Już 62 506 użytkowników uczy się języków obcych z Edustation.
Możesz zarejestrować się już dziś i odebrać bonus w postaci 10 monet.
Jeżeli chcesz się dowiedzieć więcej o naszym portalu - kliknij tutaj
Jeszcze nie teraz ZAREJESTRUJ SIĘlub
Zaloguj »
ZAREJESTRUJ SIĘ
Nie masz konta?
12/9/10: White House Press Briefing
Poziom:
Temat: Społeczeństwo i nauki społeczne
Mr. Gibbs:
Mr. Kuhnhenn, take us away.
The Press:
Thank you, Robert.
We had a little House
Democratic action today,
and in the wake of that, the
Speaker said that the tax plan
would not come to the floor unless it was "improved,"
her word.
And I'm wondering, what does the
President think of that kind of
repudiation from the Democrats?
And what can you possibly do to
the tax plan to make it more
appealing to Democrats?
Can you just tweak
it around the edges,
things like energy
tax credits and so on,
or can you actually go after
the estate tax and make any
adjustments to that that
would appeal to them?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, let me just say,
first and foremost,
as you've heard the President
over the past several days,
he understands that there are
parts of the agreement that
Democrats don't like.
He's certainly one of them.
Whether it's the upper-income
tax rate changes,
whether it's the additional
changes to the estate tax,
there are certainly parts
of this that I've read that
Republicans don't like.
So that, by the nature
of it, is compromise.
If there are ways to strengthen
the framework that are agreeable
to everybody and strengthen
the coalition, that's good.
I think that's something
that we'd have to hear --
I think that's something that
House Democrats are going to
have to talk about in terms of
what they want to do and what
they want to see.
I mean, obviously, as I said
yesterday in response to several
questions, if everybody took
out what they didn't like,
we wouldn't -- we
would have nothing.
And we know the consequences
of doing nothing,
and that's why I strongly
believe and the White House
strongly believes that
at the end of the day,
Congress will give the American
people a vote on a plan that
prevents their taxes from going
up by several thousand dollars
at the beginning of the year;
that will prevent millions from
losing their
unemployment insurance;
and as this agreement does, the
framework of this agreement,
give strong incentives for job
creation and economic growth.
The Press:
Is the estate tax,
for instance --
which is the one thing
that they have --
seem to be zeroing in on -- is that essentially off the table as a --
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, again, Jim,
I think that --
I think that -- again, that's something the President is no
big fan of.
I guess the question for them to
work through with some of their
Republican counterparts
is if you do that,
do you lose votes
on the other side.
So this is a -- this is a
game of calculus and physics,
and I think the
bottom line, though,
is that we will have a vote that
will not result in people's
taxes going up by
the end of the year.
The Press:
Can I follow up on that?
Mr. Gibbs:
Sure.
The Press:
Erskine Bowles yesterday complained that the plan didn't
have any provisions for midterm
or long-term deficit reduction.
And given how expensive it is,
should that have been something
-- is that fair criticism?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, let me say a few things.
One, if I'm not mistaken, the
commission had a payroll tax cut
in their proposal.
Two, this is not a long-term
-- this is not a --
by definition, a long-term plan.
This is an agreement to -- basically tax policy for the
next two years.
Jack Lew and Secretary Geithner
met at the White House this
morning with members of the
fiscal commission to go through
and discuss with them their
report and to talk with them as
we begin to broach and work
through the decisions that we
have for our budget
for next year.
But I think that we're going to,
over the next year and several
years, have to have a discussion
about getting our
fiscal house in order.
That's why the President
appointed the commission to
begin with and I think we're
looking through their proposals
as we put our budget together to
see what matches up and we could
send to Capitol Hill
early next year.
But I think it would be wrong to
look at the agreement that the
President laid down as either
a long-term tax or a long-term
budget agreement.
Yes, sir.
The Press:
Robert, is the White House concerned about the reaction in
bond markets, by the reaction
that mortgage rates are going up
as a result of this deal?
Mr. Gibbs:
I would you point you
to somebody at Treasury.
I only get in trouble when I
talk about things like that.
The Press:
Even the mortgage rates bit?
I mean, the idea is you would
like to help Americans,
you would like to spur the
economy with this deal,
but one of the unintended
consequences is
mortgage rates going up.
Mr. Gibbs:
Jeff, I will have 15 emails that have gotten me in trouble if I
dip my toe into this swirling
Rubicon, and I'm not going to.
The Press:
All right, let me try
something else then.
We've seen cost estimates
ranging from $700 billion to $1
trillion for this deal.
And Larry Summers talked about
some of the cost estimates,
particular aspects
of it yesterday.
Does the White House have
an overall price tag?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, again -- and I should mention this when I was talking
about Jim's answer -- within
the extenders portion of the
agreement, there are still some details to be worked through,
and staff has been doing that
over the past couple of days --
at what level, at what rate,
the specifics of some those extenders.
So it's hard to know the
exact cost of the bill,
as Larry said yesterday, and
they'll do an estimate on that
as this goes through the
legislative process.
I have seen various estimates.
I think somewhere
in the mid-seven --
upper-700s to upper-800s is
probably about the right venue.
I think more than
a third of that --
or about a third of that would
be tax cuts for the middle class.
The next biggest
expenditure, I believe,
in the composition of the
total is the payroll tax cut.
So those comprise the largest
elements, percentage-wise,
in the package.
The Press:
Can you give us
-- last question --
The Press:
I thought you said the
payroll tax cut was paid for.
Mr. Gibbs:
No.
When did I say that?
The Press:
The other day when we
were talking about --
Mr. Gibbs:
No, this is -- no, this is --
I don't believe I said that.
The Press:
I was just going to ask one last follow-up on the Lew meeting --
the Lew and Geithner meeting.
Can you tell us any more about
what particular issues they
discussed and what the
reaction is from --
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, again, Jack and his team are in the midst of putting
together a budget.
