs have exploded and they're poised to do so again.

I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget.

It needs to change. This is a big problem and all of us are called on to solve it.

And that's why from the start I sought out and supported ideas from the Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles.

Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions; that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it and it got incorporated into our approach.

Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you, I suspect, included in this better solutions. That's an idea that was incorporated into our package. I support it, provided that we do it hand-in-hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.

A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they are 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package.

I supported a number of other ideas from incentivizing wellness to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance option for young people that came from Republicans like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and I'm sure from some of you as well.

OBAMA: So when you say I ought to be willing to accept Republican ideas on health care, let's be clear: I have. Bipartisanship, not for its own sake, but to solve problems, that's what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now.

All of us, then, have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we're going to be politicians first or partners for progress, whether we're going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America.

Just think about it for a while. We don't have to put it up for a vote today.

Let me close by saying this: I was not elected by Democrats or Republicans, but by the American people. That's especially true because the fastest-growing group of Americans are independents. That should tell us both something.

I'm ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in the spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can't break free from partisan gridlock, if we can't move past the politics of no, if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as president. I've got to act for the greater good, because that, too, is a commitment that I have made. And that, too, is what the American people sent me to Washington to do.

So I am optimistic. I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it's represented. But we've gotten caught up in the political game in a way that's just not healthy. It's dividing our country in ways that are preventing us from meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

I'm hopeful that the conversation we have today can help reverse that. So thank you very much.

Thank you, John.

(APPLAUSE)

Now I'd like to open it up for questions.

PENCE: The president has agreed to take questions, and members will be encouraged to raise your hand while you remain in your seat.

(LAUGHTER)

The chair will take the prerogative to make a brief remark and pose the first question.

Mr. President, welcome back to the House Republican Conference.

OBAMA: Thank you.

PENCE: We are pleased to have you return (inaudible) a year ago. House Republicans said then we would make you two promises. Number one, that most people in this room and their families would pray for you and your beautiful family just about every day for the four years. I want to assure you we're keeping that promise.

OBAMA: I appreciate that.

PENCE: Number two, (inaudible) to you, Mr. President, was that door (ph) was always open. And we hope that by evidence of our invitation to you that we can demonstrate that (inaudible).

Mr. President, (inaudible) us in this conference yesterday, on the way into Baltimore, stopped by the Salvation Army homeless facility here in Baltimore yesterday.

PENCE: I met a little boy, an African-American boy, in the 8th grade, named David Carter Jr.

When he heard that I would be seeing you today, his eyes lit up like I haven't seen. And I told him if he wrote you a letter, I'd give it to you. And I have.

But I had a conversation with little David Jr. and David Sr. And their families are struggling in this economy. His dad said words to me, Mr. President, that I'll never forget. About my age, and he said -- he said, "Congressman, it's not like it was when we were coming up." He said, "There's just no jobs."

Now, last year, about the time you met with us, unemployment was 7.5 percent in this country. Your administration and your party in Congress told us that we'd have to borrow more than $700 billion to pay for a so-called stimulus bill that was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts, all of which we were told had to be passed or unemployment would go to 8 percent, as your administration said.

Well, unemployment is 10 percent now, as you well know, Mr. President. Here in Baltimore, it's considerably higher.

Now, Republicans offered a stimulus bill at the same time. It cost half as much as the Democratic proposal in Congress. And using your economic analyst models, it would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It essentially was across-the-board tax relief, Mr. President.

Now, we know you've come to Baltimore today and you've -- you've raised this -- a tax credit which was last promoted by President Jimmy Carter.

But the first question I would pose to you, very respectfully, Mr. President, is would you be willing to consider embracing, in the name of little David Carter Jr. and his dad, in the name of every struggling family in this country, the kind of across-the-board tax relief that Republicans have advocated, that President Kennedy advocated, that President Reagan advocated, and that has always been the means of stimulating broad-based economic growth?

OBAMA: Well, the -- there was a lot packed into that question there.

(LAUGHTER) First of all, let me -- let me say I already promised that I'll be writing back to that young man and his family...

PENCE: Thank you.

OBAMA: ... and I appreciate you passing on the letter.

OBAMA: Let's talk about just the jobs environment generally.

You're absolutely right than when I was sworn in, the hope was that unemployment would remain around 8 -- or in the 8 percent range. That was just based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists because at that point not all the data had trickled in.

We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I'm assuming you're not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I'm assuming it wasn't my administration policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone in to effect. So I'm assuming that wasn't as a consequence of our policies. That doesn't reflect the failure of the Recovery Act.

The point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession proved to be much more severe in the first quarter of last year going into the second quarter of last year than anybody anticipated.

So, I mean, I think we -- we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be, but those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken to effect.

Now, that's just the fact, Mike, and I don't think anybody would dispute that. I -- you could not find an economist who would dispute that.

Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse.

Now, they didn't fill a 7 million hole in the unemployment -- in the number of people who were unemployed. They probably account for about 2 million, which means we still have 5 million folks in there that we've still got to deal with. That's a lot of people.

The package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is should have reflected, and I believe reflected what most of you would say are common-sense things. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts. And they weren't -- when you say they were boutique tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts. Small businesses got tax cuts. Large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules.

OBAMA: I mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts.

A third of it was stabilizing state budgets. There is not a single person in here who, had it not been for what was in the stimulus package, wouldn't be going home to more teachers laid off, more firefighters laid off, more cops laid off.

A big chunk of it was unemployment insurance and COBRA, just making sure that people had some floor beneath them -- and, by the way, making sure that there was enough money in their pockets that businesses had some customers.

You take those two things out, that accounts for the majority of the stimulus package. Are there people in this room who would think that was a bad idea?

A portion of it was dealing with the AMT -- right? -- the alternative minimum tax. Not a proposal of mine. That's not a consequence of my policies that we have a tax system where we keep on putting off a potential tax hike that is embedded in the budget that we have to fix each year. That cost about $70 billion.

And then the last portion of it was infrastructure, which, as I said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against.

Now, I say all this not to relitigate the past, but it's simply to state that the component parts of the Recovery Act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do: rebuilding our infrastructure, tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were providing states and individuals some support when the roof was caving in.

And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, "You could do this cheaper and get increased results," that I wouldn't say, "Great."

OBAMA: The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.

Now, we -- we can -- here's what I know going forward, though. I mean, we're talking -- you know, we're talking about the past. We can talk about this going forward.

I have looked at every idea out there in terms of accelerating job growth to match the economic growth that's already taken place.

The jobs credit that I'm discussing right now is one that a lot of people think would be the most cost-effective way for encouraging people to pick up their hiring.

There may be other ideas that you guys have. I am happy to look at them and I'm happy to embrace them. I suspect I will embrace some of them. Some of them I've already embraced.

But the question I think we're going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what's good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November, we're able to say, "The other party, it's their fault"?

If we take the latter approach, then we're probably not going to get much agreement. If we take the former, I suspect there's going to be a lot of overlap. All right?

PENCE: Mr. President, would -- will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?

OBAMA: Here's what I'm going to do, Mike: What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing.

And the reason -- the reason I say this, you know, before you say OK, I think it is -- I think is important to note, you know, what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffett. You may be calling for a (sic) across-the-board tax cut for the banking industry right now. I may not agree to that.

So, you know, I think that we've got to look at what specific proposals you're putting forward.

And -- this is the last point I'll make -- if you're calling for just across-the-board tax cuts and then, on the other hand, saying that we're somehow going to balance our budget, I'm going to want to take a look at your math and see how that -- how that works. Because the issue of deficit and debt is another area where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements.

How's that? All right?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

PENCE: Paul Ryan from Wisconsin?

RYAN: Thank you.

Mr. President, first of all, thanks for agreeing to accept our invitation here. It is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today.

OBAMA: Good to see you.

Is this your crew right here, by the way?

RYAN: Yes, this is my daughter Liza, my sons Charlie and Sam, and this is my wife Janna.

OBAMA: Hey, guys.

RYAN: Say "hi" to everybody.

(LAUGHTER)

I serve as the ranking member of the Budget Committee, so I want to talk a little budget, if you don't mind.

OBAMA: Yes.

RYAN: The spending bills that you have signed into law, the domestic and discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated level beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 300ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now.

You've also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel. I have a proposal with my home state senator, Russ Feingold, a bipartisan proposal, to create a constitutional version of the line- item veto.

(APPLAUSE)

The problem is we can't even get a vote on the proposal.

So my question is, why not start freezing spending now? And would you support a line-item veto and helping us get a vote on it in the House?

OBAMA: Let me respond to the two specific questions, but I want to just push back a little bit on the underlying premise, about us increasing spending by 84 percent.

Now, look, I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspected I'd be hearing this -- I'd be hearing this argument.

The fact of the matter is is that most of the increases in this year's budget, this past year's budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated, but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession.

So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. Whoever was in there, Paul -- and I don't think you'll dispute that -- whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but at the same time people were hurting and needed help. And a lot of these things happen automatically.

OBAMA: Now, the reason that I'm not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year, retro -- we prepared a budget for 2010, it's now going forward -- is, again, I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best.

And what they will say is that if you either increased taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a destimulative effect and potentially you'd see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off.

That's why I've proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. So, that's point number two.

With respect to the line-item veto, I actually -- I think there's not a president out there that wouldn't love to have it. And, you know, I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. I know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and Russ Feingold.

I don't like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful but I've got to sign because it's a defense authorization bill and I've got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need.

I will tell you, I would love for Congress itself to show discipline on both sides of the aisle. I think one thing that, you know, you have to acknowledge, Paul, because you study this stuff and take it pretty seriously, that the earmarks problem is not unique to one party, and you end up getting a lot of pushback when you start going after specific projects of any one of you in your districts, because wasteful spending is usually spent somehow outside of your district. Have you noticed that? The spending in your district tends to seem pretty sensible.

So I would love to see more restraint within Congress. I'd like to work on the earmarks reforms that I mentioned in terms of putting earmarks online, because I think sunshine is the best disinfectant. But I am willing to have a serious discussion on the line-item veto issue.

RYAN: OK. I'd like to walk you through it, because we have a version we think is constitutional...

OBAMA: Let me take a look at it. RYAN: I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. The discretionary spending, the bills that Congresses signs -- that you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent. So...

OBAMA: We'll have a -- we'll have a longer debate on the budget numbers there, all right?

PENCE: Thank you, Paul.

Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia?

CAPITO: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Thank you.

CAPITO: ... for joining us here today.

OBAMA: Thank you.

CAPITO: As you said on your -- in the State of the Union address on Wednesday, jobs and the economy are number one. And I think everyone in this room, certainly I, agree with you on that.

I represent the state of West Virginia. We're resource rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas.

But our -- my miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies in these areas: cap-and-trade, an aggressive EPA and the looming prospect of higher taxes. In our minds, these are job-killing policies.

So I'm asking in -- in to -- if you would be willing to re-look at some of these policies, with the high unemployment and unsure economy that we have now, to assure West Virginians that you're listening.

OBAMA: Well, I -- look, I listen all the time, including to your governor, who's somebody who I enjoyed working with a lot before the campaign and now that I'm president.

And I know that West Virginia struggles with unemployment. And I know how important coal is to West Virginia and a lot of the natural resources there. That's part of the reason why I've said that we need a comprehensive energy policy that sets us up for a long-term future.

For example, nobody's been a bigger promoter of clean coal technology than I am. In testament to that, I ended up being in a whole bunch of advertisements that you guys saw all the time about investing in ways for us to burn coal more cleanly.

I've said that I'm a promoter of nuclear energy, something that, you know, I think over the last three decades has been subject to a lot of partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling. I don't think it makes sense. I think that that has to be part of our energy mix.

I've said that I am supportive -- and I said this two nights ago at the State of the Union -- that I'm in favor of increased production.

So if you look at the ideas that this caucus has, again, with respect to energy, I'm for a lot of what you said you are for.

The one thing that I've also said, though -- and here we have a serious disagreement and my hope is we can work through this agreement -- these disagreements; there's be effort on the Senate side to do so on a bipartisan basis -- is that we have to plan for the future.

And the future is that clean energy -- cleaner forms of energy are going to be increasingly important. Because even if folks are still skeptical in some cases about climate change in our politics and in Congress, the world's not skeptical about it.

If we're going to be going after some of these big markets, they're going to be looking to see is the United States the one that's developing clean coal technology? Is the United States developing our natural gas resources in the most effective way? Is the United States the one that is going to lead in electric cars?