There are meetings -- there have been meetings on that this week,
and later in the day, on decisions that have to be made
around that.
I think one of the -- obviously, not simply talking through just
the specifics of what
they talked about,
but I think also you can get a sense from discussing with the
commission members sort of the different types of coalitions
that you might be able to put together to get some of this
through law -- through
Congress and into law,
because there's a -- certainly the panel is made up of members
of Congress and this all has
to get through them as well. Jake.
The Press:
If Speaker Pelosi is actually talking about not even
introducing this
bill for a vote,
aren't you worried that this
isn't going to happen and all
the economic catastrophe that
you guys are warning about is
going to happen?
Mr. Gibbs:
I think at the end of the
day, this will get done.
The Press:
So you think she's bluffing?
Mr. Gibbs:
I think that this is a
long and winding process.
But I think at the
end of the day,
members are not going to want
to be in their districts,
senators are not going to want
to be in their districts when
their constituents find out on
the 1st of January that their
taxes have gone up by
several thousand dollars.
And I continue to believe that
when all is said and done,
if we don't get
something done this year,
everyone will I think rightly
be blamed for not having gotten
something done and we'll find
ourselves, quite frankly,
in a position where we're not
getting the politics out of
unemployment insurance
for the rest of the year;
a payroll tax that, I think
safe to say, most economists,
probably almost every economist
that doesn't work inside here,
didn't think was
even in the offing.
And I think that's
the basis for --
the basis for the economic
projections that we've seen increased.
The Press:
Considering -- we've heard
the President and other senior
advisors on the record -- and then others off the record or on
background -- express frustration or hint at
frustration with Congress,
with Democratic leaders.
President Obama pointed out the
other day that he wanted a vote
on this before the
midterms, and obviously,
the Democratic leaders
didn't deliver.
David Axelrod yesterday pointed
out that the House couldn't even
pass seven months' worth
of unemployment insurance
extensions; this compromise
would have 13 months.
How personally frustrated
is President Obama with the
Democratic leaders in Congress,
considering how difficult
they're making this process for
him in a deal that he feels is
ultimately the only thing
he could have gotten?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, look, I think
the President is --
and the Vice President has
certainly been up on Capitol Hill.
I think the Vice
President was pleased,
even after the
caucus last night,
that members came up to
him -- he told me this --
members came up to him agreeing
that this was a good agreement. But --
The Press:
Then they voted
not to support it?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think it
was a voice vote,
and my guess is if a lot of
voices yell one thing you may
not yell the other.
But I think that -- look, I don't think we spend a lot of
time here thinking about what could have been in September or
in October or things like that.
The President is focused on
an agreement that he thinks
provides some genuine economic
growth and job creation
potential and to ensure
that taxes don't go up --
even as we understand rightly
the frustration of those that
this agreement includes
stuff that the President has
campaigned against, the
President has fought against,
the President has said over and
over again that he opposes.
It is that part that
makes it compromise.
And, again, I think in the end
of the day the President is --
believes that this agreement,
the framework we have,
will be the basis for what
prevents middle-class tax rates
from going up on
the 1st of January.
The Press:
Let me just put
a button on this.
Have Speaker Pelosi or Leader
Reid offered an alternative deal
that could get
through the Senate?
Mr. Gibbs:
Not that I'm aware of.
But I would direct you to them.
Not that I have heard, no.
The Press:
Can I go back on the estate tax?
There are a lot of
prominent Democrats,
including Congressman Clyburn,
who really saw this as pouring
salt on their wounds, that this
was something that took them by
surprise and was an
unnecessary gift to the rich,
in their perspective.
Is the President not willing at
all to amend his position on
that, perhaps take the estate
tax back to the 2009 level that
many Democrats --
Mr. Gibbs:
What was the 2009 -- I don't --
The Press:
45% with a $3.5 million --
Mr. Gibbs:
3.5 --
The Press:
3.5% -- $3.5 million at 45% --
Mr. Gibbs:
Which -- that's a $46
billion two-year price tag,
as I understand it.
Look, do I -- does the President wish we had to add $12 billion
each year for two years to
go to the different level?
No, as you heard him say.
That was and has been the
negotiating position of the
Republican Party since
the very beginning,
including the meeting that was
held in the Roosevelt Room.
That's what they
offered as their --
that was their position
on the estate tax.
Again, there are parts
in this we don't like.
There's parts in this I'm
sure Republicans don't like.
The reason why you couldn't get
an extension of unemployment
insurance through the House
wasn't because most Democrats
don't think that you should
extend unemployment insurance.
It's because Republicans
didn't believe you should.
And so there's -- again, there's things in here that none of us
find -- or not all
of us find attractive.
But in order to get something
that a majority can agree on,
I think the basis and the
framework for that is
encompassed in this agreement.
The Press:
There are several Democratic lawmakers who did not agree --
did not feel that this meeting
with the Vice President went
well, and they believed
that the administration --
Mr. Gibbs:
Again, compromise.
(laughter)
The Press:
Well, they believed that the administration presented it as a
take-it-or-leave-it deal.
Are you saying that the
President is presenting this as
a take-it-or-leave-it
kind of deal?
Mr. Gibbs:
Again, I said yesterday and I said earlier to Jim's question,
and that is if there are ways
that this agreement can be
strengthened, that
everybody signs --
everybody believes in
-- but understand, again,
if one side takes out what they don't like and the other side
takes out what they don't
like, we're going to have that.
And that, a blank
piece of paper,
is not going to prevent
middle-class tax rates from
going up.
It's not going to prevent -- it's not going to prevent the
politics that's going to get played every three months for
all of 2011, with extending
unemployment insurance,
even to the tune of watching the
benefits of 2 million people
expire before Christmas,
before the end of the year.
Again, a perfect deal?
Not by any means.
Are there things in it the
President doesn't support or
doesn't like?
Some of them in here are things
I've heard him be opposed to for
as long as I have been with him,
and that goes back to April of 2004.