Because if we're not leading, those other countries are going to be leading.

OBAMA: So what I want to do with West Virginia to figure out how we can seize that future. But to do that, that means there's going to have to be some transition. We can't operate the coal industry in the United States as if we're still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We've got to be thinking, what does that industry look like in the next hundred years?

And it's going to be different. And that means there's going to be some transition, and that's where I think a well-thought-through policy of incentivizing the new while, you know, recognizing that there's going to be a transition process and we're not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away. That has to be something that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to embrace.

PENCE: Jason Chaffetz, Utah?

Right behind you, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you, Mr. President. It's truly an honor.

OBAMA: It's great to be here.

CHAFFETZ: And I appreciate you being here.

I -- I'm one of 22 House freshmen. We didn't create this mess, but we are here to help clean it up. And (inaudible) talk a lot about this deficit of trust. There's some things that have happened that I would appreciate your perspective on, because I can look you in the eye and tell you, we have not been obstructionist. The Democrats have the House and Senate and the presidency.

And when you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn't. I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.

You said you weren't going to allow lobbyists in the senior-most positions within your administration, and yet you did. I applauded you when you said it, and disappointed when you didn't.

You said you'd go line by line through the health care debate -- or through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said, "We would like to take you up on that offer. We'd like to come." We never heard a letter. We never got a call. We were never involved in any of those discussions. And when you said in the House of Representatives that you were going to tackle earmarks, and, in fact, you didn't want to have any earmarks in any of your bills, I jumped up out of my seat and applauded you. But it didn't happen.

More importantly, I want to talk about moving forward, but if we can address...

OBAMA: Well, how about -- yes...

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: I'd certainly appreciate it.

OBAMA: That was a long list. So the...

(LAUGHTER)

Let me -- let me respond.

Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process -- just over the course of the year -- overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which guys were participating.

OBAMA: I mean, the -- how many committees were there that helped to shape this bill? Countless hearings took place.

Now, I kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting with many of you, including your key leadership.

What is true, there's no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the Capitol trying to figure out how to get the thing together, that was a messy process. And I take responsibility for not having structured it in a way where it was all taking place in one place that could be filmed.

How to do that logistically would not have been as easy as -- as it sounds because you're shuttling back and forth between the House, the Senate, different offices, et cetera, different legislators. But I think it's a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility.

With respect to earmarks, we didn't have earmarks in the Recovery Act. You know, we didn't get a lot of credit for it, but there were no earmarks in that.

I was confronted at the beginning of my term with an omnibus package that did have a lot of earmarks from Republicans and Democrats, and a lot of people in this chamber. And the question was, was I going to have a big budget fight at a time when I was still trying to figure out whether or not the financial system was melting down and we had to make a whole bunch of emergency decisions about the economy. So what I said was let's keep them to a minimum, but I couldn't excise them all.

Now, the challenge, I guess, I would have for you as a freshman is what are you doing inside your caucus to make sure that I'm not the only guy who's responsible for this stuff, so that we're working together. Because this is going to be a process.

You know, when we talk about earmarks, I think all of us are willing to acknowledge that some of them are perfectly defensible, good projects. It's just they haven't gone through the regular appropriations process in the full light of day.

So one place to start is to make sure that they are at least transparent; that everybody knows what's there before we -- we move forward. In terms of lobbyists, I can stand here unequivocally and say that there has not been an administration who was tougher on making sure that lobbyists weren't participating in the administration than any administration that's come before us.

Now, what we did was if there were lobbyists who were on boards and commissions that were carryovers and their term hadn't completed, we didn't kick them off.

OBAMA: We simply said that moving forward, any time a new slot opens, they're being replaced.

So we've actually been very consistent in making sure that we are eliminating the impact of lobbyists, day in-day out, on how this administration operates.

There have been a handful of waivers where somebody is highly skilled; for example, a doctor who ran Tobacco-Free Kids technically is a registered lobbyist, on the other hand, has more expertise than anybody in figuring out how kids don't get hooked on cigarettes.

So there have been a couple of instances like that, but generally we've been very consistent on that front. OK?

CHAFFETZ: Thank you.

PENCE: Marcia Blackburn, Tennessee?

OBAMA: Hey.

BLACKBURN: Thank you, Mr. President.

And thank you for acknowledging that we have ideas on health care. Because, indeed, we do have ideas. We have plans. We have over 50 bills. We have lots of amendments that would bring health care ideas to the forefront.

We would -- we've got plans to lower cost, to change purchasing models, address medical liability, insurance accountability, chronic and preexisting conditions, and access to affordable care for those with those conditions, insurance portability, expanded access, but not doing it with creating more government, more bureaucracy and more cost for the American taxpayer.

And we look forward to sharing those ideas with you. We want to work with you on health reform and making certain that we do it in an affordable, cost-effective way that is going to reduce bureaucracy, reduce government interference and reduce costs to individuals and to taxpayers.

And if those good ideas aren't making it to you, maybe it's the House Democrat leadership that is an impediment instead of a conduit.

OBAMA: Well, no...

(CROSSTALK) BLACKBURN: But we're concerned also that there are lessons learned from public option health care plans that maybe are not being heeded. And certainly in my state of Tennessee, we were the test case for public option health care in 1994. And our Democrat government has even cautioned that maybe our experiences there would provide some lessons learned that should be heeded and would provide guidance for us to go forward.

BLACKBURN: And as you said, what we should be doing is tossing old ideas out, bad ideas out, and moving forward and refining good ideas. And certainly we would welcome that opportunity.

So my question to you is, when will we look forward to starting anew and sitting down with you to put all of these ideas on the table, to look at these lessons learned, to benefit from that experience, and to produce a product that is going to reduce government interference, reduce cost and be fair to the American taxpayer?

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: Actually, I've gotten many of your ideas. I've taken a look at them, even before I was handed this.

Some of the ideas we have embraced and are in our package.

Some of them are embraced with caveats. So let me give you an example.

I think one of the proposals that has been focused on by the Republicans as a way to reduce costs is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. We actually include that as part of our approach. But the caveat is we've got to do so with some minimum standards, because otherwise what happens is that you could have insurance companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations about, you know, basic benefits or what have you; making sure that a woman is able to get mammograms as part of preventive care, for example.

Part of what could happen is insurance companies could go into states and cherry-pick and just get those who are healthiest and leave behind those who are least healthy, which would raise everybody's premiums who weren't healthy, right?

So it's not that many of these ideas aren't workable, but we have to refine them to make sure that they don't just end up worsening the situation for folks rather than making it better.

Now, what I said at the State of the Union is what I still believe. If you can show me and if I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works, including doctors and nurses, ways of reducing people's premiums, covering those who do not have insurance, making it more affordable for small businesses, having insurance reforms that ensure people have insurance even when they've got preexisting conditions, that their coverage is not dropped just because they're sick, that young people right out of college or as they're entering in the workforce can still get health insurance -- if those component parts are things that you care about and want to do, I'm game.

OBAMA: And I've got -- and I've got a lot of these ideas.

The last thing I will say, though -- let me say this about health care and the health care debate because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues.

If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating -- we were in the process of eliminating.

For example -- for example, you know, we said from the start that -- that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you've got, you can keep it; that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decisionmaking. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

And so we were -- we were in the process of scrubbing this and making sure that it's tight.

But at its core, if you look at the basic proposal that we put forward, it has an exchange so that businesses and the self-employed can buy into a pool and can get bargaining power the same way big companies do, the insurance reforms that I've already discussed, making sure that there's choice and competition for those who don't have health insurance.

The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.

Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Tom -- and certainly you don't agree with Tom Daschle on much...

(LAUGHTER)

... but that's not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.

(LAUGHTER)

No, I mean, that's how you guys -- that's how you guys presented it.

(APPLAUSE)

And so I'm thinking to myself, "Well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist..."

(LAUGHTER)

No, look, I mean, I'm just saying -- I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans -- it -- it's similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I'm saying is we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality.

I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, "This guy's doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

OBAMA: And I -- I would just say that we have to think about tone.

It's not just on your side, by the way. It's -- it's on our side as well. This is part of what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.

Mike?

PENCE: Dr. Tom Price from Georgia?

And then we'll have one more after that, if your time permits, Mr. President.

OBAMA: You know, I'm having fun.

(LAUGHTER)

This is great.

(APPLAUSE)

PENCE: So are we.

Tom Price, Georgia?

PRICE: Thank you.

I want to stick on -- on the general topic of health care, but ask a very specific question.

You have repeatedly said, most recently at -- at the State of the Union, that Republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions, in spite of the fact...

OBAMA: I don't think I said that.

What I said was within the context of health care -- I remember that speech pretty well. It was only two days ago.

(LAUGHTER)

I said I'd welcome ideas that you might provide.

I didn't say that you haven't provided ideas. I said I'd welcome those ideas that you'll provide.

PRICE: Mr. President, multiple times from your administration there have come statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions, in spite of that fact that we've offered, as demonstrated today, positive solutions to all of the challenges we face, including energy and the economy and health care.

Specifically, in the area of health care, this bill, H.R. 3400, that has more cosponsors than any health care bill in the House. It is a bill that would provide health coverage for all Americans, would correct the significant insurance challenges of portability and preexisting, would solve the lawsuit abuse issue, which isn't addressed significantly in the other proposals that went through the House and the Senate, would write into law that medical decisions are made between patients and families and doctors, and does all of that without raising taxes by a penny.

But my specific question is, what should we tell our constituents who know that Republicans have offered positive solutions to the challenges that Americans face and yet continue to hear out of the administration that we've offered nothing?

OBAMA: Tell them I -- look, I have to say, that on the -- let's just take the health care debate. And it's probably not constructive for us to try to debate a particular bill. This isn't the venue to do it.

But if you say that we can offer coverage for all Americans and it won't cost a penny, that's just not true. You can't structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage and it costs nothing.

If...

(CROSSTALK)

PRICE: ... and I understand that we're not interested in debating this bill.

OBAMA: Sir...

PRICE: But what should we tell our constituents, who know that we've offered these solutions, and yet hear from the administration that -- that we have offered nothing?

OBAMA: Let me -- I'm using this as a specific example, so let me answer your question. You asked a question, I want to answer it.

OBAMA: It's not enough, if you say, for example, that we've offered a health care plan and I look up -- this is just under the section that you've just provided me -- or the book that you've just provided me, "Summary of GOP Health Care Reform Bill."

"The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing America's number one priority for health reform."

I mean, that's an idea that we all embrace. But specifically it's got to work. I mean, there's got to be a mechanism in these plans that I can go to an independent health care expert and say, "Is this something that will actually work or is it boilerplate?"

You know, if I'm told, for example, that the solution to dealing with health care costs is tort reform, something that I've said I am willing to work with you on, but the CBO or other experts say to me, you know, "At best, this could reduce health care costs relative to where they're growing by a couple of percentage points or save $5 billion a year, that's what we can score it at, and it will not bend the cost curve long term or reduce premiums significantly," then you can't make the claim that that's the only thing that we have to do.

If we're going to do multi-state insurance so that people can go across state lines, I've got to be able to go to an independent health care expert, Republican or Democrat, who can tell me that this won't result in cherry-picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off.

So I am absolutely committed to working with you on these issues. But it can't just be political assertions that aren't substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy, because otherwise we're going to be selling the American people a bill of goods.

I mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that, "What you're going to get is guaranteed health insurance, lower your costs, all the insurance reforms, we're going to lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, and it won't cost anybody anything." That's great politics. It's just not true.

OBAMA: So there's got to be some test of realism in any of these proposals, mine included. I've got to hold myself accountable, and I guarantee the American people will hold themselves -- will hold me accountable if what I'm selling doesn't actually deliver.

PENCE: Mr. President, a point of clarification.

What's in the "Better Solutions" book are all the legislative proposals that were offered...

OBAMA: Oh, I understand. I've actually read your bills.

PENCE: ... throughout 2009.

OBAMA: I understand.

PENCE: And so rest assured the summary document that you received is backed up by precisely the kind of detailed legislation that Speaker Pelosi and your administration have been busy ignoring for 12 months.

OBAMA: Well, Mike, hold on, hold on a second.

(APPLAUSE)

No, no, no, no, no. Hold on a second guys.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, Mike, I've read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff. And the good ideas we take.

But here -- here's the thing, here's the thing, I guess, that all of us have to be mindful of. It can't be all-or-nothing one way or the other, all right?