But the nature of compromise is
taking enough things to get an
agreement through.
And I think in the end we will.
The Press:
Does the President need to
go to the Hill to make his
case personally?
Mr. Gibbs:
Again, the President -- the President has been making his
case, and the President
will continue to.
The Press:
I have another
dead horse to beat.
(laughter)
The Press:
Be careful.
The Press:
Sorry.
The Press:
Don't preface the question.
Mr. Gibbs:
You have to admit,
it was pretty good.
(laughter)
The Press:
The surgeon general this morning told one of our correspondents
when asked about the
President's smoking habits,
"He is working
very hard to stop.
He has been working
very hard at it."
So my question is, how hard
has he been working at it?
What's he doing?
Mr. Gibbs:
I have not seen or witnessed evidence of any smoking in
probably nine months.
The Press:
Do you know that
he's working at it?
Has he talked to you about it?
Mr. Gibbs:
He has.
The Press:
What's he saying?
Mr. Gibbs:
Look, this is --
this is not -- I mean,
I think you've heard
him say this --
this is not something
that he's proud of.
He knows that it's
not good for him.
He knows that it's --
he doesn't like it --
he doesn't like children to
know about it, obviously,
including his.
And I think he has
worked extremely hard.
And I think he would tell you,
even when in the midst of a tax
agreement and a START deal
and all the other things that
accumulate, that even where
he might have once found some
comfort in that,
he's pushed it away.
So he understands its dangers
and I think has done a lot of
extraordinary work to
wrestle with that habit,
as millions of Americans have.
The Press:
Thank you.
Now, changing horses, does the
fact that the Senate may do a
test vote on the tax package
raise your hopes that that will
force the House's hand?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think it will demonstrate that there is
support for this
agreement in both parties.
I think you have, largely
because we have barraged you
with them, statements from
elected officials all over the
country -- mayors, governors, governors-elect --
from big cities, smaller
cities, big states,
smaller states that believe,
as the President does,
that we have to do several
things: ensure that taxes for
the middle-class don't go up;
ensure that we get an extension
of unemployment benefits; and
ensures that we get some real
economic bang for our buck in
something like the payroll tax.
So I think it will obviously
legislatively bring us one step
closer to getting
this agreement.
And I think, in the end,
we'll get something done.
Yes, sir.
The Press:
A number of op-eds today suggesting this compromise is
the President's reaction
to the midterm elections.
And yet there are officials who
say that some of the elements of
it are things that simply
wouldn't have worked in '09 when
the Republicans wanted the
stimulus package to be
predominantly tax
cuts and not spending.
So, which is it?
Or is it a combination of both?
Mr. Gibbs:
I don't understand the
second part of your question.
The Press:
The tax cuts that -- Republicans wanted the '09 stimulus package
to be mostly tax cuts,
not federal spending.
Mr. Gibbs:
The truth is, I
think in terms of --
well, we can always quibble.
I think a decent number
of -- a decent number --
several hundred billion dollars,
probably more than a third of
the bill, was tax cuts.
The Press:
And they wanted more.
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, they didn't want
more enough to vote for it,
because they all support
an AMT tax relief and --
The Press:
They wanted more tax
cuts than spending,
that was their position.
The school of thought then was
that the economy was in such bad
shape that the tax cuts
themselves wouldn't do the job.
I don't want to be answering
your question for you.
Mr. Gibbs:
I think fairly well -- fairly well borne out by history, yes.
The Press:
So how much of this deal reflects the President looking
at the midterm
elections, saying,
I've got to compromise
with Republicans,
and how much of it reflects the
economy's growth from '09 to now?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think -- look, I think what the election brought to
Washington was -- and what the imminent change in our calendar
brings is the notion that to get anything done by the end of the
year it's not going to be
all of what anybody wants.
And we know that
because we had --
we're in the position of working
through an agreement because on
Saturday we had two votes in the
Senate that didn't have enough
to move this process along.
We're at this because we're at
a legislative stalemate in just
what -- just the option that we wanted, which was to make the
middle-class tax cuts permanent.
In designing an agreement,
obviously we wanted something
that -- we wanted something
that made sense economically.
I think -- and I think maybe compromise is a good word to
describe, for instance,
taking $60 billion in --
roughly $60 billion in Make
Work Pay for 2011 and 2012,
putting it together in 2011 and
doing it through a payroll tax
cut which shares a number of the
characteristics to Make Work
Pay, doing it with a greater
bang for your buck means the
benefit to the middle class is
greater for virtually every
family under $106,000
or roughly $107,000.
I think it is an understanding
that the only way we were going
to get something done after the
votes on Saturday was to work
together, and in doing so, we
wanted something that provided
economic certainty
and grew the economy.
The Press:
Are we looking at the calendar here or are we looking at a new
President Obama?
Is this a move
toward the center?
Mr. Gibbs:
Do you want me to
say triangulate?
(laughter)
The Press:
If you feel you'd like.
Mr. Gibbs:
No, I don't --
The Press:
Are we going to see the same kind of compromise in 2011?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, look, I'll say this.
We have -- if you look at
what -- the President took,
as he talked to you all about -- we took a pretty bad press day
in Seoul, Korea, to walk away from an agreement that we
believed wasn't as
good as we could get.
And we got something that ended
up being better for our country
and for our country's
workers, and because of that,
put together a coalition that I
think stands a better chance of
getting through Congress,
because Dave Camp and Sandy
Levin and Ford and the United
Auto Workers are supportive of
that newer deal.
I think that's a coalition
that can get a trade agreement
through Congress.
I think START is going to pass
by the end of this year with a
pretty big bipartisan vote.
And I think in the end this will
pass with a bipartisan vote as well.
And I think that is what the
American people asked for in
this election, and I hope it
is a sign of things to come.