You -- you -- and what I mean by that is this. If we put together a stimulus package in which a third of it are tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for states and the unemployed and helping people stay on COBRA that your governors certainly would support, Democrat or Republican. And then you've got some infrastructure, and maybe there's some things in there that you don't like in terms of infrastructure, or you think the bill should have been $500 billion instead of $700 billion, or there's this provision or that provision that you don't like. If there's uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn't get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it's going to be hard to get a deal done. That's because that's not how democracy works.

So my hope would be that we can look at some of these components parts of what we're doing, and maybe we break some of them up on different policy issues. So if the good congressman from Utah has a particular issue on lobbying reform that he wants to work with us on, we may not be able to agree on a comprehensive package on everything, but there may be some component parts that we can work on.

OBAMA: You may not support our overall jobs package, but if you look at the tax credit that we're proposing for small businesses right now, it is consistent with a lot of what you guys have said in the past. And just the fact that it's my administration that's proposing it shouldn't prevent you from supporting it.

That's my point.

PENCE: Thank you, Mr. President.

Peter Roskam from the great state of Illinois?

OBAMA: Oh, Peter's an old friend of mine.

ROSKAM: Hey, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Peter and I have had many debates.

(LAUGHTER)

ROSKAM: Well, this won't be one.

Mr. President, I heard echoes today of the state senator that I served with in Springfield, and there was an attribute and a characteristic that you had that I think served you well there. You took on some very controversial subjects: death penalty reform. I -- you and I...

OBAMA: We worked on it together.

ROSKAM: ... negotiated on.

OBAMA: Yes.

ROSKAM: You took on ethics reform. You took on some big things.

One of the keys was you rolled your sleeves up, you worked with the other party, and ultimately you were able to make the deal.

Now, here's an observation.

Over the past year, in my view, that attribute hasn't been in full bloom. And by that I mean, you've gotten the subtext of House Republicans that sincerely want to come and be a part of this national conversation toward solutions, but they've really been stiff-armed by Speaker Pelosi. Now, I know you're not in charge of that chamber, but there really is this dynamic of, frankly, being shut out.

When John Boehner and Eric Cantor presented last February to you some substantive job creation, our stimulus alternative, the attack machine began to marginalize Eric -- and we can all look at the articles -- as Mr. No. And there was this pretty dark story, ultimately, that wasn't productive and wasn't within this sort of framework that you're articulating today.

So here's the question: Moving forward -- I think all of us want to hit the reset button on 2009, how do we move forward?

And on the job creation piece in particular, you mentioned Colombia, you mentioned Panama, you mentioned South Korea. Are you willing to work with us, for example, to make sure those FTAs get called? That's no-cost job creation. And ultimately, as you're interacting with world leaders, that's got to put more arrows in your quiver, and that's a very, very powerful tool for us.

But the obstacle is, frankly, the politics within the Democratic Caucus.

OBAMA: Well, the -- first of all, Peter and I did work together effectively on a whole host of issues. One of our former colleagues is right now running for governor on the Republican side in Illinois.

OBAMA: In the Republican primary, of course, they're running ads of him saying nice things about me.

(LAUGHTER)

Poor guy.

(LAUGHTER)

Although, that's the -- that's one of the points that I made earlier. I mean, we've got to be careful about what we say about each other sometimes because it boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together because our constituents start believing us. They don't know sometimes this is just politics, what you guys, you know, or folks on my side do sometimes. So just a tone of civility instead of slash-and-burn would be helpful.

The problem we have sometimes is a media that responds only to slash- and-burn-style politics. You don't get a lot of credit if I say, "You know, I think Paul Ryan's a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family." Nobody's going to run that in the newspapers, right?

(LAUGHTER)

And by the way, in case he's going to get a Republican challenge, I didn't mean it.

(LAUGHTER)

I don't want to -- don't want to hurt you, man.

(LAUGHTER)

But, the -- on the specifics, I think both sides can take some blame for a sour climate on Capitol Hill. What I can do maybe to help is to try to bring Republican and Democratic leadership together on a more regular basis with me. That's, I think, a failure on my part is to try to foster better communications, even if there's disagreement. And -- and I will try to see if we can do more of that this year.

That's on the -- sort of, the general issue.

On the specific issue of trade, you're right. There are conflicts within and fissures within the Democratic Party. I suspect there probably are going to be some fissures within the Republican Party as well.

I mean, you know, if you went to some of your constituencies, they'd be pretty suspicious about it -- new trade agreements, because the suspicion is somehow they're all one-way.

So part of what we've been trying to do is make sure that we're getting the enforcement side of this tight; make sure that if we've got a trade agreement with China or other countries, that they are abiding with it, they're not stealing our intellectual property, we're making sure that their non-tariff barriers are lowered, even as ours are opened up.

OBAMA: And my hope is is that we can move forward with some of these trade agreements, having built some confidence, not just among particular constituency groups, but among the American people, that trade is going to be reciprocal, that it's not just going to be a one- way street.

You are absolutely right, though, Peter, when you say, for example, South Korea is a great ally of ours. I mean, when I visited there, there's no country that is more committed to friendship on a whole range of fronts than South Korea.

What is also true is that the European Union is about to sign a trade agreement with South Korea, which means right at the moment when they start opening up their markets, the Europeans might get in there before we do.

So we've got to make sure that we seize these opportunities. I will be talking more about trade this year. It's going to have to be trade that combines opening their markets with an enforcement mechanism, as well as just opening up our markets.

I think that's something that all of us would agree on. Let's see if we can execute it over the next several years.

All right? Is that it?

PENCE: Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and that'll be it, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Jim's (sic) going to wrap things up?

PENCE: Yes, sir.

OBAMA: All right.

HENSARLING: Jeb, Mr. President.

OBAMA: How are you?

HENSARLING: I'm doing well.

Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small children. And I left that conversation really feeling you're sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation's children do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know that under current law that government -- the cost of government is due to grow from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy right about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job.

Mr. President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law.

And unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored.

And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent.

Now, Mr. President, I know you believe -- and I understand the argument; I respect the view -- that the spending is necessary due to the recession. Many of us believe, frankly, it's part of the problem, not part of the solution, but I understand and I respect your view.

HENSARLING: But this is what I don't understand, Mr. President. After that discussion, your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years. Surely you don't believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this recession. It proposed new entitlement spending and moved the -- the cost of government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy.

Now, very soon, Mr. President, you're due to submit a new budget and my question...

OBAMA: Jim (sic), I know there's a question in there somewhere, because you're making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with.

(LAUGHTER)

And I'm having to sit here listening to them. At some point, I know you're going to let me answer.

HENSARLING: That's...

OBAMA: All right.

HENSARLING: That's the question.

You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President.

OBAMA: All right. Jim (sic), with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running -- running a campaign.

Now, look, let's talk about the budget, once again, because I'll go through it with you line by line.

The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. $1.3 trillion. So -- so when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the annual -- or a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade.

Had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000, when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, you had a prescription drug plan -- the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades -- that was passed, without it being paid for, you had two wars that were done through supplementals, and then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession.

OBAMA: That's $8 trillion. Now, we increased it by $1 trillion because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus.

I am happy to have any independent factchecker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Now, going forward, here's the deal.

I think Paul, for example, head of the Budget Committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. I've read it. I can tell you what's in it. And there are some ideas in there that I would agree with, but there are some ideas that we should have a healthy debate about, because I don't agree with them.

The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close.

Social Security we could probably fix the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan sat down together and they could figure something out. That is manageable.

Medicare and Medicaid, massive problem down the road. That's where -- that's -- that's going to be what our children have to worry about.

Now, Paul's approach, and I don't -- I want to be careful not simplifying this, because I know you've got -- you've got a lot of detail in your plan -- but, if I understand it correctly, would say we're going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level. No?

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: 55 and -- well, no, I understand. I mean, there's a grandfathering in, but just for future beneficiaries. Right?

That's why I said I didn't want to -- I want to make sure that I'm not being unfair to your proposal, but I just want to point out that I've -- I've read it.

And the basic idea would be that at some point, we hold Medicare costs per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn't go way out of -- way out of whack. And I'm sure there are some details that...

RYAN: (inaudible) a blend of inflation and health inflation. The point of our plan is because Medicare, as you know, is a $38 trillion unfunded liability...

OBAMA: Right.

RYAN: ... it has to be reformed for younger generations, because it won't exist because it's going bankrupt.

And the premise of our idea is, look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? That's the kind of reform we're proposing for Medicare.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Well, look, as I've said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. The problem is two-fold.

One is that, depending on how it's structured, if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has their reimbursement rates going like this, but health care costs are still going up like that, then over time the way we're saving money is essentially by capping what they are getting relative to their costs.

OBAMA: Now, I just want to point out -- and this brings me to the second problem -- when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package -- our health care reform package to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, we were attacked across the board by many on your aisle for slashing Medicare. You remember? "We're going to start cutting benefits for seniors." That was -- that was the story that was perpetrated out there; scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: No -- no, but here's my point.

If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted factually from the perspective of those who disagree with it as cutting benefits over the long term.

Paul, I don't think you disagree with that -- that -- that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan.

And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a serious discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, "Well, you know, that's -- the other party's being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z."

That's why I say if we're going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can't start off by figuring out, A, who's to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side.

And unfortunately, that's how our politics works right now, and that's how a lot of our discussion works. That's how we start off. Every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they stand up and all the talking points -- I see Frank Luntz up here sitting in the front.

OBAMA: He's -- he's already polled it...

(LAUGHTER)

... and he said, you know, "The way you're really going to -- I've done a focus group, and, you know, the way we're going to really box in Obama on this one or make Pelosi look bad on that one" -- I know -- I like Frank. We've had conversations between Frank and I. But that's how we operate. It's all tactics, and it's not solving problems.

And so the question is, at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious question about -- a serious conversation about Social Security, or a serious conversation about budget and debt in which we're not simply trying to position ourselves politically.

That's what I'm committed to doing. We won't agree all the time in getting it done, but I'm committed to doing it.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. President, take one more?

OBAMA: I've already gone over time.

PENCE: He's gone way over...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: I'll be happy to take your question, Congressman, off- line. You can give me a call, all right?

Thank you, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. Thank you, everybody.

(APPLAUSE)

END

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Haiti Telethon Brings out Stars in Bid to Raise Millions for Earthquake Relief

Tom Diemer — 2010-01-23T14:55:00+00:00

Filed under: Bill Clinton, Culture, Haiti

A politics-free "Hope for Haiti" telethon brought together talented musicians, Hollywood stars and a former president Friday night in an effort to raise tens of millions of dollars for relief and rebuilding on the island nation ravaged by an earthquake.
Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief was organized by actor George Clooney and featured several moving and solemn performances by talents such as Jennifer Hudson, Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Madonna, Dave Matthews, Neil Young, Mary J. Blige, Coldplay, John Legend, and the Haitian-born Wyclef Jean. The the event was televised live from New York, Los Angeles, London and Haiti.
Several big-name actors told inspirational stories of individual Haitians who had survived the quake. Tom Hanks told the story, first reported at Politics Daily, of Fernand Sajous, who made a harrowing journey from the airport in Port-Au-Prince to his home in the south of Haiti after the quake.
In an innovative wrinkle, the phones were answered by such luminaries as Robert De Niro, Jack Nicholson, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Ellen Barkin, and Leonardo DiCaprio -- so that viewers phoning in to make a donation sometimes found themselves talking to an international star.
Former President Bill Clinton, asked by the White House to coordinate relief efforts with former President George W. Bush, told viewers he fell in love with Haiti when he first visited 35 years ago on a delayed honeymoon with his wife, the current U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
Backstage in New York, Bill Clinton told MTV "We've got a million people who need shelter. We've got 2 million people who need food and clean water." Clinton said, "More than 3 million were hurt in some way or another by this. We have to keep them in food, keep them in water and keep them in shelter before we can begin to think about the rebuilding process."
USA Today features nearly four dozen photographs of the Friday night event, which began somberly and ended on a buoyant note with Haiti's native son Wyclef Jean.

"Enough of this moping man, let's rebuild Haiti, let's show 'em how we do it where we come from!" he proclaimed after finishing a rendition of "Rivers of Babylon." Jean then segued into the upbeat island tune "Yele" with its optimistic refrain: "Earthquake, we see the earth shake, but the soul of the Haitian people will never break!"