The Press:
So this compromise, this time of compromise is or is not likely
to be what we'll see over
the next couple of years?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think the President is certainly hopeful that we can
get into a room and discuss
issues like adults and come out
with an agreement that while we
might not all like is in the
best interests of the
American people in this.
In this tax agreement, it's to
preserve the middle class --
to preserve middle-class
families from seeing a tax increase.
That's what's animated the
President and hopefully that's
what will bring us an agreement.
The Press:
Robert, the six-pack group of folks that were negotiating the
tax bill, they stopped meeting as a group formally I think it
was the Friday before the Senate
held those votes that didn't pass.
And then you guys
announced a deal.
Did you cut out the House
Democrats too quickly?
Did you not bring
them in on the loop?
That seems to be the common
complaint among this House
Democratic caucus, is that you
guys didn't loop them in on the
negotiations enough.
Did you guys make a mistake?
Mr. Gibbs:
I don't -- I'd have to go back and look through the scheduling
of when each of these
meetings was done.
Look, again, I think that
the frustration of --
there's understandable
frustration about what is in
this agreement --
The Press:
But they felt uninformed.
They saw the -- basically the agreement came out and they
didn't -- and a lot of House Democrats felt as if they were
out of the loop.
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I mean, I guess I'd push back on that a bit because we
had the leaders of the House and
the Senate down here a couple of
times -- I believe
once over the weekend,
maybe more than
once over the weekend,
and then on Monday before
the President went out.
The Press:
They weren't there -- when
you were cutting a deal with
McConnell and Boehner, was Speaker Pelosi in the room?
Was Chris Van
Hollen in the room?
This is part of a negotiation --
Mr. Gibbs:
Again, I don't know who was
in every meeting, Chuck.
Again, we -- I think
the President --
I think the
President believes --
continues to believe
we got a good deal.
The Press:
Congressman Elijah Cummings implied today that START and the
estate tax are connected in the
negotiations with Senator Kyl.
What do you respond to that?
Mr. Gibbs:
I think a number of us
have continued to say
that's not true.
The Press:
What gives you the confidence that you're getting a START
vote, since we're now
less than a week before --
we're less than a week away -- about a week away before the
official recess?
Mr. Gibbs:
I wouldn't make -- I don't know that I'd make a ton of plans in
that intervening week.
(laughter)
The Press:
I think we're all aware of that.
But you still have --
Mr. Gibbs:
Sorry to do the -- sorry to deliver coal in the occasional
stocking, but I'm not --
The Press:
You still have Mitch McConnell's word that you're getting a vote?
Mr. Gibbs:
I think we're going to --
The Press:
Do you have his word?
Mr. Gibbs:
I think we're going to get a vote for a number of reasons,
not the least of which
it's the right thing to do.
I will say -- going back
to Wendell's question --
when was the last thing we
proposed that the last five
Republican -- last six Republican secretaries of state
thought was a good idea that didn't have the vast support of
the American people
like START does?
It's the right thing to do for
our relationship with Russia and
our relationships in the world.
It's the right thing to do
to cut our deployed nuclear stockpiles.
And that's -- I think it will get done because of that.
The Press:
Today the Transportation Department is pulling money from
Wisconsin and Ohio for light
rail and redirecting this money,
stimulus money, to other states.
Both Wisconsin and Ohio just
elected Republican governors who
ran in part on
pledging not to --
they didn't want to go
through that project.
Why not let them use that
money for other transportation projects?
Mr. Gibbs:
Because the money is written into the law to be for
high-speed rail.
Both gubernatorial candidates,
now both gubernatorial --
or governors-elect, told us they
weren't going to spend that
money as the law is written.
And as you know -- and I think your network and many others
have done stories on ensuring that we spend this money the right way.
And if grants that are obligated
to places that aren't going to
use them as the law intends,
then we will give that money to
places that will use
it as the law intends.
The Press:
Considering the pain that Wisconsin and Ohio have in their
own economy, and the point of
this money was to pump money
into some of these states,
particularly those two states,
would you be open to changing
the law so that money could be
used for other
transportation projects?
Mr. Gibbs:
Let's be clear, Chuck, that building high-speed rail would
alleviate the very problems
that you just described.
Now, you can ask governors-elect
whether they decided not to put
people in their own state to
work just because Barack Obama
decided that -- or just because Barack Obama proposed it as a project.
My hunch is that there are
people sitting around their
kitchen tables in Ohio and
Wisconsin who are wondering why
they're not at work because a
partisan political food fight by
a governor-elect.
Those people could be at work if
they spent the money as it was
legally intended to be spent.
Jonathan.
The Press:
This question about START,
about whether there was a START
connection, you're treating that
like some kind of nefarious
thing, but it's fairly
standard procedure,
especially when you're
negotiating with the Senate to
try to get some kind of more
universal or broad floor agreement.
When you agree on one thing,
you're going to say you're going
to have a vote on another.
Was there any effort to get
anything from Mitch McConnell to
assure, if not a START vote --
Mr. Gibbs:
You've written like three stories about the --
how we're supposed to -- I'm supposed to trade some of this
for some of that and get
some of this for some of that.
There just wasn't -- we were working on an agreement on how
taxes was going to be treated over the next two years.
The Press:
And did you get any -- try to get any assurances on Republican
votes that if we do this, then the Republicans can deliver that
many votes?
Mr. Gibbs:
No, I was not in each
of these meetings.
But, again, I think these are
legislation that's going to
stand on and be
approved on its merits.
The Press:
Finally, on "don't
ask, don't tell,"
we've now seen a number of
Republicans in the Senate come
forward in favor of it, but
there's some dispute on how that
vote would take
place procedurally,
and I wonder what involvement
the White House is having on
that, resolving that, and
whether you think that "don't
ask, don't tell" could
also be passed --
Mr. Gibbs:
I think it can and I think,
as you mentioned, Jonathan,
there are a number of individual
senators that have come out in
support of ending
an unjust policy.
As I said yesterday, the
President has made calls to
Democrats and Republicans
on both "don't ask,
don't tell" and the DREAM Act.
I will check with Legislative
Affairs if there's anything
that's going on, particularly to
break the procedural logjam on
the number of amendments.
The Press:
Robert, quick follow-up to your response to Bill's question
about the President smoking.
Should we take that to
mean that he's quit?
You said you haven't seen any
evidence or seen him smoking for nine months.
Has he quit?
Mr. Gibbs:
For that nine months, yes.
I mean, I don't -- I'm trying not -- I don't want to be flip.
I mean, I don't -- I think the President would be the first one
to tell you that
it's a struggle.
The Press:
So how has he done it?
How did he do it?
Is it the gum?
Mr. Gibbs:
He's stubborn --
(laughter)
-- and has -- look, this is something that he has thought
about for awhile.
As I said, I think this is
something that he's aware is not
something that's in doing is
in his best interest for his health.
And I think he's thought about
that for quite some time.
The Press:
One more on something else.
Is he going to -- can we expect him to speak about or maybe even
to Nobel Peace Prize
winner Liu tomorrow?
Mr. Gibbs:
As it relates to Liu Xiaobo, when he was awarded the Nobel
Prize, the President was among
the very few who put out a
statement both congratulating
him and calling on China to
release him.
And the President -- we will release a statement reiterating
that tomorrow.
The Press:
That will be a
written statement?
Mr. Gibbs:
Yes.
The Press:
What's the official U.S. representation at the ceremony?
What's the decision on that?
Mr. Gibbs:
I believe our
ambassador will be there.
The Press:
What message does that send?
Some countries
are boycotting it.
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, no, I think we're there
in showing support for the
committee's decision.
And we were the previous
recipient of that prestigious
award and the President and our
ambassador strongly believe that
they should be in attendance
of a ceremony attended by the
winner, because he's [not]
been released by China.
The Press:
The heads of the deficit commission urged the President
to call a budget
summit early next year.
Will he do that?
And also, why didn't he drop
by the meeting this morning?
Mr. Gibbs:
I'd have to look through the schedule and see when it was
versus -- I think the President may have been in the Export
Council meeting when they
met with Jack and Tim.
Again, we're looking through
that and deciding what makes
sense to put in the budget as we
construct that for next year.
The Press:
Do you think a summit is worth considering, a budget summit?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, look, I think we ask
the commission to do a lot of
important work.
We couldn't get a law through
to set up a commission.
So the President believed,
through executive order,
that it was important to
do that through his power.
And I think the process,
particularly with the budget
coming, the best process
right now is to analyze,
discuss and meet with the
commission at the level that
they're doing it and see what
can be included in the budget.
The Press:
And also, what is the administration doing to reach
out to the liberal base, who
have been so critical of the compromise?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, again, I think you all have documented the Vice
President's attendance
on Capitol Hill.
I think you've seen quite
a bit of staff up there.
There are discussions in
this building with members.
And I think the President has
been out there campaigning quite
a bit about why this is
important to our economy.
The Press:
Are there specific administration officials who are
reaching out to different
liberal groups, though,
behind the scenes?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, look, I think if
you look at some of the --
in terms of groups, I mean, I
think you've seen you've seen
folks like John Podesta and Bob
Greenstein who have put out
statements strongly
in support of --
as those on the left -- put out statements strongly in support
of this agreement.
So I think it's that.
I think Jack Lew and Gene
Sperling were at both caucuses
yesterday, separate
of the Vice President,
the Senate caucus yesterday, and
then with him later when he met
with the House.
The Press:
On the smoking issue,
he's not on any gum, is he?
Because I know at one point he
was chewing a gum or something like that.
Mr. Gibbs:
I think he's still chewing gum.
The Press:
He's still chewing
the gum, okay.
Then on "don't ask, don't tell,"
if the efforts to move this
forward fail, what is the
President prepared to do?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think our efforts
right now are focused on,
as we have always said, what we
believe is the best and most
durable solution -- that
is one through Congress.
That's where our
efforts are directed.
That's the reason that
Secretary Gates worked through,
with the military,
the study and --
the attitudinal study of our men
and women in the armed forces.
And I think there's no better
advocate in that than Secretary
Gates and Admiral Mullen in
believing how much this needs to
get done this year.
I think the President strongly
believes that one of two things
is going to happen.
Either Congress is going to
solve this legislatively or the
courts are going to decide this.
And the policy is going
to come to an end.
Congress has to ask themselves
how they want to end it and how
-- what role they want to play in ensuring that it's done in an
orderly way.
The Press:
Robert, first of all,
just checking today,
have there been any phone calls
by the President to members
about the tax cut deal
or any one of them --
Mr. Gibbs:
I will double-check.
I have -- I'm
behind on my email,
so I should check on that
before I say yes or no,
but I'll do some
checking on that.
The Press:
Okay.
And also, both in the statement
from the co-chairman of the
fiscal commission and in the
members' comments to Jack Lew
and Tim Geithner today, they
urged the President not just to
have a budget summit with
congressional Republicans but to
put in his budget and in his
State of the Union speech a call
for his own debt reduction plan.
Does he plan to do that?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think that part of the purpose of the Cabinet meeting
yesterday was to let Cabinet
officials know that there were
going to be some tough decisions
and some tough cuts that were
going to have to be made.
You've already seen the
President make a decision that
-- to freeze federal pay -- to freeze pay for federal workers.
And I think there are a number
of very tough decisions that are
coming that are going to have to
be made to get our fiscal house
in order.
The Press:
Did he put a number on it
to the Cabinet officials?
Mr. Gibbs:
I missed most of the
meeting, and I don't --
I assume that they are
working off some numbers.
I don't know if the President
said any in that meeting directly.
The Press:
But will he call for -- will he have his own debt reduction plan
early in the year?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think we -- look,
we have a budget that --
The Press:
On the scale -- comprehensive and on the scale of the --
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I don't want to get ahead of where they are in terms of
budgetary decisions.