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Bill Clinton Making Visit to Haiti as U.N. Envoy

David Sessions — 2010-01-18T12:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Bill Clinton, Haiti

Bill Clinton's charitable foundation announced that the former president is heading to Haiti on Monday, CNN reports. As a United Nations special envoy to the earthquake-ravaged country, Clinton will meet with President Rene Preval as well as other Haitian officials and aid workers to discuss how to move the recovery process forward. The trip will be Clinton's first since the disaster last week, and comes a couple of days after his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, became the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Haiti in the aftermath of the catastrophe.

Two days ago, President Obama announced the creation of the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, a major fund-raising effort led by Clinton and former president George W. Bush.

In an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Nation," Clinton said that the goal was to help Haiti resume operating normally as quickly as possible, and to establish political stability in a nation long marked by chaos and grinding poverty. Clinton said he would advocate "amending" Haiti's economic plan to account for the crisis.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama, Bush and Clinton Pen Essays Calling for Help in Haiti

David Sessions — 2010-01-18T07:45:00+00:00

Filed under: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Media, Bill Clinton

In the cover story of this week's issue of Newsweek, President Obama outlines the aid he is calling for in Haiti, writing that "in times of tragedy, the United States of America steps forward and helps." The issue hits newsstands today, one day after former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton wrote a similar piece in the New York Times saying they are "pleased" to answer Obama's request that they lead the aid effort.

"In the aftermath of disaster, we are reminded that life can be unimaginably cruel," Obama wrote in an essay that reads much like one of his speeches. "That pain and loss is so often meted out without any justice or mercy. That 'time and chance' happen to us all. But it is also in these moments, when we are brought face to face with our own fragility, that we rediscover our common humanity. We look into the eyes of another and see ourselves. And so the United States of America will lead the world in this humanitarian endeavor. That has been our history, and that is how we will answer the challenge before us."

Bush and Clinton were equally optimistic about the United States' generosity. "Throughout both our careers in public service, we have witnessed firsthand the amazing generosity of the American people in the face of calamity," they wrote. "From the Oklahoma City bombings to 9/11, from the tsunami in South Asia to Hurricane Katrina, Americans have rallied to confront disaster -- natural or man-made, domestic or abroad -- with the determination, compassion and unity that have defined our nation since its founding."

The Jan. 15 issue of Newsweek also features a separate column by Clinton that reviews his administration's foreign policy in Haiti. "As president, I worked to end a violent military dictatorship and to restore Haiti's elected president. After leaving the White House, I continued to work in Haiti through my foundation, partnering with the government to increase treatment for and reduce the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and other diseases."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama, Giuliani, Clinton in Massachusetts as New Senate Poll Shows Trouble for Coakley

Jill Lawrence — 2010-01-15T15:07:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Rudy Giuliani, Polls, Bill Clinton, 2010 Elections

BOSTON - A few yards from a statue of Paul Revere, with at least one man shouting "the liberals are coming, the liberals are coming," Rudy Giuliani opened a weekend of celebrity politicking Friday in a Massachusetts Senate race that has suddenly turned into a cliff-hanger.

About 300 people gathered in a park in Boston's Italian North End to cheer on Giuliani and his candidate, Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, whose rapid ascent is threatening not only Democrat Martha Coakley but health reform and the rest of President Obama's agenda in Washington.

A new poll Friday from Suffolk University showed Brown with a 50-46 percent lead over Coakley, the attorney general once considered a sure bet in the special election Tuesday to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. If Coakley loses, Democrats will lose the 60-vote majority they need to cut off Republican filibusters and pass bills.

Giuliani told Massachusetts voters to send Obama and his party a "loud and clear" signal by electing Brown. A few hours later, speaking to some 700 Coakley supporters in a hotel ballroom, former president Bill Clinton implored the same voters not to "repeat the mistakes" of eight years under national Republicans. "You just have to decide whether you want us to be a tomorrow country or a yesterday country," he said, adding that Coakley is the "tomorrow" candidate.

The last thing Democrats expected was that the race in this usually reliable Democratic state would imperil Kennedy's life's work on health care. His sons and widow have mobilized to help Coakley, as have Obama and core Democratic constituencies such as unions. Clinton did rallies with Coakley on Friday in Boston and Worcester. Highlighting the stakes for Democrats, Obama himself will be here Sunday.

Energized conservatives have been pouring money into Brown's campaign since it became clear a week ago that he had a shot at winning. Giuliani, the former New York mayor who became known as "America's mayor" in the wake of 9/11, said Paul Revere "warned about danger and woke up the people of Massachusetts and New England at a much earlier time in our history. And we need Scott now to wake us up about some of the mistakes that we are making."

A Brown victory would be a clear protest against Democratic policies on terrorism, spending, and health care reform, Giuliani said, and added: "If the people of Massachusetts do it, boy, it'll be heard all around the country." He and Brown said Coakley doesn't understand the terrorist threat to the United States.

Brown depicts himself as a non-partisan everyman. "This is a historic election to bring common sense back to Washington," he said. He opposes Obama's plans on health, energy, the economy and financial regulation. He also opposes Obama's proposed fee on banks to recoup tens of billions in bailout money that they received to keep them from collapse. He said Friday that banks would pass the cost to consumers.

Coakley's campaign announced a four-day "Fighting For You" tour across the state. She framed the race in those terms at the rally with Clinton. "The choice is clear. Scott Brown will fight for the wealthy, for Wall Street. I'm going to fight for you," she said.

Democrats at the rally said Brown's approach to "common sense" would mean working with Capitol Hill Republicans to kill Obama's initiatives and restore the policies that voters rejected in the 2008 election. "This is an extraordinary camouflage campaign," said Sen. John Kerry, who appeared using a cane after a recent hip replacement operation. "For eight years he was George Bush's yes man. Now he wants to go to Washington and become (Senate Republican leader) Mitch McConnell's no man."

There are more than three times as many Democrats as Republicans in Massachusetts, but more than half the state's voters are not registered with any party.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Harry Reid Shouldn't Have Said It Out Loud, but How Many Think It?

Mary C. Curtis — 2010-01-10T12:31:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, Gaffes, Race, Bill Clinton, Woman Up, 2010 Elections, Harry Reid

It was one of the great lines said by an iconic character in a ground-breaking television show. When Mike "Meathead" Stivic wrongly guessed Harry Belafonte as the black guy Archie Bunker ferried in his taxi, the sage of Queens "corrected" him: Belafonte wasn't black, he said, just a "good-looking white guy dipped in caramel."