Obviously a budget process we
have had since we got here to
cut the budget deficit in half
over a four-year period of time.
Yes.
The Press:
Thank you, Robert.
Two questions.
The first is that the President
is going to meet Admiral Mullen
this afternoon.
Mr. Gibbs:
Say that again?
The Press:
The President is going to meet Admiral Mullen this afternoon.
Mr. Gibbs:
Yes.
The Press:
And could you give us
some detail about that?
And also, is North Korea still
on the top of agenda in the White House?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think I can
probably combine those two.
Obviously the Admiral is just
back from a trip to the Republic
of Korea.
And we have had -- National Security Advisor Tom Donilon has
had Korean and Japanese officials here to discuss North
Korea and -- along
with Secretary Clinton.
And there will be additional
trips to Beijing by senior
administration officials to
reiterate our call that the
Chinese be clear with the North
Koreans about their belligerent
behavior and its destabilizing
effect on the region.
The Press:
Also -- sorry, Admiral Mullen said that he hopes Secretary
Gates' visit next month to China could strengthen both sides'
military relations.
So what's the expectation of the
administration about Secretary
Gates' visit to China?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, look, I think
whether it is --
whether it's folks like Jeff
Bader or Jim Steinberg or,
as you mentioned next
month, Secretary Gates,
I think our message
is, as I just said it,
and that is China is in a
position to have strong
influence over the actions
and the behavior of the North
Koreans, and it is our belief
that they should use their
influence in that country
to stabilize the region.
Ann.
The Press:
Thanks, Robert.
When the President made his
announcement about the tax deal
on Tuesday, he did not have
legislative language in front of him.
Mr. Gibbs:
Right, right.
The Press:
Is there any talk with the White House specifically about the
numbers within the estate tax
portion of it that would change
or narrow the numbers that were
at least in the fact sheets that
the White House gave out?
Mr. Gibbs:
Not that I'm aware of, no.
The Press:
You don't believe so?
Mr. Gibbs:
I mean, again, this was -- this is not something that we have
found -- this is not something that we were the champions of.
This is not something that --
The Press:
How did it get in there?
Did it --
Mr. Gibbs:
How did it get in there?
It got in there because this is
what the Republicans said was
the price of coming along for
extending tax cuts for the
middle class.
When the President stood up
here and said we're for --
our goal is to protect the
middle class and their goal is
to protect the very
wealthy, I would --
I think it's pretty safe to call
that Exhibit A in that argument.
Again, as both Jonathan
and Suzanne talked about,
the 2009 level was a $3.5
million exemption and a 45% rate
on estates that exceeded
that individual level.
This is a $5 million
exemption and a 35% rate.
Again, would we prefer
a different rate?
Yes.
Again, there are -- that's
why compromise is never easy.
The Press:
And when you look at the prospect of both some senators
and some House members saying
there really have to be some
changes in this to --
for me to support it,
does the President see a
risk in opening up any of --
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, sure.
The Press:
-- what is the risk?
Mr. Gibbs:
Look, as I -- I will go
back to what I said yesterday,
and that is, look,
when you start --
The Press:
Yesterday you weren't on camera.
Mr. Gibbs:
No, but I'm not sure that my tie and this suit definitely will
change this answer,
but we have --
I mean, obviously I think it
goes without saying that if you
start to unpack this
deal significantly,
we're going to find ourselves
sort of where we've been for
several months, and
that is at a stalemate.
And I think, again,
understand why we are here.
We couldn't get a piece of
legislation that went through
the House, through the Senate.
That's why we are -- and that's why it requires that we take
some of what we may not like
and some of what we may not be a
strong supporter of in order to get enough people along that can
get something done.
And I think if all we
could do is this with --
by our own choice and by writing
all the rules and what have you,
I hear people talk about that.
We tried that.
It didn't get
through the Senate.
It's not -- it's just --
The Press:
It's still take it or leave it.
Mr. Gibbs:
No, again, as I said earlier, if somebody can figure out how to
get -- to make the agreement better for everybody,
as Bob Barker would
say, come on down.
Nobody would walk
away from that.
I guess it wasn't
Bob who said that.
It was the guy who --
The Press:
Sure it was.
Mr. Gibbs:
Oh, it was?
The Press:
"Price is Right" --
The Press:
That would be the other guy.
Mr. Gibbs:
It was the announcer, technically, who --
no, but I mean, but seriously -- but no, no -- but, again, look,
again, the example I
used earlier, if you --
if one side takes
what the other side --
if one side takes out
what they don't like,
my hunch is that that's what the
other side likes and they'll
take out what they don't like
and then we're sort of --
The Press:
But my question is, is
that happening right now?
What we're not seeing, is
some of that give and take --
Mr. Gibbs:
Again, as I said earlier to Jim's I think first question,
or somebody along the beginning
here, is there are extenders --
what we had is a rough figure of
extenders that I think is still
being worked -- the details of which are being worked through.
The Press:
Robert, thank you.
We've seen an aggressive effort
on the part of the White House
to pass this package.
Obviously we're seeing daily
emails from the White House,
very public individuals
who are supporting this.
Mr. Gibbs:
You guys haven't learned so many mayors' names in the last 24
hours as -- there's a
quiz, I'm just warning you,
at the end of this.
The Press:
Who's Charlotte Mayor --
that's what I've been trying to
figure out --
The Press:
This feels, Robert, this feels
a little different from what we
saw over the last two years.
I'm not sure I remember
anything quite so concerted and
aggressive as this.
Is this a model for what we
might see going forward?
Is this a new approach on the
part of the White House to sort
of build support and consensus
behind what it wants to --
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, look, I will say this.
I think it is important to
-- I think it is important to
understand that, again, while there are differences and while
there are those that have and will continue to express their
concerns, I do think it is important to understand that the
mayor of L.A. has a
number of constituents;
the governor-elect of New
York and the mayor of New York
represent a lot of people.
I think it's important that we
understand that there are even
members in the House and Senate
that they don't always get on
cable TV but they're there.
And we think it's important
that people understood that.
The Press:
A quick follow-up.
You mentioned the President --
Mr. Gibbs:
Plus we have free email.
The Press:
You mentioned the
President has quit smoking.
Anyone else in the White House
that you're aware of who has
taken up smoking?
(laughter)
Mr. Gibbs:
Under the law of conservation of matter that if one thing ends,
another -- I don't --
The Press:
Has anyone taken up
smoking to cope with --
Mr. Gibbs:
That's an excellent -- wow, I think I can say this, too --
I don't know that
Marvin Nicholson,
who has smoked as long
as I've known him,
he has also quit smoking.
So it's broken out.
The Press:
Have they started
gaining weight?
(laughter)
Mr. Gibbs:
Can I go on background as a senior administration official?
I'm sorry, Marvin, I had
to -- I think that --
I don't know of anybody that has
started smoking, not that it --
well, I'm not going to
make a joke about that.
Lord knows.
Yes.
The Press:
I just had a follow-up to Peter's earlier question.
Are all these emails and letters
from various elected officials
intended to pressure elected
officials in Congress to come
out to support the bill?
Mr. Gibbs:
No, I think they're
intended -- honestly,
they're intended to show that this is an agreement that has
strong bipartisan support.
The Press:
Sorry, real quick about -- Attorney General Eric Holder
sent a letter to the Senate asking them not to include a
provision banning Guantanamo
Bay prisoners from coming to the
United States.
Will the President sign a
continuing resolution that has a
provision like that in it?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think we
would evaluate --
the answer to that, we would -- obviously you saw the attorney
general's letter consistent
with administration policy,
and has been for
quite some time,
before we would make any decisions about signing that
after it's been through
the legislative process.
April.
The Press:
Robert, back on the tax issue, the Democratic caucus is using
the words like
they -- like revolt.
They're saying they're revolting
against this administration for
what they're calling
a bridge too far.
Using your Bob Barker analogy,
they're saying the price is not
right, because --
Mr. Gibbs:
That was pretty good.
I'll give you that.
That was good.
The Press:
It's Rod Roddy,
is the guy's name.
The Press:
Oh, look at what he did.
The Press:
Somebody fact-checked it for me.
The Press:
Oh, good, okay.
Mr. Gibbs:
There you go.
The Press:
All right, anyway --
Mr. Gibbs:
You'd think Rod Roddy would
be a name we could remember.
The Press:
Okay.
All right, well, okay, going
back to the price is not right,
they're saying with this bridge
too far on the estate tax,
you would have to borrow $68
billion from China to give
32,000 families a
relief with this tax.
Mr. Gibbs:
Again, as you've heard
the President say,
this is not something that
-- this is not his idea.
But I do think, just in a series
of fairness, the 2009 level,
the exemption of $3.5 million
at 45% is not cost free.
I do think it's important
to understand that --
I'm not great at math, but I
think the overall estate tax
component is probably
in the $70 billion --
probably about a $70
billion expenditure.
Two-thirds of that -- two-thirds of that is the 2009 level --
the $3.5 million
exemption at a 45% rate.
Because understand now if you
simply extended the estate tax
where it is now, it's zero.
No rate, no exemption.
You're free to go.
The Press:
But you didn't even -- you didn't even talk about then you
talk about couples in 2009 at
7% and then now it's 10% --
I mean, $10 million
-- excuse me --
Mr. Gibbs:
Right, no, no, it's an individual exemption.
And obviously if you have -- if you're married and you have an
estate, that's an individual -- the $5 million is an individual exemption.
The rate obviously holds.
If you're a family it's
obviously double that.
The Press:
All right.
And now also on
two other issues.
How is this administration
promoting a credible election in
Haiti with all the
violence and uprising --
Mr. Gibbs:
Let me get some -- I'll get
you a statement on Haiti.
The Press:
And with smoking, many people say it could be linked to
pressure or it could be
something to relax --
relax a person.
What did you see
the President do --
what was the timeframe?
How did it happen?
What was he involved in at
that time when he was smoking,
you last saw him
smoking nine months ago?
What was the issue?
Was he having fun?
(laughter)
Mr. Gibbs:
I can't remember the
last time -- I mean,
I don't remember the
individual setting.
I don't know that
I would disagree --
I don't know that I would disagree -- it's a bit of --
I'm not a smoker, but I think if
you asked him he would likely
say that for both -- and again, I hesitate to do this on camera,
just in terms -- for both
-- for enjoyment and for some
relaxation from the
pressure that you mention.
Again, I hate to do this because
if there's anything in the world
that I hope my son never, ever,
ever, ever does, is this.
And his grandfather was a smoker
until a doctor told him that he
had lung cancer.
He's still here, and hopefully
will be for a long time.
But -- I was told that by my dad at the end of my son's third or
fourth birthday party.
So it is -- I think the President understands that it is
a -- as I said, this is
not something that --
it's something that he's greatly
struggled with and not something
that he's altogether proud of.
The Press:
With Ethan in mind,
thank you, Robert.
Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you.
The Press:
Robert, tax bills are
famous for a lot of deals,
a lot of lobbyists getting
things tucked in at the last
minute, a lot of horse trading.
Will all the
transparency rules apply?
Will you post this
on the Internet?
Will the public have plenty of
time to read the final language
before it's signed into law?
Mr. Gibbs:
I have not heard
otherwise, so, yes.
I may have just made
administration policy but what
the heck, right?
Ken.
The Press:
Robert, the 9/11 health care bill finally came up for a vote
today, was defeated, as I think
was expectations after doing
some vote counting.
White House statement on that?
Mr. Gibbs:
Let me get something
for you on that.
I mean, obviously we have to do
all that we can for those that
put their lives in harm's way
and who risked their health in
order to save
others on that day.
The Press:
Follow-up?
Mr. Gibbs:
Go ahead.
The Press:
The New York delegation has -- they're trying to see whether or
not it's workable to now attach this to the tax cut deal.
And they've got
about 50 signatures,
or about 50 supporters they
claim at this point --
wondering if that's anything
that's on the White House radar screen.
Is that doable?
Mr. Gibbs:
I don't know the answer.
Let me check with Legislative
Affairs on some of that.
Bill.
The Press:
Robert, you've told us
several times that --
on the Middle East -- that a freeze on the settlements was at
least one of the essential building blocks to successful
peace talks in the Middle East.
And it sort of got
lost this week,
and nobody has asked about it,
but the United States dropped
its demand that Israel freeze
its settlements in the Middle
East -- on the West Bank.
Mr. Gibbs:
No, let's be --
The Press:
So what happened?
What happened?
Mr. Gibbs:
Let's be clear that -- let me
-- I want to amend, if I can,
your question.
Our administration policy on
settlements is I think --
we have the same position as
administrations have had for
probably dating back to
Johnson on that issue.
As I said, I think at one point
I was reading through some old
transcripts and Reagan
was asked about it at a --
on settlements.
This is back in like 1982, so
it's a well-worn position of our government.
We still believe that it is in
the interest of both sides to
seek a comprehensive peace.
We will continue to be engaged
to get each of the sides to take
the steps that are necessary to
get back to direct talks and to
make progress on a
two-state solution.
When the parties were
here earlier in the year,
we said this was going to
require constant attention and
constant effort.
We know that progress is almost
impossible to make without our
engagement, and we'll continue
to be engaged in and continue to
have -- work with the
parties to do what's right.
The Press:
But this is a change in the position of the administration
in terms of supporting the
Palestinians' belief that a
freeze is the first step
towards serious talks.
Is this just -- do you then at least admit that this is going
to make it a lot more difficult to come to some agreement?
Mr. Gibbs:
Look, not being -- I think we continue to believe that --
let me just say, we've got to
have each side take steps to
build confidence
in this process.
Sam.
The Press:
Yes, if I missed this -- back on the tax stuff, if I missed this,
I'm sorry.
Mr. Gibbs:
That's okay.
The Press:
But from the White House perspective, what's next?
What do you do next?
I mean, Speaker Pelosi
says she won't bring it up.
You say you're
confident she will.
How do you square this --
Mr. Gibbs:
What I said was I believe that at the end of the day --
maybe not today --
(laughter)
-- but at the end of this, we will have a proposal that passes
and the President signs that
prevents middle-class families'
taxes from going up.
I think the next step,
as I understand it,
is that the Senate
will take this up.
And I think that's certainly -- that's one important step on
this legislative highway.
And I think as you've --
you've certainly seen senators,
they've looked into this
deal and analyzed this deal,
they've seen others'
analysis of this deal,
and I think more and more
people have supported it.
Yes, ma'am.
The Press:
On the deficit commission?
Mr. Gibbs:
Yes.
The Press:
On the tax side of the equation, they called for basically
eliminating tax
expenditures and slashing --
Mr. Gibbs:
Eliminating what?
I'm sorry.
The Press:
All the tax expenditures, to
get rid of all of them and to --
Mr. Gibbs:
Oh, you're talking
about loopholes and such?
The Press:
Yes.
And then lower tax
rates as a result.
So do you see a big push
for tax reform then?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I think -- I have heard the President and others in the
administration talk
about tax reform.
I think it is something that the
President would like to see us
begin the process
of, broadening --
cutting loopholes, broadening
the base and lowering tax rates.
I think it is important to
understand that that is not a
process that will
happen overnight.
That will take -- as it did I think in the last major tax code
revision in the mid '80s --
that will take some time.
But I think it's something that
the President and the team
certainly believe that it's good
to start that long process.
Yes, sir.
The Press:
Thank you.
On "don't ask, don't tell,"
you mentioned earlier that the
President sees this ending
either legislatively or through the courts.
Mr. Gibbs:
Yes.
The Press:
If it doesn't happen in the Congress before the Republicans
take control of the House, is
the President prepared to live
with a legal resolution?
Mr. Gibbs:
Well, I will say Presidents are not often afforded a decision
about whether they'll live
with a legal resolution.
It is not -- look, I think the first thing that the Pentagon
would tell you is it's
not their preferred route.
Look, you saw a decent amount of
confusion when the Ninth Circuit
effectively ended --
well, not effectively --
legally ended "don't
ask, don't tell."
There was some confusion about
recruiting and how do you handle
somebody who walks into a
recruiter's office for a couple of days.
The belief of the President and
I think importantly the belief
of the Secretary of Defense and
the Chair of the Joint Chiefs,
not simply is the policy wrong
and should be done away with,
but doing this in a legislative
way provides some transition
period to implement the change.
The courts may not be as
understanding as somebody in the
legislature would be.
And you could easily face a
situation where because of a
court ruling, the law of the
land changes in an instant.
And the best way to prevent
that -- and it's coming --
is to do this
through legislation.
We've had hearings.
We've had an exhaustive
attitudinal study of the military.
And it's shown that ending
this policy will not provide a
significant disruption
to our forces.
And for some frontline
battlefield forces that might
have a greater percentage of
those who think it might be
harder to do, you can
have a transition period.
But the policy can and should
end legislatively on Capitol Hill.
The Press:
Is it now or never in Congress?
Mr. Gibbs:
I think it is an
important period of time,
and I think we are closer
than we've ever been.
And I think more and more each
day you see senators coming out
-- the House has done this.
The House has taken that step.
I think every day you see
senators coming out in support
of its change, and
I think we're close.
Thanks.
The Press:
Robert, is there any plans for the President or First Lady to
attend the memorial service
for Elizabeth Edwards?
Mr. Gibbs:
Let me check with
scheduling on that.
Thanks, guys.