Archie Bunker's character was a comedic caricature, of course. But one reason "All in the Family" stayed on top of the ratings was because Archie said what a lot of like-minded people thought. And that's no joke. When some people think about black people, if they think about them at all, they rank them into a sort of racial hierarchy, as Archie did with Belafonte and his actual taxicab passenger, Sammy Davis Jr. How "black" is that person? It's not the convoluted categories of mulatto, quadroon and octoroon once favored in Louisiana, but Archie's line got a laugh because everyone knew what he meant. It no more needed a translator than the title of Chris Rock's recent documentary, "Good Hair."

Sen. Harry Reid is no Archie Bunker, though from the state of the polls in Nevada, even the fictional Archie might beat him in a head-to-head contest right about now. But all the outrage at Reid's admittedly clumsy, politically calculated remark is both cynical and hilarious.

During the campaign, he said Barack Obama's chances for the presidency were good because the country - read whites in America - were ready for someone "light-skinned" who spoke with "no Negro dialect," as reported in "Game Change," a book detailing the 2008 race by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.

"I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words," Reid said in a statement. "I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans, for my improper comments."

I can't know all that was on his mind, or whether he meant "black dialect" as the rhythmic cadence of a preacher or full-on "Amos 'n' Andy."

I do know there's a reason that for some, black beauty begins with Beyonce and ends with Halle Berry. I still recall that when Middle America's favorite football hero, pitchman and bad actor O.J. Simpson became public enemy No. 1, Time magazine's cover wasted no time in darkening him up. Tiger Woods - who invented the word "Cablinasian" to reflect his Caucasian, black, American Indian and Asian background - is today all "thug life" bravado on the cover of Vanity Fair, transformed by his troubles into a black man, though no black person I know is rushing to claim him.

Not long ago, I took an archaeological tour of James Madison's Montpelier in Virginia. From the main house you could the see the spot where the house slaves' quarters stood. It wasn't as grand as where the master lived, but investigative clues discovered it had wood floors and a few amenities not awarded field slaves, who lived far out of sight. Traditionally, those house slaves were the "lighter-skinned" progeny of whites whose control over their property extended to the sexual. Those closest to white by blood were allowed a tantalizing closeness to the power they could not share. After slavery, those who were light enough to pass into white society sometimes did, with the reluctant acceptance of black family members aware that in America of the time, disappearing into whiteness meant a promotion to the status of human being.

Who hasn't heard the ditty: "If you're yellow, you're mellow. If you're brown, stick around. If you're black, get back." In black high society, some private clubs followed a paper bag test (if you were browner than a paper bag, you were out of luck). Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recalled painful prejudice he felt based on his dark complexion.

I missed out on a part in the fourth-grade play because my light-skinned, long-haired friend "looked like a princess," according to my nun nemesis. That I stole the show in my solo number as "The Little Blue Angel" of the title still, I am slightly embarrassed to say, gives me some measure of satisfaction. The history is long, it hurts and it's not yet over, as much as America would like it to be.

In the 2008 election, more than a few white folks - breathing a sigh of relief - told me they believed Barack Obama wasn't really black because he had a white parent, ignoring that few people white or black in America are pure anything. For some it was a just a failure to "get" that there have always been people with a white parent who self-identify as black because that is how society sees them and they're OK with it, proud to be identified with people who survived and thrived despite crushing, sometimes fatal acts of racism. What does it matter? Each person is an individual with a unique set of quirks and qualities, and we're all Americans, right?

A subset got downright angry when Obama called himself African American, as though, since he was given an out, why would he not take it? "Isn't he proud of his mother?" they asked me. Yes, and I'm sure she was equally as proud of her black son.

In others, you could see the familiar mind game in which people with a stereotype of a certain group declare a person who doesn't fit it as somehow different or exceptional because that's so much easier than changing that stereotypical view.

Reid didn't reference the twisted history, the generations of misunderstandings and missed connections. But his remarks acknowledged he had them in mind, albeit for a self-interested, politically advantageous reason. As usual in this partisan time, Reid's comments have lost any meaning except political cudgel. It's easier than people really discussing if his words have some truth and why in 2010, categorizing an entire race into divisions as meaningless as skin tone might be troubling.

President Obama's statement tried to cool the situation: "I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed." He concentrated on Reid's record, not his words. What a concept!

Among those who are loving this? Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, who has taken heat for his own verbal gaffes, is calling for Reid to step down. Steele compares Reid's statement to then Sen. Trent Lott waxing nostalgic about Strom Thurmond. Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine countered - logically to me -- that there is no comparison between Reid, who enthusiastically supported the presidential candidacy of a black man, and Lott, who was praising a man who stood for, filibustered for, separation of the races.

Bill Clinton must be feeling relieved, as well. As my colleague Carl M. Cannon reports, "Game Change" also "asserts on page 218 that after Obama won the Iowa caucuses, Clinton called Kennedy to press for an endorsement from the influential Massachusetts liberal. But the call backfired, according to the authors, and left Kennedy deeply offended."

"The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

As long as Reid is apologizing, Clinton can dodge a comment at least as insensitive and can avoid once again shoring up his increasingly tattered race-related bona fides. Clinton's lucky that Reid's comment is more unusual than his own run-of-the-mill insult about Obama as fetcher of coffee.

Just a few days away from the holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., is it too much to ask that we honor his memory by finally having that honest conversation on race and privilege that we threaten to do each time there's a blow-up?

Though we can't afford not to in an increasingly diverse and divided country, the track record isn't promising.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Clinton Foundation Reveals Donors

Christopher Weber — 2010-01-04T06:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Fundraising, Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton's global foundation has released a list of its donors, with four individuals and groups contributing more than $25 million dollars each in the last year.

The biggest donors to the former president's private charitable organization were the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, The Children's Investment Fund and the anti-AIDS group UNITAID.

The William J. Clinton Foundation posted the list of its 2009 donors on its Web site.

Among those giving between $10 million and $25 million were real estate developer and film producer Steve Bing, philanthropist Tom Golisano, the government of Norway and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Clinton's foundation focuses on issues such as health care, climate change and economic development.

When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the former president agreed to disclose his donors to the White House, according to the Associated Press. The Obama administration has the right to review whether there are potential conflicts with Hillary Clinton's work overseas.

Other groups that donated at least $1 million were the Elton John AIDS Foundation, Coca-Cola and the Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation

For a full list of donors, click here.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments