Stocks to Watch Hot Stocks Penny stocks Stock Picks Stock Alerts Penny Stock Advice Penny Stocks The Bull Report

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:57 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being here on day two — (laughter) — of the second term.  I have no announcements to make so we’ll go straight to the Associated Press.

Q    Thank you.  Secretary Clinton on the Hill today, when asked about the initial administration explanation on Benghazi, said, “What difference does it make?”  Does it not make a difference whether the administration’s initial accounting of the Benghazi incident or any other incident is accurate?

MR. CARNEY:  Here’s what the Secretary of State was saying and the clear point that she was making — and it’s one that I have made and others have made repeatedly — which is that no one took more seriously the fact that we lost four American lives in Benghazi than the President of the United States and the Secretary of State of the United States. 

And whatever was said, based on information provided by the intelligence community on a series of Sunday shows, bears no relevance on the ultimate questions of what happened in Benghazi, who was responsible, and what we must do to ensure that it never happens again and that we bring to justice those who killed our diplomats and other Americans.

So that is clearly a point that we have been making for a long time.  And there has been an obvious political obsession over a series of talking points that, again, bears no relevance on the essential issues here, as I just enumerated.  The fact is I and Ambassador Rice and others provided to you and through you, to the American people, the information that we had available at the time, making clear that it was preliminary, making clear that it would evolve as investigations continued and more information became available.

And nothing about that process in any way changes what happened in Benghazi or what needs to be done to prevent a tragedy like that happening again.

Q    One of the other things that the Secretary mentioned in her testimony was that the threat of al Qaeda-affiliated groups in North Africa is growing, is a threat to U.S. interests in the region, and perhaps ultimately to the homeland.  How can the administration continue to say that al Qaeda has been decimated when the Secretary is saying that al Qaeda-affiliated groups are growing?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, what the Secretary also said — because she was asked specifically the question about whether or not it is true, as many have said, including the President and myself, that al Qaeda central has been decimated — there is no question that that is the case, and any intelligence assessment would reinforce that point.

I mean, we have taken the fight to al Qaeda, both in its core location — Afghanistan and Pakistan — as well as to those affiliates that represent a threat to the United States and to Americans around the world.  Our vigilance does not end there.  And we have been very clear about the threat posed by AQAP and by AQIM. 

What is also true is that, to this point, AQIM has not represented a direct threat to the homeland, but you can tell by our support of the mission that the French have undertaken and by our overall efforts to go after, and contain and defeat extremists who would do harm to our interests, that we are very serious about this.

Q    So you could square those two saying al Qaeda central command has been decimated even as al Qaeda-affiliate groups may be growing?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you can square it stating it clearly, which Secretary of State Clinton did and which President Clinton has, and I have and others –

Q    President Obama.

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, sorry, President Obama has, Secretary of State Clinton, President Obama — (laughter) — Press Secretary Carney.  (Laughter.)  Thank you. 

Q    I thought you weren’t going to speculate much.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Was that a lip-sync?  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  You stole my thunder.  I was going to make a lip-sync joke later.  (Laughter.)  

Q    Follow-up?  (Laughter.) 

MR. CARNEY:  Darn it, Knoller. 

The absolute fact is that the President took office four years ago with a very clear objective, and that was to refocus our efforts on the war in Afghanistan, which was an essential war, because from Afghanistan al Qaeda had been allowed to establish a safe haven, and from that safe haven had launched an attack against the United States that took 3,000 lives.

He has been relentless in the pursuit of al Qaeda since he took office.  And I think the evidence of that is very clear, including the elimination of Osama bin Laden.  But as the President and Secretary Clinton and Secretaries Gates and Panetta and others — John Brennan — have consistently made clear, al Qaeda continues to represent a threat.  Its affiliates in various parts of the region and the world represent a threat, and this is something that we are enormously vigilant about.  And Secretary Clinton said as much today.

Q    The Pentagon has now cleared General John Allen of the allegations of misconduct.  Does the President now plan to lift that hold that he had put upon the nomination?  And if so, how does he plan to advance it?  When does he plan to advance it to the Senate?

MR. CARNEY:  As you noted, the investigation is now complete and General Allen’s nomination, rather, to serve as the next Supreme Allied Commander Europe will proceed.  We hope the Senate will consider it in a timely manner and we will press the Senate to do just that. 

Q    So when will you send it to the Senate?  When will the White House send it to the Senate?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have a specific timetable, but as you noted, the DOD Investigator General’s investigation of that matter is now complete and we welcome its finding.  And therefore, we intend for the nomination to proceed.

Q    If I might follow up, the President last week spoke to Prime Minister David Cameron and said, I believe, that he wanted to see a strong U.K. and a strong EU.  So I'm wondering what the White House makes of the announcement today that there will be a referendum on that issue, and what the United States has at stake in the U.K. staying part of the EU.

MR. CARNEY:  We welcome the Prime Minister’s call for Britain to remain in the EU and to retain a leading role in Europe’s institutions.  And as the President told the Prime Minister when they spoke last week, the United States values a strong United Kingdom and a strong European Union. 

We value our essential relationship with the U.K., as well as our relationship with the European Union, which makes critical contributions to peace, prosperity, and security in Europe and around the world. 

We believe that the United Kingdom is stronger as a result of its European Union membership, and we believe the European Union is stronger as a result of having the United Kingdom in the EU.  So that's — our views on this are very clear.  The internal processes by which these matters are considered within the U.K. or any other country are obviously the province of those countries and those governments.

Yes, Dan.

Q    You talked about — with Benghazi, you talked about the obsession with talking points.  Are you suggesting that the American people should not care about the fact that they were told one thing and it turned out not to be the case?

MR. CARNEY:  Dan, as you know, we’ve discussed this matter repeatedly, and I’m happy to do so again.  We provided assessments of what happened in Benghazi based on information provided by the intelligence community which — and information that was, as we acknowledged, evolving based on investigations and more facts that were coming to light.

It has been clear for a long time now, as we saw during the campaign, that there has been an effort underway to make this a political issue when the fundamental fact here is that four Americans were killed; those who are responsible for their deaths must be brought to justice; and actions must be taken to ensure that the tragic events of Benghazi do not happen again.

That is why, at the President’s direction, the Secretary of State set up the ARB, the Accountability Review Board, which was chaired by two very prominent, nonpartisan leaders — Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering.  And their report was unsparing I think by any account, and its recommendations were accepted in their entirety by the Secretary of State, and they are being implemented under her leadership.  I think that reflects how seriously we take this issue and how serious the substance of this issue is.

What is not serious is the repeated attempts to try to make this a political matter, because it’s not.  And the fact of the matter is, back at the time, we were dealing with a situation that was not just limited to Libya and Benghazi, but where there was a series of events and unrest around the region.  And we were providing information to you and to the American public through you that was based on the best assessments at the time, and those assessments evolved as more facts became clear.  A lot of the allegations about this matter that have been cast forward over the intervening months have proven to be false as the Accountability Review Board made clear. 

Our interest, as an administration, and the President's interest is in the fundamental issue of bringing to justice those who are responsible, and taking the necessary actions to ensure that the tragedy of Benghazi is not repeated while — and I paraphrase Secretary Clinton here — we always acknowledge the fact that the important work our diplomats do around the world has to often take place in risky environments, and that they serve our country bravely, just as our men and women in uniform do, and take risks in order to fulfill their functions.

Q    It just seems when you use the word "obsession with talking points,” it seems to almost diminish the fact that — the facts that are there, which is wrong information was given at the time.

MR. CARNEY:  What is it that you — or speaking for those who are concerned about this — believe that we are diminishing?  The fact of the matter is the facility was attacked; four Americans were killed.  The President took immediate action to ensure that our diplomats and diplomatic facilities around the world were reinforced and secured as necessary; that everything was done that could be done to provide assistance to our personnel in Benghazi and in Tripoli.  That has all been borne out by the Accountability Review Board.

What is at issue here is essentially a phrase about whether or not there was a spontaneous demonstration, which was an early assessment that turned out not to be the case.  But the fundamental facts about what happened there and the results of those actions and that attack have not changed.  And no question has been brought legitimately, or that hasn't been proven untrue, about the actions that the administration took to respond appropriately.

So again, we fundamentally are talking here about a series of talking points that were provided to the administration as well as to members of Congress on Capitol Hill that acknowledged within them that this was preliminary information that everyone who spoke on the issue made clear might change, as is often the case here in situations like this.  And that’s how we view it. 

Q    Did the President watch any of the hearings this morning?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t believe he did.  I haven't asked him.

Q    And then one more point on — the President has talked about and other administration officials have talked about engaging the public in putting pressure on Congress to move the President's agenda forward in his second term.  What can we expect from the President?  Are we going to see a campaign-style effort where he hits the road a lot more to push whether it's gun policy or immigration?

MR. CARNEY:  The President will travel.  You can expect that.  He will, as he does, make the case to the American people for the vision he laid out in his inaugural address, and the specifics that he will lay out at his State of the Union address on February 12.   

I think you can fully expect that his commitment to engaging the American people in these important discussions about our future will continue.  He believes very strongly that even when we’re talking about seemingly arcane matters of budget policy — things like debt ceilings and spending in the out-years, and budget caps and deficit or debt to GDP ratios — that when distilled into common language, these are the essential matters that Americans care about because they affect their livelihoods; they affect their capacity to find work and then find higher-paying work.  Growth of the economy, growth in job creation is essential to the President’s vision.  It is the core goal that informs everything he does on domestic policy and international policy. 

So he believes that not only is it the right strategy to engage the American people, it is essential as a reflection of why he’s in this to begin with, to explain to them his vision and to listen to them about what their hopes are and the direction that they hope the country will move in.

Q    And when is the first trip and where is he going?

MR. CARNEY:  I have no scheduling announcements to make today, but I can assure you he will be hitting the road throughout his second term.

Q    Today marks one of the last times we will see Clinton on the public stage as Secretary.  We heard her receive a lot of praise from members of the Senate this morning for her work in the administration.  What do you think her legacy is as Secretary of State?

MR. CARNEY:  I think as every member of this administration, this team here at the White House and more broadly within the national security apparatus would admit as a starting point, I’m biased in saying this but I think she has been, and history will show her to have been, one of the great Secretaries of State. 

She came in office at a time when we were dealing with a diminished reputation worldwide, where our alliances were frayed; where we were engaged in two wars for which there were not strategies to end in a way that was in the interest of the United States; where we had unmet interests in places like Asia and elsewhere — Africa and Latin America — that we needed to pay attention to, and she did extraordinary work in advancing the President’s agenda on all those matters.  And I know the President feels that very strongly.

Q    And a question on Algeria — has the President spoken with the families of the three Americans killed in the attack?

MR. CARNEY:  I do not have — as you know, I think it was yesterday those names were released, but I don’t have any calls or conversations of the President to read out today.

Q    Revisiting climate change from yesterday, in talking to environmental groups, Democrats on the Hill, they don’t have an expectation of a refit or reintroduction of the cap and trade bill from 2010.  But what they really are looking at is the EPA to soon release or formalize, finalize its carbon-based pollution regulations for future power plants and then to get quickly on the task of putting together some of the regulatory rules under the Clean Air Act for existing power plants.  Is this what we can expect the President’s emphasis since he brought it up so conspicuously in the inaugural address, refocused on dealing with climate change here in this country?

MR. CARNEY:  I can certainly confirm that the President intends to continue progress on the new national standard for harmful carbon pollution from new power plants and to implement that standard.  I can’t comment on any specific future actions that he might take except that he has demonstrated in his record during his first term that we can together take action that is not only helpful to our environment in that it addresses the issue of climate change, but is also helpful to our long-term economic vitality by insuring that we make investments in new energy technology and that we develop new forms of energy, as well as traditional forms of energy here at home so that we are less dependent on foreign imports of energy.

That's a strategy that enhances our national security, improves the environment, addresses climate change, and very importantly helps our economy by allowing industries to develop here in the United States that if they don't develop here will develop elsewhere — industries that provide good jobs and will be very sustainable in the future.

Q    Those who look at this issue say dealing with existing power plants would be the best way, most effective way to reduce carbon emissions and advance what the President said at the inaugural.  Does he agree with that?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to talk about –

Q    I mean philosophically.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, “philosophically” is an adverb that is somewhat synonymous with “speculatively,” and I will not speculate on future –

Q    But he does have –

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.

Q    — and he did identify in the inaugural address, and those who look at this issue believe if you’re not going to do something legislatively, this is the most effective way to do it.  I’m asking is that something the White House –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't have any information to impart about specific future actions the President may or may not take.  He is committed to continuing and building on the progress that was made in the first term, in his first term. 

And we’ll look at a variety of things that we can do together as a nation to address this challenge, and to address it in a way that provides the benefits that I talked about, that is not — that there is the important goal of dealing with climate change, which is a real issue.  There is the opportunity that actions we take to deal with that challenge present to us economically when it comes to clean energy and developing domestic energy alternatives to the import of foreign energy.

Q    On Social Security, is there anything inconsistent with what the President said in the inaugural address with his negotiating posture with Speaker Boehner that he would put chain CPI on the table?

MR. CARNEY:  The President, at the end of the year — and the premise of your question I think acknowledges this — put forward a very serious proposal to Speaker Boehner that by any measure met the Republicans halfway, that included within it very tough choices with regards to entitlement reform, and it demonstrated his good faith in trying to achieve a compromise that would attain that goal that he has espoused for a long time, which is an overall package that reduces our deficit by over trillion over a decade and thereby — going back to ratios — establishes a ratio of debt to GDP and deficit to GDP that is sustainable, puts us on a fiscally sustainable path.  He is still committed to that.

His approach to these issues has always been that we need to strengthen those programs upon which so many Americans depend — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — and so the reforms that we need to introduce have to strengthen them for the long term.  What we don't need to do is eliminate them as we know them, or slash benefits simply to protect the benefits of wealthy individuals or corporations.  That's not a choice the President believes we have to make.

And that's why we have to have balanced deficit reduction.  And in the name of balanced deficit reduction, he put forward the proposal that, unfortunately, even though it was widely recognized to have been made in good faith and to have represented an effort to meet the Republicans halfway, the Republicans walked away from, which is a shame.

Q    Is that offer still on the table or has it been rescinded?

MR. CARNEY:  We absolutely look forward to working with Congress to continue the effort to reduce our deficits in a balanced way.  That offer that, unfortunately, the Republicans walked away from remains the President’s position.

It is absolutely essential that as we move forward we continue to build on the .5 trillion in deficit reduction this President has already signed into law, and with Congress brought into effect, but we have to do it in a balanced way.  And what was true late last year is true today — that the President will not entertain proposals that say, okay, now moving forward all of the burden is on seniors, or all of the burden is on middle-class families trying to send their kids to college or families who have disabled children.  That’s not an approach he will embrace.  I think you have heard him say that. 

What he is willing to do is continue this important work of deficit reduction in a balanced way, including revenues, including spending cuts, that helps our economy grow and create jobs.  Because deficit reduction, with the exception of a few esoteric groups — most of them inside Washington — is not a desirable goal unto itself, it is a goal in service of a bigger goal, which is economic growth, stability for the middle class, more and better job creation.

Q    And since you inadvertently opened the door on 2016 by saying “President Clinton,” there is –

MR. CARNEY:  Let me just be clear, I had a nice long conversation with President Clinton, Bill Clinton, the other day, and that’s — he was in my head.

Q    Okay.  Well, inadvertent as it was, it's still out there.  (Laughter.)  And there's a piece today talking about the Vice President, who you know very well, being intoxicated, possibly, by the idea of running in 2016.  And the question I had — because I know you're not going to speculate on it –

MR. CARNEY:  Whose words were those?  The Onion? 

Q    No, no, no.  (Laughter.)  This is a very fine — supposedly — news organization that reports this.  I just want to bring this up, not to speculate on it, but do you think there is anything about the Vice President's role in the second term that can or should be viewed through any sort of prism other than working for the administration or his record so far of being evaluated in the context of 2016?  Because you know it's going to happen.

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t doubt it will happen.  And I think the Vice President in an interview addressed this — got this question and addressed it.  And his focus — and I know this because I do know him and I worked for him and I've spoken to him recently.  He is focused on the job of helping this President and helping this administration achieve the goals that the President has put forward.  That is his work and he is very committed to it.  I think you saw that demonstrated most recently in his exceptional effort in a very short period of time to put forward to the President the recommendations on how to reduce gun violence in this country, an effort that he led and that his staff led on the President's behalf. 

And that’s the Vice President's focus, in his own words.  And I think he's — it was when I worked for him, it was throughout the first term, it is now.  And I think, as he said, other considerations are for the future.  He's focused on his work as Vice President, as the President's partner.

Q    Who has the better legacy, the Vice President or the Secretary of State? 

MR. CARNEY:  I think that the legacy here that we're concerned about is how the American people are situated four years from now compared to how they were four years ago.  How is the middle class faring four years from now compared to where they were four years ago?  How is our economy poised four years from now compared to where it was four years ago?  Is our stature around the globe enhanced four years from now compared to four years ago?  Are we safer four years from now compared to four years ago?

Those are issues that are not just about the President's legacy; it's for everybody who serves this President and this administration and this country at this time — and including members of Congress.  And I think that members who just got here this month, freshmen in the House and the Senate, I think will have that same measuring — they want to — they will look four years from now and say, did what I do in those four years improve the prospects of this country, help the economy grow, help the middle class, make us more secure or not?

And that's how I think the President looks at it.  I know that's how the Secretary of State looked at it when she — in her four years that are coming to an end.  That's how we all look at it.

Q    So they’re tied.  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  Those kinds of assessments I’m sure will be made repeatedly in the future, not just with those two individuals.  I think for the sake and sanity of all involved, it’s worth taking a little bit of a break from presidential election-year politics.

Yes, sir.

Q    Jay, if I can please clear something up from yesterday — I made a mistake.  I asked you a question and said — suggested there was an e-mail the White House sent out, picking out individual issues from the inaugural address.  I had received an e-mail that had White House tweets about individual issues.  I was asking you the question about — because you had suggested a reporter should not pick it out into individual pieces — I did not mean to imply that the White House had some strategy through e-mail to do that.  I just want to correct that.  I don't –

MR. CARNEY:  I really appreciate that.  And, yes, I was — I think when I took that question I was a little flummoxed because it was news to me.

Q    I was referring to Twitter.

MR. CARNEY:  Right, and as you know, this administration did not and probably would not have set the 140-character limit to tweet.  (Laughter.)  So when I or the New Media Office tweets on a speech, we have to do it in increments.

Q    I just wanted to be clear, though, you did say that the speech should be looked at holistically, in toto, not necessarily in 140 characters.  That was all.

MR. CARNEY:  Thank you, sir.

Q    I wanted to be clear. 

On Benghazi, Secretary Clinton testified today that on the night of September 11, 2012, she participated in a secure videoconference with people from the Defense Department and from the White House, which would make sense in any crisis situation.  My question is, did the President participate in that?  If not, who from the White House participated?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m sure — I know members of his national security team participated.  I believe we’ve been quite open about the President being initially informed of this and being constantly updated on what was happening in Benghazi, what we knew about what was happening, and immediately ordering his Secretary of Defense to take all necessary action to provide assistance and to ensure that measures were taken to enhance security around our diplomatic facilities in the region and in the world.

Q    Was he on that secure videoconference?

MR. CARNEY:  I would have to take the question.  I don't know.

Q    Will you take the question and let us know?

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.

Q    Okay, thank you.  She also said that she spoke later that night to the President.  Was that the only time they spoke?  Can you just –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't know.  I don't think — I'm not sure –

Q    Senator McCain and others were asking about the President’s role, and Senator McCain –

MR. CARNEY:  Right, and Senator McCain and others have made a huge issue out of what I have made clear is our view is the non-issue, which is the talking points that were provided to senators, members of the House, and to members of the administration — the non-classified talking points — which have no bearing on what happened in Benghazi and the immediate reaction of this administration in response to it.  As Secretary Clinton made clear today in her testimony — or at least her initial round of testimony — and as was made clear in the Accountability Review Board report, there was no delay in response, every asset was brought to bear to try to provide assistance.  No requests were denied. 

A lot of the reporting around this has proven to be wrong  — or the speculation around it has proven to be wrong on the fundamental issues here about what happened, who was responsible, the response and reaction to it, and now the investigations that have taken place and are continuing at the President’s direction. 

So the purpose served in pursuing this line of questioning is unclear to me beyond an attempt to continue to try to score political points.

Q    Okay.  So on the question of what you call speculation, and in answer to Dan’s question about the talking points, you said that you always made clear it was preliminary information and that's what Susan Rice did as well.  I want to quote directly from you, September 18th, one week after the attacks, at this podium, you said, “I'm saying that based on the information that we — our initial information” — you did say “initial information” — “and that includes all information, we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video.”  And then you said, “And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence, not supposition, concrete evidence that we have thus far.”

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.

Q    So my question is –

MR. CARNEY:  I think that's pretty good.  Based on the evidence we had at the time, the initial evidence, the facts that we had then that were concrete as opposed to speculation about it.  And I — so I think –

Q    So the question is, what was the concrete evidence you had that said it was the video, not a preplanned attack?

MR. CARNEY:  I would take you back to the time and the events that were happening in Karachi and elsewhere, and other  — I believe it was Karachi — but other — Cairo, certainly.  I would note that subsequent reporting by notable news organizations have shown that participants in the attack said that they were inspired in part by the protests outside of Cairo.  So if it wasn’t directly because of the video, it was because of protests in Cairo because of the video. 

All of this is to say that these were assessments made by the intelligence community based on the information they had and based on — they obviously and have spoken to this themselves — but based on what we knew about what was happening around the world, not just in Libya. 

And, again, I thank you for reading that because I think it represents the effort that we made, that Ambassador Rice made, and others made to make clear that these were initial assessments and that they were subject to change as more clarity became available on what exactly happened, who was responsible, who they were affiliated with or not, and why four Americans died as a result.

Q    Yes, but you’re saying that because there were protests elsewhere in places like Cairo, which is an absolute fact, that that was concrete evidence that in fact the video –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I didn’t make these assessments, the intelligence community did, and the intelligence community has spoken to this.  And, again, based on what we, the U.S. government, knew at the time and the assessments that we had at the time, we made those assessments available to the American people through you.  As more information became available, we provided that to you. 

On the fundamental issue of — I mean, we talked about militants.  The President talked about an act of terror.  I mean, the narrowness of the charge here has no bearing on what happened or what the reaction was, the response was, or on the essential work that’s being undertaken to this day to bring to justice those responsible.

Yes, Kristen.

Q    Jay, Secretary Clinton said today in talking about the spreading Jihadist threat, “We have to recognize this is a global movement.  We can kill leaders, but until we help establish strong democratic institutions, until we do a better job of communicating our values and building relationships, we’re going to be faced with this level of instability.”  So what is the President’s plan specifically to better communicate the United States’ values and build relationships?  And where more broadly does this fall in his list of priorities and his agenda?  In his inaugural address, he seemed to focus largely on domestic issues.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, it has been a priority of this President in his first term and will continue to be a priority.  I think that we have seen in the last four years, in the last two years in particular, enormous change in the region, historic change in the region.  And that change is continuing, and the effects of that change continue. 

And it is absolutely in our interest as a nation to engage with those in the region who believe that there is a better future for the people of the Middle East and North Africa if they pursue democracy than the alternative, than the — if they embrace the tyrannical ideology of al Qaeda, for example. 

This is epical change and it is unfolding, and has been unfolding, over the course of this administration and in the last two years in particular, and it will continue to unfold.  But it is an enormous focus as a security challenge and as a challenge to the expression of and — of our values around the world.  And the President has spoken to this many times.

Q    And so what specifically is his plan?

MR. CARNEY:  His plan for?

Q    For building relationships, better communicating the United States' values?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not sure if you're looking for — I mean, he has spoken to this many times and he will continue with that effort.  And we engage with countries, governments, movements that espouse greater democracy, greater tolerance, a greater embrace of economic freedom as well as civil rights, and we will continue to do that.  And we will also do it in a way that focuses on the President's primary responsibility when it comes to foreign policy, which is the safety and security of the United States and the American people.

Q    Jay, do you have a reaction to Congressman Paul Ryan saying that the President used a "straw man" argument in his inaugural address when he talked about the fact that the United States is not a nation of takers?  Congressman Ryan has said that the President misconstrued what he meant, what Ryan meant when he used that term, "nation of takers."

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not sure that President mentioned Chairman Ryan, but that phrase has been used by a number of Republicans, including Paul Ryan. 

The President's point was that these programs — Social Security and Medicare in particular — have been enormously valuable to seniors in our country and to providing the security that has allowed for stronger economic growth and stronger job creation and a stronger middle class.  I mean, the facts and figures on what the plight of the nation's seniors was prior to Social Security are well known. 

The insecurity that seniors face or would face if Medicare were voucherized and the costs were shifted to them if they had a limited amount of money to spend on health care and the rest was up to them, I think would not be good for the country.  The President doesn't believe it's good for the country.

Q    And just one more — on Syria.  There is a bipartisan call urging the President to expedite delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, including the Syrian Opposition Council, coming from senators Ayotte and Kirsten Gillibrand.  What is the President's reaction?  Will he do that?  And if so –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President would say, as I will say now, that the United States is the single-largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people.  In coordination with our international humanitarian partners, we are supporting and complementing the generous efforts of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, whose governments and communities are hosting refugees fleeing the violence in Syria. 

The United States is providing 0 million in humanitarian assistance to help millions of people inside Syria as well as to assist nearly 670,000 Syrians who have fled beyond that country's borders.  The American people are funding the provision of lifesaving food, medical care, blankets, and essential winter supplies, which are reaching children, women and men in all 14 governorates inside Syria as well as refugees in neighboring countries. 

And let's be clear, the responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in Syria lies with Bashar al-Assad and his regime.  Every day, the regime's hold on power weakens, territory slips from its grasp, and the opposition becomes more capable and confident.  Syrians are taking back their dignity, and the United States will continue to lead international efforts to assist the Syrian people and to provide the kind of humanitarian aid that we have thus far.

Margaret.

Q    I have a foreign policy question, but first I just wanted to ask for the administration’s response — the House has now passed the three-month suspension of the U.S. debt ceiling.  What’s your comment from the podium?

MR. CARNEY:  That, just in case you were curious, that was what –

Q    Yeah, we figured. 

MR. CARNEY:  It’s the same as it was yesterday, which is the President believes that we need to as a country do the responsible thing and without drama or delay pay our bills, meet our commitments.  Ideally, we would extend or raise the debt ceiling for a long period of time so that this is not a question, so that the uncertainty that has surrounded this issue of late — because of the political strategy that House Republicans have taken — will be removed, or would be removed.

It is certainly important to recognize that the bill that passed the House today, the position that House Republicans took beginning late last week, represents a fundamental change from a strategy that they pursued up until that point, which is to try to link the debt ceiling to a specific ideological agenda of spending cuts in which the choice presented to the American people was either face dramatic cuts in Social Security or Medicare, or we’ll default on our obligations and wreck the American economy and throw the financial system into crisis.  Not much of a choice.

We are glad to see that that strategy is not being pursued anymore, so this is a welcome development.  And as I said yesterday, the President will not stand in the way of this bill becoming law.  His interest is in resolving our budget and fiscal issues for the long term.  And he looks forward to engaging with Congress and building on the accomplishments achieved so far in deficit reduction, the .5 trillion achieved so far in a balanced way.

Q    Foreign policy.  So now that the votes are in in Israel, I’m wondering if you would give us some comment about the President’s reaction to Netanyahu’s reelection — not only his reelection, but sort of the weakened state of his reelection; what you think both the outcome and the backdrop of the outcome may mean for U.S.-Israel foreign policy going forward, for the Middle East peace process, for dealings with Iran.

And although you have not announced any calls to read out, has the President spoken with Mr. Netanyahu and has the President spoken with Yair Lapid?

MR. CARNEY:  First of all, we congratulate the Israeli people on their election.  And as I said yesterday, and it remains true today, I do not want to get ahead of the Israeli political process.  Elections are a stage in a process in Israel, and the final results themselves are not yet in, and I’m not going to speculate on the government formation process, which I think goes to some of the questions that you asked. 

I think it’s very likely the President will be speaking with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I don’t have a call to read out to you at this time, but when appropriate I’m sure that call will take place.

In terms of the peace process, I would say the same thing I said yesterday, which our views are clear.  We believe that what needs to take place is direct negotiations between the two parties that address the final status issues and that result in a two-state solution that provides a sovereignty that the Palestinian people deserve, and the security that the Israeli people and Israel deserves.

Q    As for Yair Lapid, do you know whether the President is very likely to call?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don’t have anything more on potential calls the President might make.

Q    And any comment just on the impact of Yair Lapid’s rise and –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I won’t — I’ll resist being a commentator on another country’s political process at this time.

Q    So regardless of what government emerges or who is going to lead that government, yesterday a big, much larger than expected turnout of moderate Israeli voters went to the polls and voted for parties that, at least in principle, support the two-state solution.  President Obama often says elections matter.  He’s talked about it since his own reelection quite a bit in terms of specific policies.  I mean, what does the administration believe that Israeli voters were saying yesterday in terms of the way they want their country to go?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t want to get ahead of the process.  And I think that, as you know in particular, given your expertise in the field, this process is not complete in Israel.  What is important is that we recognize that Israelis should be congratulated on their election, on their democracy.  What also should be recognized is that our relationship with Israel and our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security will continue regardless; and our position on the peace process and our pursuit of peace will not change, no matter the result of the government formation process.

As for the effect that these elections have on that, I wouldn’t speculate.  We’re going to deal with the process itself with the government and press forward on what we firmly believe is a process that has as its goal a result that is good for the Palestinians and for the Israelis.

Stephen.

Q    Just to follow on Israel — the administration often says that there has not been a White House with a closer strategic relationship with Israel than this one.  But it’s also no secret that sometimes the relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu has been a little contentious.  How important is personality and the personal ties between leaders in this as compared to the strategic sense?  And do you expect now that the elections here and in Israel have taken place, there might be a little bit of leeway for the two leaders to perhaps seek a different relationship?

MR. CARNEY:  I would answer by pointing out that no leader has met more often with or spent more time on the phone with President Obama than Prime Minister Netanyahu.  That relationship is strong and it is a relationship that allows for a free and open discussion of ideas and positions.  And that’s good for U.S.-Israeli relations. 

I think that the underlying foundation of the relationship is very important to understanding the approach that this administration takes and the approach that prior administrations have taken.  And that is that we are committed to Israel’s security, and we have demonstrated that commitment in the actions that we've taken, that the President has taken in his first term.  And that will not change.

Bill, and then Susan.

Q    Jay, I want to take one for the team and ask the lip-sync question.  (Laughter.)  Did the President know she was lip-syncing, and does he care?

MR. CARNEY:  I have not had the discussion with him.  I'm not sure that I understand the variety and contradictory reports on the matter, and I would refer you to JASIC or PIC.  (Laughter.)

Q    But even the Marine Band say that they were faking it, they were not actually playing the Star-Spangled Banner.  Doesn’t that –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, what I know about this I mostly know from what I've read and, shockingly, it has not all been consistent.  But my understanding — and this was as I recall from the inauguration in 2009 — that as a precaution recordings are made.  But I actually have no idea what’s true and what’s not about what happened here, and I don't think it’s really a particularly important issue to address from the podium here.

Q    I’m curious, though — he hasn’t said whether or not he realized she was not actually performing?

MR. CARNEY:  I have not had that discussion with him.

Q    When he invited her, did he expect that she was going to sing live?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm glad you guys are focused on the important issues of the day here.  (Laughter.)  Again, I would point you to history here that includes what happened in 2009.  There are issues — again, I have no idea whether this bears on what happened in this inauguration or not, but as I think everyone knows, in 2009, it was so cold that Yo-Yo Ma could not play.  I just — as powerful as this office is, we don't control the weather, and as many issues as we deal with here, we still have to choose what we don't deal with and this is one of those issues.

Yes, in the back.  Sorry, Susan, I owe you. 

Q    Two questions, one on Benghazi and then on climate change.  The first one, we haven't seen really a tick-tock of what happened and what the President was doing that night and how he was apprised of the developments that were going on in Benghazi such like we saw during the OBL raid.  We've seen that sort of — a lot of information about what happened that night.  But we didn’t see like — what you said earlier to Ed, you seemed like you were saying that the President was giving Panetta carte blanche to do whatever it took –

MR. CARNEY:  The President spoke to the Secretary of Defense, who was in the Oval Office when the President learned about initial reports about the attack, to do everything possible to ensure that assistance — whatever assistance could be provided was provided, and that action was taken to secure our facilities in the region and around the world, because, as you know, there was unrest taking place in a variety of places at the time.  So I think we've been very clear about that. 

And, as is the case with developments of this kind, he is routinely updated by his national security team — Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough, John Brennan and others, as well as Secretaries Clinton and Panetta.  And that was certainly the case here. 

Q    So when there was a decision made, we've heard — and our publication has reported as well as others — that their Special Forces guys could not get into Benghazi and do any real good in time.  Was that decision made by Panetta?  Or who made that decision?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, there has been a lot of false reporting, and I would point you to the Accountability Review Board on this issue that I think addresses it very directly.  Speculation about this has been often wrong, and the ARB report makes that clear. 

Q    Thanks, Jay.

Q    On the domestic issue, on climate change — Bernie Sanders now has introduced legislation today, and he is saying that he hopes the President — he's calling on the President to support this on climate change.  The legislation would put some penalties on fossil fuel companies that emit carbon.  And I'm wondering, is this something that the President could get behind?  Is this Bernie Sanders just going off on his own?  Is this something that — is there any legislation that the White House and the President can get behind on climate change?

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, that’s an enormously speculative question.  Is there any legislation? 

Q    Well, you’re not being specific on – 

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, again, you haven't even described the legislation that Senator Sanders may have put forward.  I haven't seen it. 

Q    I described it as his press release described it, saying that he's going to put –

MR. CARNEY:  Penalties.

Q    — penalties on –

MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that we have not proposed and have no intention of proposing a carbon tax.  Beyond that, I haven't seen the legislation that you've talked about.

Thank you all very much.

END
1:49 P.M. EST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

White House.gov Press Office Feed

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:17 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Thank you all for being here.  It is wonderful to see you for the first time in the New Year.  I hope everyone here had some time off and time with family.

Q    What Washington were you — (laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  I’m sure there were many of you, like many of us, who had too little of both, but it is what it is.  And with that I’ll take your questions.

Q    Thank you.  I noticed that in the nomination ceremony in the East Room, the President, as he was speaking about Senator Hagel, never mentioned Israel, never mentioned Iran.  Those have been two of the main criticisms of Senator Hagel.  Does the President feel like Hagel needs to address his past comments on Israel and Iran before he can be confirmed, or does he feel like those comments are irrelevant to this process?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, today the President announced his nominees for Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and he made broad comments about why the two men he nominated are the right people for the jobs.  There will be a process in each case where the Senate reviews the nominees and the President asked the Senate to move quickly because these positions are very important for our national security.  And I know Senator Hagel and John Brennan look forward to that process and to fair hearings in both cases.

It is a routine part of this exercise that nominees are asked about their views on various issues.  And on the matters you just raised, Senator Hagel has been a staunch supporter of Israel, of the Israeli-American relationship, of the United States’ support for Israel’s security throughout his career.  And he has also been, as demonstrated by his record, a supporter of the broad sanctions regime that this President has put into place against Iran — a sanctions regime that is unprecedented and which as recently as I think last spring, Senator Hagel wrote about favorably and urged Washington as a whole to continue.  So I know — I’m sure Senator Hagel looks forward to discussing his record in his nomination hearings.

Q    But does the President feel like it’s important that Hagel clarify some of the statements that he made?  Even after the President’s announcement today we saw statements from various lawmakers asking him to clarify what he meant.

MR. CARNEY:  I think that the process will allow for what it always does, which is a review by the Senate of presidential nominees.  I think that Senator Hagel’s record on those issues and so many others demonstrate that he is in sync with the President’s policies.  And, on the first issue, let’s be clear.  President Obama has, in his administration, overseen the closest, most substantial support for Israel’s defense of any administration in history.  And that is a judgment that is not just made by me or others in the President’s administration; it’s a judgment that has been made and expressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and by Defense Minister Ehud Barak.  And that is a policy that will continue under President Obama with all the members of his national security team.

But again, the process is what it’s supposed to be, and I’m sure that there will be the kind of proceedings that normally take place when nominees for these positions are put forward.

Q    The President also said that with national security positions in particular it’s important to not have a gap.  Over at Treasury, Secretary Geithner has said that he plans to leave by about January 20th.  Given all of the fiscal issues that are coming up and all of the deadlines that are coming up, does the President also feel that it’s important to not have a gap between when Secretary Geithner leaves and his replacement is confirmed?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I have no other announcements to make or updates to give with regards to personnel.  I am sure that when the President nominates a successor to Secretary Geithner, he will look forward to speedy consideration by the Senate.  But I don’t have a timetable for that.

Q    So we shouldn’t expect something before Geithner leaves on January –

MR. CARNEY:  I have no guidance to give you on the timing.  It’s very important for any President to have time and space to consider his or her nominees for these important positions, and when he’s ready to make an announcement, he will.

Reuters.

Q    The fiscal cliff deal, as you know, included a package of tax breaks for businesses worth about billion, including the wind tax credit.  And Republicans are saying that the President insisted on these, and I’m wondering why, given all of the difficulty reaching that final deal, the President really insisted on including these business tax breaks.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, you’re assuming that what you’ve been told is correct.  I would simply say that it would strain the credulity of everyone in this room to suggest that Republicans did not support or want tax credits for business.  That would truly be turning Washington on its head, and that is not what happened.

The President did support giving certainty to American businesses and consumers by including in the fiscal deal the bipartisan extenders package that the Senate Finance Committee, this summer — or summer of 2012 — passed 19 to 5.  And more than 90 percent of the cost of the extenders package is associated with longstanding provisions in the tax code, with clear policy rationale for businesses or individuals, including the R&D tax credit to support domestic job-creating research investments; the production tax credit, which you mentioned, which supports clean energy jobs — if this key support had been allowed to expire, as you know because it was discussed during the campaign, as many as 37,000 clean energy jobs could have been lost; mortgage debt relief to help homeowners, which protect homeowners from paying taxes on up to million of forgiven debt.  And the list goes on — bonus depreciation.

So again, going back to the first point, this package of tax extenders was supported on a bipartisan basis by the Senate Finance Committee.  The President supported it.  But it is, again — you would have to suspend disbelief to accept the premise that Republicans did not.

Ann.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Is there a moment that the President sat down with Senator Hagel and offered him the job, and had a heart-to-heart talk about what kind of shape he would like to see, or what direction he’d like to see the Pentagon move in?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President did formally offer Senator Hagel the job, I believe, by phone over the weekend.  But the fact is that Senator Hagel and President Obama have a long relationship that dates back to their service together in the United States Senate.  As the President mentioned today, they traveled together abroad.  And Senator Hagel, after he left the Senate, was co-chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  So they have had an ongoing conversation about this nation’s national security needs and the President’s policies in the last four years, which I think is clear that Senator Hagel believes have been the right policies and that he looks forward to helping implement, if he is confirmed by the Senate.

Front row is kind of docile, but I’ll go to Chuck.  Yes.  (Laughter.)

Q    What in the President’s background — what in Chuck Hagel’s background gave the President confidence that he could run a bureaucracy as big as the Pentagon?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, among the items on Senator Hagel’s rather unique resume is the fact that he was a CEO, and a successful one, and ran a business.  And that is one of the many attributes that he brings to the job of running, as you say, an institution as large as the Defense Department.  And that’s part of a record that, as the President noted today, is really quite remarkable. 

Here is someone who fought and bled for his country, who enlisted as a volunteer to serve and fight in Vietnam, who was awarded the Purple Heart twice, who then served in the VA and as head of USO, and then as a United States senator, and since then as an advisor to the President on intelligence matters on the Intelligence Advisory Board.  This is a remarkable career of service in which all of Senator Hagel’s many talents are reflected.  And he will bring those talents to the job.

Q    Did anything that was out there trouble the President enough where he re-interviewed Senator Hagel?  Like, when he saw a report about –

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to go through the process of –

Q    I mean, how — did he make Senator Hagel answer some of these questions –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not — I won’t go through the process that the President uses to select nominees, except that he does so in a very deliberate fashion.  He looks for the very best people for these jobs both in the national security arena and elsewhere in the administration.

When it comes to Senator Hagel, as I was just saying, he has known Senator Hagel for a fairly long time and has worked with him directly both in the Senate and as President.  So the President knows his record, he knows Senator Hagel’s commitment, and he has full confidence that Senator Hagel will be an excellent Secretary of Defense who will look out, as the President said, for those who serve in our armed forces as volunteers, as he did, who implement the policies, the decisions that are made here in Washington, often at such a far remove from the battlefield.  And he has great confidence that Senator Hagel will be an excellent Secretary of Defense.

Q    On John Brennan, what makes it different today than four years ago when John Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for the CIA over at the time was thought to be — there was going to be — that he wasn’t ready to answer questions about his role in devising the enhanced — in being a part of the enhanced interrogation technique? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’d say two things.  One, at the time, Mr. Brennan wrote a letter in which he made clear that he opposed so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.  And two, for the past four years, John Brennan has served as this President’s chief counterterrorism advisor.  And it is this President who banned torture as one of his first acts in office, and he has implemented that policy and many others with the remarkably capable assistance of John Brennan.

Q    And finally would you respond to secretary — sorry — Senator McConnell over the weekend said the tax issue is now done.  Does the White House share his view?

MR. CARNEY:  No, we believe that any further deficit reduction, of which there must be, in the President's view — must be pursued with the same balanced approach that the President has insisted on up to now.

Q    — now, though?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to itemize how it breaks down.  But the fact is as part of the overall trillion deficit-reduction package that the President put forward, the ratio was more like in spending cuts for every in revenue.

Q    Going forward now, now that this –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, you'd have to break down the numbers and look at it.  And I'm not going to prejudge any proposals that might come forward.

But one of the things you heard the President of the United States say on New Year's Day when this fiscal cliff challenge was resolved is that the agreement enshrined the principle that we must have balance as we move forward in our deficit reduction.  In the spending cuts that were part of the fiscal cliff deal, they were paid for in a balanced way with both — rather the buy-down of the sequester was paid for in a balanced way with both — roughly 50 percent spending cuts and 50 percent revenue.  And that is an approach the President — balance, anyway, is an approach the President believes is very important to continue.

And when members of Congress suggest that revenues are now somehow not part of the equation it doesn't really make a lot of sense, because as I stood here and discussed with you the various proposals going back and forth during the fiscal cliff negotiations, when the President was seeking in negotiations with Speaker Boehner a big deal, one that would address our long-term fiscal challenges through broader deficit reduction, the Speaker put on the table what he claimed was an 0 billion revenue proposal made up entirely of the closure of loopholes and the capping of deductions — tax reform.  Now, either that was good policy that they no longer support, or Republicans also believe, as the President does, that through tax reform we can achieve an improved tax –

Q    So you think the Republicans are going to put forward 0 billion in tax increases –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I would ask you what about that 0 billion proposal was okay then, it's not okay now.   And the President believes, as Republicans have said they believe, that we need to reform our tax code, and that there are loopholes that are crying out to be closed that no longer serve the country, if they ever did, and that there are ways of capping deductions and reforming our tax code that can produce more revenue in a fair way that, again, does not burden the middle class, but asks the wealthiest to pay more.

Q    Jay, since you talked about the conversation with Boehner, at that last stage it was .2 trillion of revenue the President put on the table in the last conversation with Boehner. Does that mean the President is looking for ballpark 0 billion-0 billion more in tax reform revenue?

MR. CARNEY:  I prefer not to get into the negotiations for how we eliminate the sequester, which the President obviously is interested in doing, from this podium today.  But it is clear from the proposals the President put forward dating back to his submission to the super committee, through his budget proposals, and through the negotiations with Speaker Boehner, what his principles are, where he believes we can appropriately reform our tax code and produce more revenue, and the balance that we need to inform us as we make the kind of spending cuts that are necessary for broader deficit reduction.

But the fact is, going back to Chuck's question, is that we know that balance is the way to go here.  It is the path that the public supports, and it is inconceivable to the President — and I would think to many of you — that the Republicans want to, as we approach the coming months, have as a basic position that what we really need to do is — for example, going back to some of their previous proposals like the Ryan budget — voucherize Medicare or slash benefits for seniors without asking the wealthy to do any more.  I don't think that's a position that is plausible to take, and it's certainly not a position the President supports.

Q    Is he adamantly opposed to a revenue-neutral tax reform approach?  And would he veto a bill that was operating on that premise?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, you're getting way ahead of any process that's in place now.  He is –

Q    But Republicans have said –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me just on the first –

Q    — revenue neutrality is their opening bid on tax reform.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I appreciate that it's their opening bid, but for some reason it was viable a few weeks ago to find 0 billion in revenue through closed loopholes and capped deductions that presumably aren't good for the economy.  And the President believes that tax reform can and should produce more revenue, because balance is essential as we achieve further deficit reduction — because it is not the President's position, as he made clear from this podium just last week, that we will reduce our deficit going forward simply by asking seniors or middle-class families or parents with kids in college to bear the burden solely.

Q    How long does the President — the tepid reaction of Senate Democrats to Senator Hagel's nomination –

MR. CARNEY:  The President believes that when the Senate considers the totality of Senator Hagel's career that they will confirm him as the next Secretary of Defense.

The Senator's record is exemplary both in uniform and in the private sector, and as a United States Senator, and as an advisor on intelligence matters to the President.  And I know that Senator Hagel looks forward to discussing that record with the Senate. 

And I won't bore you or tie up too much of your time by reading the number of endorsements that Senator Hagel's nomination has already received from a variety of quarters, but they are numerous and we expect that more will come.

Q    Is it your position that when Hagel was skeptical of sanctions on Iran in 2006, 2005, called for direct negotiations with Hezbollah — all that stuff was that was then and this is now, it just isn't relevant to the record at all?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, those are I think descriptions of the positions that are slightly skewed by the current debate.  They're not part of — the fact is on sanctions, for example, Senator Hagel supported an aggressive sanctions regime against Iran.  And he, as recently as last year, wrote about the need to continue to isolate and pressure Iran through sanctions. 

Q    — in their roll-call votes in 2005-2006 –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, there is the approach that President Obama has taken — which has been vastly more effective and which has been multilateral in nature, and therefore more effective, to Iran — and there are individual votes that you can isolate and say represent the whole, which they do not.  The fact is Senator Hagel supports a sanctions regime against Iran.  And as Secretary of Defense, he will aggressively implement the President's policies, including his very aggressive approach to sanctioning Iran for its failure to meet its international obligations with regards to its nuclear program.

Q    What about Hezbollah?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, Senator Hagel's record is exemplary on all of these issues.  And he will, I'm sure, when he has the opportunity to have a confirmation hearing, be asked a lot of questions about what his views are on policies. 

Fundamentally, what's important to remember is that members of this President's national security team, just like members of his broader team, are hired for and do the work of implementing the President's policies.  And when it comes to Israel, to the Middle East, to Hezbollah, to Hamas, to Iran, this President's policies are very clear.  And Senator Hagel will, as Secretary of Defense, carry out those policies, just as John Brennan will as Director of the CIA, and as other members of the President's team have and will going forward, including, as you know, Secretary Gates, one of this President's Secretaries of Defense who just a few moments ago expressed his admiration for Senator Hagel and his desire that Senator Hagel be confirmed as Secretary of Defense.

Q    Jay, in light of that, what do you make of Senator Lindsey Graham's assertion that the Hagel nomination is an "in your face" nomination that suggests an in-your-face second-term President?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I'm not going to get into a rebuttal of every stray comment made by members of Congress.  The fact of the matter is Senator Hagel's record is exemplary.  He fought for his country in uniform as an enlisted member of the armed services in Vietnam.  He served his country in the United States Senate. 

And it is rather remarkable to hear some of the critics out there question Senator Hagel and whether or not he should have this position when you look back at what those very same members of the Senate said effusively in praise of Senator Hagel just a few years ago.  He is the same man today, the same patriot today, the same intellect today that he was then.  And we agree with, for example, Senator McCain who said not too many years ago that “Chuck Hagel will be an excellent Secretary of State.”  The President happens to believe that he would be an excellent Secretary of Defense.

Q    On another matter, the Vice President has been charged with what we are to understand will be a broad approach to dealing with the problem of gun violence.  Senator McConnell says he doesn’t want to talk about anything but fiscal matters for the next few years.  Does that mean we shouldn’t expect any movement, any recommendations from the Vice President over the next few months?  I’m sorry, I said years, I meant months.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, with respect to Senator McConnell, I think the President will move forward with his agenda in a timely fashion, and that includes the work that Vice President Biden is doing on the effort to examine measures that we can take to address the problem of gun violence in this country. 

I think that many Americans, if not most — I believe most Americans would disagree with the idea that in the wake of what happened in Newtown, Connecticut, that we should put off any action on the issue of gun violence.  I think that sentiment would be met with surprise by the vast majority of the American people who don’t watch the Sunday shows, especially on the Sunday after New Year’s Day.  But it’s certainly not a sentiment the President supports.

Q    And talk to me about a broad effort as opposed to something that deals with strictly gun laws.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can cite the President on several occasions where he talked about the fact that issues that — that approaches that address access to guns including legislation like the assault weapons ban, or legislation that would ban high-capacity gun clips, or legislation that would close the many loopholes in our background check system are only — while very important and he supports congressional actions right away on those matters — are only part of the problem and only address part of the problem.  And he believes that issues of mental health, issues of education, for example, are part of this problem and need to be addressed as part of the effort that Vice President Biden is undertaking.

Alexis.

Q    Jay, on the Hill, Senators had greeted — or had criticized Susan Rice, who was not nominated for a new position, in a way that prompted the President to suggest that if in fact she was being used as a proxy, that they were actually criticizing him.  Does the President listen to the criticism of Senator Hagel in much the same way, believing that the criticism is more aimed at him than it is at Senator Hagel?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I will reject the temptation to compare one to the other.  I will simply say that the President believes very firmly as you heard him just moments ago say, that Senator Hagel will make, if confirmed, and excellent Secretary of Defense, that his record is exemplary and unique in that, as the President said, Senator Hagel would be the first Vietnam veteran to run the Defense Department, the first enlisted person to run the Defense Department, and with that he would bring a keen understanding of and appreciation for the men and women who serve throughout our armed forces.

So he looks forward to a speedy consideration by the Senate and believes that Senator Hagel’s record will convince the Senate to confirm him as the next Secretary of Defense.

Q    And a quick follow-up on Major’s question about the process towards sequestration.  For those who think that the President maybe learned from the process he just went through on the fiscal cliff that he will not be dealing with Speaker Boehner, does the President — can you just clarify, does he fully intend to have continuing conversations directly with the Speaker, to negotiate with him directly?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President believes that as part of our system of government the executive branch engages with and negotiates with the legislative branch, and that will continue — on a range of issues, not just economic and fiscal matters.  And the President, as he said, is very open to compromise on a range of issues when it comes to addressing our fiscal challenges and putting in place policies that help our economy grow and continue to create jobs.  He will not negotiate over Congress’s responsibility to pay the bills that Congress has incurred.

As you know as a veteran reporter here in Washington, a President cannot by himself or herself spend a single dollar.  Congress passes the laws.  Congress appropriates the funds.  Congress racks up the bills and Congress must pay the bills.  And it is simply inappropriate and extremely dangerous to suggest that in the name of a political agenda we would default, for example, on our obligations to pay our bills.  That is Congress’s responsibility and the President will not negotiate with Congress over Congress’s responsibility to pay its bills.

Q    Jay, the Speaker, prior to –

MR. CARNEY:  Glenn, how are you?  Happy New Year.

Q    Happy New Year.

MR. CARNEY:  Where’s your hat?  (Laughter.) 

Q    I'll put it on for you later.  (Laughter.) 

MR. CARNEY:  It’s a little — the lights are bright and they reflect and — (laughter.) 

Q    It’s polite to take your hat off — it’s good manners.

MR. CARNEY:  It is, actually.  I remind my son of that periodically.  Thank you for that.

Q    I will respond to that later.  (Laughter.) 

MR. CARNEY:  I don't want to read that.  (Laughter.) 

Q    The Speaker apparently said explicitly to his own conference prior to his reelection as Speaker last week that he does not want to negotiate directly with the President anymore.  Do you think that's appropriate?  And what’s the President’s response?

MR. CARNEY:  This is not personal and this is about putting in place the policies that are best for the country.  That's how the President looks at it. 

There’s no question that President Obama, in the course of his four years in office, has learned a great deal about how to work with Congress and how to enlist public support on behalf of policies that are very important to the lives of everyday Americans across the country.  And as we've discussed in recent months, the President will continue to make the case to the American people for the policies that he believes are right, and even as he works with and negotiates with Congress on matters of legislative importance.

So I'm not — I only heard about this indirectly.  I didn’t obviously have this conversation directly with the Speaker or even read the article that you're talking about.  But I did hear this.  I think it is incumbent upon the leaders in Washington to continue to work together to get the necessary work done to advance the economy, continue to create jobs, and to ensure that we're doing everything possible to make America safe.  And that includes confirming, for example, presidential nominees for a national security post.

Q    Is he committed to pressing that with Speaker Boehner?  Will he try to talk to Boehner even if Boehner –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the distinction I’m trying to make here, in answer to Alexis’s question, is that he is, as he said from here, eager to and willing to compromise in order to achieve policies that advance our economic growth and help the economy create jobs, and bring down our deficit in a responsible and balanced way.  He will continue to do that.  And we have, as a result of the fiscal cliff, two more months to deal with the so-called sequester, and that’s something that the President will obviously be addressing.

What he will not do, as he has made clear, is negotiate with Congress over Congress’s sole responsibility to pay the bills that Congress has already incurred.  Nobody forced Congress to rack up the bills that it incurred.  And it is an abdication of responsibility to say that we’re going to let the country default and cause global economic calamity simply because we’re not getting what we want in terms of our ideological agenda.  The President is not going to participate in that. 

And I would remind you of the damage caused to our economy by the approach that House Republicans took on this matter just in the summer of 2011.  As a result of their flirtation with default, the stock market plummeted.  The DOW fell 7 percent, or almost 900 points, in late July and early August of 2011.  The United States was downgraded and the DOW fell another 10 percent, or 1100 points after the S&P downgraded the United States.  Consumer confidence plummeted to its lowest point since the financial crisis in 2008.  Uncertainty for businesses froze hiring.  Widespread uncertainty for middle-class families was created and caused.  And job figures, job growth in August of 2011 was the lowest of any month in our economic recovery. 

And that is what you get when you play games with the full faith and credit of the United States.  We don’t expect, and certainly don’t hope — or certainly hope that the Congress does not engage in that kind of activity.

Q    Back to Senator Hagel for a second.  In his first interview today, he said that he was “hanging out there in no- man’s land,” unable to respond to charges and falsehoods and distortions against him.  I’m wondering if you could walk through what specific groups, outside groups, outside the Senate, have Jack Lew and other administration officials been reaching out to in hopes of smoothing this nomination.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I appreciate the opportunity, but I’ll pass on it.  Obviously, broadly speaking, the White House is reaching out to a number of groups and individuals with regards to this nomination and others, and will continue to do so in making the case for these individuals.

But as far as the initial part of your question, it is certainly an unfortunate reality that has become the norm here in Washington that even when names are bandied about in the press as possible nominees, that a process begins where critics jump all over them.  And that’s just part of — well, one of the reasons why Washington has become a more fractious place.

But again, the President looks forward to Senate consideration of his nominees that he announced today.  He believes that the Senate will confirm both Senator Hagel and John Brennan to those positions.  And in each case, as the President said, these are uniquely qualified individuals for the offices that they will hold if confirmed.

Q    Is the White House enlisting other outside people, though, to help with these groups?

MR. CARNEY:  No, I think that — well, I’ll simply say that we have conversations with individuals all the time about — and groups — about our policy proposals and nominees for higher office.  But I don’t have anything specific to report to you and there’s nothing unusual about that process for either this administration or its predecessors.

Brianna.

Q    Jay, the recent personnel announcements that we’ve heard have all been men.  I’m wondering how important it is to President Obama to have women in prominent roles in his new Cabinet.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I appreciate the question.  The President does believe that diversity is very important and he also believes that picking the absolute right person for each job is very important.  And the nominees he announced today represent that principle in that he believes Senator Hagel and John Brennan are the right individuals for the jobs to which they have been nominated.

I would remind you that as part of President Obama’s national security team we have Secretary Clinton, who, after four years, is leaving office.  We have Secretary Napolitano, who continues as Homeland Security Secretary.  We have Ambassador Susan Rice, who has indicated that she will be staying on in New York as the U.S. Representative to the United Nations, a Cabinet-level position.  And there are obviously other remarkably capable women in positions of high office in this administration and will continue to be.

Q    But presumably, I mean, some of them will obviously leave over time, and I’m wondering, in terms of having a replacement, for instance, with Secretary Clinton leaving, do you think that –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that any suggestion that Secretary Clinton was chosen because of her gender would be rejected by Secretary Clinton and others.  And any suggestion that nominees not be chosen for their qualifications would be rejected by everyone whose interest is in, as the President’s is, the very — finding the very best people for each job.  And that’s what he’s done today and that’s what he’ll continue to do.

And he, in that process, insists on diversity on the lists that he considers for the job because he believes that in casting a broader net, you increase the excellence of the pool of potential nominees for these positions.  But in the end, he’ll make the choice that he believes is best for the United States.  In this case, that would be Secretary Hagel — or Senator Hagel for Secretary of Defense and John Brennan for Director of the CIA.

Q    And on the Biden group, when will we hear from the Biden group?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President has indicated that he wants the effort led by Vice President Biden to report to him with dispatch, but I don’t have a timeline to give you.  The President has already urged Congress when it comes back to work to take up initiatives — legislation to ban assault weapons, to ban high-capacity magazines, and to improve our background checks system because it does have loopholes.  The so-called gun show loophole is a problem that he thinks that Congress can and should address.  As for the other aspects of what the President will recommend, I’ll leave it to him to announce.

Q    It seems January was sort of the absolute last time that he wants for recommendations, and there have been some reports that there will be listening sessions.  I’m wondering, is there time?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, it is January 7th and it would be –

Q    Are there going to be listening sessions?

MR. CARNEY:  — a disservice to the month of January to assume that it was over one week in.  (Laughter.)  So I would ask you to stay tuned.  I just don't have any –

Q    I just wish we had December back.  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  December, yes –

Q    Will there be a chance for people to weigh in in the listening sessions?

MR. CARNEY:  I just don't have any more information for you. I know that the Vice President is leading a process that is very inclusive, that is including, as I think has been reported, conversations with many stakeholders who have a keen interest in this issue.  And that will continue to be the case.

Roger Runningen, and then Mr. Nakamura.

Q    Jay, can you tell us who the sherpas are for each of the nominees today?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have sherpas for you.  I think a sherpa is commonly associated with Supreme Court nominees.  I don't know that there are such beings in this case.  Senator Hagel and Mr. Brennan will be assisted as they go through the process of confirmation in the Senate by a number of people, but I don't have individuals to provide to you.

Q    The Senate Chairman will of course set the dates on that, but do you have commitments for them to set an early date as soon as they return on the 22nd or so?

MR. CARNEY:  The President, as you heard him earlier today say, hopes that the Senate will take up these nominations, as well as the nomination of Senator Kerry for Secretary of State, as soon as possible because of the importance of filling these positions quickly, importance to our national security.  But I don't have a date certain for you and, obviously, we defer to the relevant committees.

Q    Jay, just to follow up on Brianna's question, you talked just a minute ago about when the President believes in diversity, insists on diversity, and that he casts a broad net when he's talking about looking for candidates to serve.  During the campaign, Mitt Romney was sort of ridiculed for saying that he wanted a binder full of women to make decisions on Cabinet members.  What do you mean by the President is insisting on diversity and casts this broad net?  Does he interview people like Michele Flournoy for defense jobs to make sure that he's really hearing from women, from other minorities in specifically this job and other jobs?  Or does he insist on other ways to find qualified candidates that –

MR. CARNEY:  He, again without addressing any specific nomination process, I would say that the answer is yes.  He speaks with numerous potential candidates for various positions and diverse candidates.  He selects, as I think the officeholders in his first administration and first Cabinet demonstrates, he selects men and women who he believes are the right individuals for the jobs to which they've been appointed.  And that continues to be his process. 

It's not uniform.  It's a broad sentiment.  And he believes that the country is served by a process that does seek out the diverse talent in this country for different positions. 

Jon Christopher.

Q    These early nominations to Senators Kerry and Hagel and Mr. Brennan — does this prove that the President's second-term agenda will be really focused in terms of priority on national security and foreign policy? 

MR. CARNEY:  It proves that the President, as he said today, considers the security of the United States and the American people his highest priority and responsibility.  And that is why he has asked individuals of such talent and records of service as John Brennan and Senator Kerry and Senator Hagel to serve in the positions that they've been nominated for. 

Broadly speaking, as he has said repeatedly, his policy priority — I mean, there are obviously many, but his top priority continues to be having our economy grow, having it create jobs, giving security to the middle class, and building a foundation for future economic growth in the 21st century that will allow for future generations to enjoy the opportunity and promise of America that previous generations, including the President’s own, have enjoyed.  That remains his top priority.

But there is no question that, as he said today, that his primary responsibility, as he views it, is the safety and security of the United States and its people.

Q    Can these two priorities be basically intertwined?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the answer to that is absolutely yes, because that is the responsibility of every President, and one that this President takes very seriously.

Q    I’m going back to the debt ceiling debate for a minute.  The Bipartisan Policy Center issued a report today that said the government would actually run out of money prior to what we had normally talked about, so as early as February 15.  So I was wondering if the administration was thinking about asking the IRS to postpone refunds for people.  Or also, were you all thinking about issuing an order about which creditors would be paid first?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as you know, the Treasury Department handles questions like these and has put out information about it, including in a letter at the end of the year about both the estimates as to when the debt ceiling would be reached and to the measures that the Treasury Department has in the past and is now taking with regards to that matter.  But I would refer you for the questions that you asked to the Treasury Department.

George.

Q    You keep saying the President won’t negotiate on the debt ceiling.  At the risk of sounding naïve, how does that work practically?  If the leaders of Congress tell him they don’t have the votes to raise the ceiling, does he just say, no, I’m not going to talk about that?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President believes that members of Congress were elected to serve their constituents.  And as one of their essential responsibilities, to ensure that they do no harm in Congress to this economy and to the livelihoods of average Americans, flirting with default or, even worse, allowing default, would be a violation of those primary responsibilities. 
And again, George, I can’t be more clear:  These are bills that Congress racked up.  If Congress felt that they should not be paying these bills or that there should be less spending and less borrowing, then they should have passed different legislation that appropriated funds.  It is not the President’s responsibility to pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling; it is Congress’s responsibility.  And he will not engage in a negotiation with Congress that as some advocates of this themselves have described as a hostage situation — a hostage situation that would result, as it did in the summer of 2011, in great harm to this economy and great harm to American businesses and great harm to average Americans. 

So it’s just not the right thing to do.  I think that there will be a — if we were to travel down that road for any time, a great deal of unanimity behind the idea that it’s a terrible proposition to flirt with default or to allow default.  And let me remind you that if the position of Republicans in Congress will be that your choice, America, is between default and therefore economic chaos on the one hand, or voucherizing Medicare or slashing benefits for seniors, the American people are going to say no in both instances. 

This is not the right way to do things in this country.  You have to heed to your responsibilities here, and that includes paying for the bills that you racked up.  This has nothing to do with future spending.  This has to do with spending that has already been incurred.  And it is Congress’s responsibility to pay its bills.

George, when you get a credit card bill, you pay it, and if you don’t, you get penalized.  And in the case of not paying your bills when you’re the United States of America, when you’re the United States Congress, the penalty is both real in financial terms and severe for the economy and for the American people.  The President won’t negotiate with Congress over Congress’s responsibility to pay its own bills.

Thank you, all.

Q    Jay, the President signed all of those spending bills, so why doesn’t he share responsibility?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, he did not sign all of those spending bills.  The President has been in office for four years.  And in fact, a huge portion of our current deficit problems were racked up under –

Q    All the spending bills that were enacted on his watch
–

MR. CARNEY:  — previous administrations.  And it is often forgotten by Republican leaders that this is the case, that some of the very Republican leaders in office now who claim as their objective deficit reduction, primary objective, presided over enormous budget-busting legislation in the previous administration.  It is also often forgotten that the only President in our times here in Washington to have balanced the budget was President Bill Clinton, and he passed to his successor surpluses.  And it was actions taken by Congress in the previous decade and the administration in office at the time that eliminated those surpluses and turned them into the largest deficits of our lifetimes, at the time.

So the President takes his responsibility very seriously, but when it comes to bills that Congress has passed and needs to pay, they ought to take their responsibilities seriously and pay those bills.

Thank you.

Q    Is the President going to watch the game tonight?  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t asked him.

Q    Still believe that there should be playoffs in college?

MR. CARNEY:  (Laughter.)  We’re getting closer, right?  (Laughter.)

END  
3:03 P.M. EST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:56 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being here.  Before I start, it is amazing, in today’s era of lightning communications, how this already seems to be a moment that's passing, but it is worth pausing to remember, perhaps in my mind, the greatest political journalist ever, and that's Richard Ben Cramer. 

When I got to Washington in 1993, in the spring of that year, from Moscow, a colleague of mine handed me that book — it has come out the year before — as I began to cover politics, and it was the best read imaginable.  And if there’s anyone in this room who has not read “What It Takes,” you should run out and buy it now.  Do a favor to his wife and daughter and actually buy it, don't borrow it, because it is a remarkable book.

And what’s remarkable about it — it’s funny because when I got the job to work with the Vice President, I reread the chapters on Senator Biden from his campaign in 1988, and it is a series of portraits of men, in this case, running for the highest office in the land, and they are all affectionate portraits.  They are appreciative of each individual — their qualities and their failings — but everything is done with great affection for the process and the individuals.  It’s a joy to read, so if you haven’t already, go get it.

With that, I'll take your questions.

Q    Thanks, Jay, and thanks for the appreciation for one of our brethren. 

Two questions.  Regarding yesterday’s nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director, Senator Lindsey Graham today issued a statement saying, “I do not believe we should confirm anyone as director of the CIA until our questions are answered, like who changed Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points and deleted a reference to al Qaeda.”  I think Major took a stab at that question back in November, and I wondered if we could revisit it. One, does that stand in the way of Brennan’s confirmation?  Two, can you answer the question that Graham has raised?

MR. CARNEY:  I'll start with number two first.  This question was answered, I believe, in briefings on the Hill.  Secondly, because the process was one of declassifying classified information and in that process the talking points that were provided to Ambassador Rice, to members of Congress, and to others including myself in the executive branch, were written in the way that was presented by Ambassador Rice.

On the first point, it would be unfortunate I think if in pursuit of this issue, which was highly politicized, the Senate would hold up the nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  As the President said yesterday, that post as well as the positions of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, these are essential positions that need to be filled if possible without delay.  And that is why he called on the Senate to act promptly to hold the necessary confirmation hearings and to give each nominee a fair hearing and then a vote.  We certainly hope that that happens.

I think while it's not worth going into in great detail, we certainly discussed a lot last year, late in the year, the essential irrelevance of the issue of what was said on a series of Sunday shows to what actually happened in Benghazi.  And this President is committed to ensuring that those who were responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Libya be brought to justice.  There is an FBI-led investigation with that as its goal.

And there has been a process ordered by the President, overseen by the Secretary of State, an independent Accountability Review Board, led by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen, that produced an unsparing assessment of diplomatic security both in Benghazi and broadly, and that included a series of recommendations which the Secretary of State and the President of the United States accepted entirely and which are already being implemented.  And the President is focused on those issues, not what seems to be the continued political fascination with appearances on Sunday shows.

Q    Second point, I wanted to pick up where you left off yesterday on fiscal issues.  I wonder what lessons did the President take away from his discussions in December?  When does he expect to reengage with Congress to if not deal with the debt ceiling, at least negotiate over the sequester?  And do you guys expect Senator McConnell rather than Boehner — Speaker Boehner to be your dance partner in coming negotiations?

MR. CARNEY:  The President said not too many days ago, when the agreement on the fiscal cliff was passed by both houses of Congress overwhelmingly, that he would continue to seek to compromise with Congress when it came to achieving a balanced approach for continued deficit reduction.  And he will do that. 

Congress is not here, as you know, but he looks forward to working with Congress in good faith to continue the work that's already begun, and that began with the Budget Control Act and the .1 trillion in spending cuts signed into law by this President; that continued with the agreement on the so-called fiscal cliff just last week that achieved significant deficit reduction through revenues, and enshrines into law the principle that we need to move forward in a balanced way as we seek further deficit reduction.

As I said yesterday, the President has said and others have said he will not negotiate with Congress when it comes to the essential responsibility of Congress to pay the bills that Congress has incurred.  It would be irresponsible to flirt with default.  We saw what happened in the summer of 2011 when Congress did flirt with default, when House Republicans in particular used that as an issue to try to achieve some political objectives and just the mere flirtation with default caused severe economic harm, which I spelled out yesterday.

Q    What's the window — the timing window that the President sees?  I mean, the fiscal cliff deal bought you two months for the sequester; speculation that the debt ceiling could be hit by February 15th and March 1st.  So when does the President want to start those talks and when does he think they need to be completed and in place?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I would separate the debt ceiling from negotiations over eliminating the sequester.  The fact is we have two months because of the fiscal cliff agreement, and that is not a great deal of time, and the President will, and the White House will, engage with Congress on those matters in I think the relatively near term. 

But when it comes to the debt ceiling, as I said yesterday, we expect Congress to do its job.  The President expects that Congress will fulfill its essential responsibility to pay the bills that Congress has incurred.  And remember, this is a responsibility that Congress assigned to itself in order to try to get Congress to spend less and be more focused on deficit reduction.  So this is — Congress has the power that it assigned itself to raise the debt ceiling, and it should do so, because the alternative is obviously unacceptable. 

And that’s something I think you remember from the period in 2011.  Both Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner at the time said they would not let the United States default, with all the consequences that would ensue, and we hope that Congress wouldn’t let that happen again.

Yes.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Just a couple questions.  First one is, given the fiscal hurdles that are still looming, has the President asked or is he considering asking Treasury Secretary Geithner to stay on beyond January?  And if not, when can we expect the nomination of a successor?

MR. CARNEY:  I think Secretary Geithner has expressed his timetable for departing after his service as Treasury Secretary, which has been much appreciated by the President.  His record, I think four years on now, reflects some very gutsy decisions that were made by the President on the advice of the Secretary of the Treasury that helped prevent a far worse economic crisis than we endured.  I think if you look at the state of the American economy, the fact is while we are not growing as much as we want, we are not creating jobs as fast as we would like, we are doing far better than a number of other countries that endured the fiscal crisis and economic crisis of 2008, 2007, 2009.  And that is in part because of some of the very tough calls made by this President and this Treasury Secretary.

I don’t have a timetable for any other personnel announcements, but I have no new information or any change in information on Secretary Geithner’s departure.

Q    Okay.  Another subject — AIG says its board will meet tomorrow to discuss whether to join a lawsuit filed against the government alleging that the massive bailout of the company was unfair.  It’s been compared to a patient suing their doctor for saving their life.  What’s the administration’s response to this?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I won’t comment on a lawsuit that’s pending.  I would refer you to the Department of Justice.  But I will step back, and this, I think, contextually fits into my answer about Secretary Geithner’s time as Treasury Secretary, and that is to note that the U.S. government acted in a bipartisan fashion to prevent the disorderly failure of AIG after concluding that such a failure would have caused catastrophic damage to the economy and financial system.  Again, the action was taken because the failure would have done such great harm to the American economy, to the American financial system, and to the American people.

Because of the successful management of taxpayer dollars by the government and the company’s restructuring efforts, the company recently fully repaid taxpayers with a profit.  The overall positive return on the Federal Reserve and Treasury’s combined 2 billion commitment to stabilize AIG during the financial crisis is now .7 billion.  Again, that’s .7 billion in profit. 

It is also worth remembering, in response to a question like this, that thanks to the action of the President, thanks to the action of the administration and Congress, an action like the kind that was taken to deal with AIG’s potential disorderly failure, however necessary during the financial crisis, should not happen again, and that’s why this President pursued Wall Street reform.  And that’s why it is essential to continue to move forward with the implementation of that reform.

Q    So would you urge AIG’s board to just drop the –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I will not comment on a pending lawsuit.

Q    Is the President aware of the suit?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t discussed it with him, but I will not comment on a pending lawsuit.

Dan.

Q    Thanks.  Can you tell us what kind of progress the Biden gun group, if you will, is making?  Do they give the President frequent updates?  And also, is the NRA part of this process?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me say a few things about that.  The Vice President, at the President’s request, is overseeing a process that is engaging a variety of stakeholders — organizations and individuals — to look broadly at the problem of gun violence in America and to consider actions that could be taken at both the legislative level and elsewhere.  As I think has been reported, the process is ongoing.  The Vice President’s effort — the Vice President has had several meetings and conversations so far, and he will have many more before presenting his recommendations to the President.

As for the President’s involvement, the President assigned the Vice President to this task, asked him to do it.  And as you know and saw just at the end of last month, the President and the Vice President spent a lot of time together and they will continue to spend a lot of time together, and I am sure, as they do that, that this topic will come up and the Vice President will have the opportunity to informally brief the President on the progress of this effort.  And then, when the Vice President is ready to present a series of recommendations to the President, the President will consider them and then make decisions about how to proceed.

Q    And is the NRA part of these discussions?

MR. CARNEY:  We have invited — the Vice President’s group has invited a number of organizations and individuals to participate in meetings.  They include gun owners and — groups that represent gun owners, groups that represent sportsmen and sportswomen.  The NRA has certainly been one of the groups — one of the many groups invited.  I would leave it to those groups themselves to decide whether to say — to make any comment on their attendance in those meetings.

Q    The NRA says they will be here on Thursday in that meeting.  So what is the message that Vice President Biden or this administration will say to the NRA in their first face-to-face conversation, given the only conversations the NRA has had with the public has been a public statement and then “Meet the Press”? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think as the President said, he doesn’t want to prejudge any recommendations that any stakeholder might present.  He did in his “Meet the Press” interview respond to a question about the specific recommendation that the NRA had made by saying that he was skeptical that putting more guns in schools would solve this problem.  But again, we look forward to hearing from a variety of organizations and civic groups and others who have insights into this problem.

Q    The NRA says it’s here to hear what the White House has to say.  So if you guys are here to listen to them, and they’re here to listen to you, and you guys are –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the process is designed to get input.  And the Vice President’s group will assess different actions, make recommendations, and the President will decide what he would like to pursue, what he believes is the right course of action, in addition to what he has already called on Congress to do, which is pass the assault weapons ban, pass legislation that would ban high-capacity magazines, pass a bill that would close loopholes in our background check system.  Those are things that Congress could move on very quickly, and the President urges them to do so.

Q    On the nomination process, I know you didn’t want to spell out anything about who would take over Treasury, but has the President settled on who he wants to fill not only Treasury but also Commerce, EPA, these high-profile roles?  Has he settled on these names, or is he still sifting through some top choices?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Dan, as you know, I refrain from commenting on the process of the selection of nominees and don't give updates on the status of the search or short lists, long lists, speculation about individual nominees.  I would simply say that the President is obviously engaged in a process that will lead to decisions on who should fill posts that are vacant, and as was the case this week with the Defense Department and the CIA, and prior to that, the State Department, he will make announcements when he’s made a decision.

Q    I know you touched on this a little bit yesterday, but is diversity a consideration as the President goes through this process?

Q    Check your binder for that.  (Laughter.) 

MR. CARNEY:  I can say that, as I did yesterday, that the President values diversity, believes it’s important because it enhances the quality of the pool of potential nominees for positions across the administration.  He believes that by looking broadly for candidates for offices that he ups the chances that he’ll find the very best person for the job.  And I think that the diversity of his administration both at the Cabinet level and here at the White House and elsewhere reflects a process that was designed to allow him to find the very best candidates.  And he thinks that diversity enhances the process itself, the policy process, because it sort of increases the likelihood of a broader discussion potentially.

But the goal in the end is to find the very best individuals for these specific positions.  And he feels he has done that with Secretary Hagel, with John Brennan, with Senator Kerry — I think I said “Secretary Hagel” — getting ahead of myself — Senator Hagel.  And that will be what guides him as he makes further decisions.

Q    Here’s one more on guns.

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.

Q    The President has talked about this with some urgency in the past, saying he’s not going to wait around.  Is this something — the longer you get away from a tragedy, the less interest there is in gun control efforts that's happened in the past?  Is this something that the President is going to push very hard right out of the ¬–

MR. CARNEY:  I think you heard the President say that he expected and had asked the Vice President to report back to him this month.  I think that demonstrates the speed with which the President hopes to act. 

Now, even prior to the action under the work of the Vice President’s group, the President has already called on Congress and will continue to call on Congress to take action on specific pieces of legislation that either already exists or could easily come together, and which some members of Congress have expressed an interest in pursuing.

So he is mindful of the need to act.  He is also mindful of the need to have a process in place, led by the Vice President, that allows for consideration of a variety of ideas, because he’s made the point that this is not a problem that can be solved by gun legislation alone.  It is not a problem that can be solved by any specific action or single action that the government might take.  It’s a problem that encompasses issues of mental health, of education, as well as access to guns.  And that’s why he’s asked the Vice President to undertake the effort that he’s undertaking.

Ann.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  On the inauguration, presumably the President has begun work on an inaugural address.  Will he also this year give a State of the Union address?  How would the two differ?  Can you bring us up to speed on what he’s doing on the inaugural?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President, as you know, looks forward — or as you would expect, looks forward to the privilege of delivering his second inaugural address.  I have no content to preview for you.  I would expect –

Q    Has he started –

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, he certainly has.  And I would expect that — or you should expect that he will also deliver a State of the Union address. 

Q    But how would they differ?  Both of them looking forward?  And would any of the gun violence legislation or initiatives be ready in time to be included in either one?

MR. CARNEY:  I would rather not preview either of these speeches.  I’ll leave it to the President to do that when he delivers them.  I think that these are different occasions that have historically sort of demanded different types of addresses. But as you know, the President takes the writing of these speeches quite seriously, and I would not preview or prejudge the outcome of that process.

Q    At his first inaugural, the President signed several executive orders within, what, an hour or so of taking the oath of office.  This time there’s no need to do that since he can do it any time.  But does he plan anything of substance in addition to the inaugural address, any action that he would likely be taking on?

MR. CARNEY:  On his first day in office?  Again, I would ask you — or ask for your patience to wait for any announcements that we might have along those lines.  I’m not suggesting that there might be because you rightly note that he’s already President, but I’m not going to preview anything that far in advance.

Q    Lately when you’ve been listing the various elements of dealing with gun violence, you have not mentioned either cultural issues or violent video games and movies.  The President did the very first time.  You did for a while.  But that sort of dropped off the radar screen.  I wonder if that’s reflective of internal conversations with the Vice President, you no longer — the President no longer thinks that’s a part of the equation any longer and is not looking for initiatives or ideas to deal with that.

MR. CARNEY:  No, if that has been conveyed, it should not have been.  In fact, I should note that I can tell you that this week the Vice President will be meeting on Wednesday with victims groups as well as gun safety organizations; on Thursday with advocates for sportsmen and women, and then separately with gun ownership groups.  This is the meeting that we discussed.  This week he will also meet — his group will also meet with representatives of the entertainment and video game industries. 

Also, Secretary Duncan will meet with representatives from parent, teacher, and education groups.  Secretary Sebelius will meet with mental health and disability advocates.  And senior White House staff have also held and will continue to hold meetings with a variety of stakeholders, including medical groups, community organizations, child and family advocates, business owners, faith leaders, and others. 

So to your question, one of the meetings this week will be with representatives of the entertainment and video game industries.

Q    In the “Meet the Press” interview, the President said something to the effect of the American people are going to have to make this happen, on the question specifically of gun control. And in the minds of those who are pressing the legislation, that made them feel a little bit nervous that the President was sort of handing over at least part of the responsibility for this, maybe drawing back a little bit for his personal advocacy.  Obviously, the things you’ve laid out today suggest otherwise.  I want to know if you wanted to refer back –

MR. CARNEY:  I would simply say that the President is noting a reality that I think applies not just to issues of gun control legislation, but economic or budget legislation.  It is very important for the public to be engaged in these issues, and for the public's voice to be heard in Washington.  And public opinion can help propel issues forward and compel Congress to act when it comes to legislative matters.

There is also an element here that I think transcends or is separate from legislative action that also involves raising public awareness and raising the voices of the American people who want to see change — change that would help reduce gun violence in America, change that would help prevent the kinds of horrendous acts of violence that we saw last year in Connecticut and Colorado and elsewhere.

So I think it's just a recognition of the role that the public plays in all of these major issues.  It is not — a participatory democracy is not — the participation is not just limited to the vote you cast on an Election Day, but is, or can be, or should be year round.  And the President has I think demonstrated his belief that that is an effective way to get things done, and this is another case where he believes that’s the right way to go.

Q    On the sequester, during the negotiations the administration pushed for a year delay of the limitation of the sequester.  You obviously got two months.  Republicans report that that was a much higher priority for the administration to avoid it than it was for them.  First of all, do you accept that premise that the administration was much more nervous about delaying the implementation of the sequester than Republicans, where they were more comfortable with it, generally, than the administration is? 

Secondarily, if the administration is so nervous about the implementation of discretionary cuts, why not be more forceful and more descriptive and more specific about entitlements that would stave that off?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me address the first assertion, which I think, as the assertion we heard yesterday about a purported disinterest by Republicans in tax incentives for business, I think the idea that Republicans weren't interested in dealing with the sequester conflicts with recent history.

Last year, the Speaker of the House said, "I think the sequester will hurt our Department of Defense, will hurt our ability to do what Americans believe is our most basic responsibility, and that is to provide security for the American people.  I believe that Secretary Panetta believes the same thing." 

Senator Lindsey Graham, later in the year:  "I and others, including Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, have been begging the President to sit down with us to avoid what his own Secretary of Defense said would be devastating to national security.”  And Senator McCain and others repeatedly, as your colleagues reported on last year, talked about their high concern about the impact of implementation of the sequester, specifically on our defense budget.  But as you know, the across-the-board cuts are equally divided between non-defense and defense spending and would be onerous on both sides of that coin. 

So if anything, late last year I think you heard more vocal concern about the sequester from Republicans than Democrats — not that Democrats were less concerned about it but the volume was loudest I think on the Republican side.  So it doesn't stand to reason that they suddenly are not interested in dealing with it.

Q    And on the entitlement side?

MR. CARNEY:  Repeat your question. 

Q    Well, if you want to delay it, one of the ways to work around it would be to offer up or negotiate a more comprehensive, long-running restructuring of entitlement programs.  Republicans have put that on the table — and that would take off some of the pressure on the discretionary side.  Simpson-Bowles, many others looking on the outside say the discretionary side has been squeezed for many years.  It was in the BCA.  It was before that. Yet entitlements tend not to be.  Why not move more of the entitlements up and take some of the pressure off the discretionary side?

MR. CARNEY:  What the President said last week and what he said repeatedly before that, and what holds true today, is that he is committed to further deficit reduction in a balanced way.  What he will not accept is deficit reduction that is borne solely by — the burden which is borne solely by seniors, solely by families with disabled children, solely by families trying to send their kids to college or other vulnerable groups. 

One of the things that we learned through this process, through the negotiating process and the sort of concurrent communications efforts was that, in fact, specificity when it came to spending cuts could be found more on our side than on theirs.  And if the Republicans are suggesting that the answer to the sequester, to the debt ceiling, or any other thing, are simply to slash benefits for seniors, they ought to say so and they ought to provide a specified plan.  They know that the President won't accept that.

We have to have balance.  And balance means spending cuts; it means entitlement reform and it means tax reform.  Tax reform is something that Republicans and Democrats have both expressed keen interest in achieving.  Tax reform is something that, according to the Speaker of the House, could produce significant revenue.  When coupled with additional spending cuts, that revenue and that savings could further reduce our deficit significantly.  And that's certainly what the President hopes to achieve.

Mr. Emanuel, welcome back. 

Q    Thank you, Jay.  The top Senate Republican on the Budget Committee says as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling the Senate should be forced to pass a budget.  Do you have a thought on that?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, Congress — the Senate, the House — should act to raise the debt ceiling.  This is not a deal that the White House — a negotiation the White House is going to have.  It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that the bills Congress racked up are paid. 

It's sometimes a useful exercise to look back when you hear the protests and the complaints about deficits and spending from Republicans, especially in the House but also in the Senate, to remember that many of these legislators were in office when the deficits exploded under the previous administration.  It's often fun to look at a charge of the deficit, the federal deficit over the years and note that it went down consistently under Democratic President Bill Clinton.  It went up again, turning surpluses into deficits, under George W. Bush.  And from a high point, because of the economic crisis, it has gone down again under President Obama.  That's a trend line. 

And the point is that Republicans certainly do not have a corner on the market when it comes to interest in reducing the deficit.  The President believes it is necessary to reduce our deficits, to get our fiscal house in order.  But he insists that we do it in a fair and balanced way.  That's the principle that he took into negotiations over the debt ceiling, his presentation to the super committee.  It is the principle that informs his budget proposals.  It is the principle that informed the proposals he put forward in his good-faith negotiations with Speaker Boehner in December.  And it's the principle he'll carry forth as we continue to deal with our challenges.

Q    With trillion and counting, the election is over, some could argue a budget right now is probably more critical than ever — no? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, you can address — those are questions for the Senate.  When it comes to — the presentation of the question was, we will only raise the debt ceiling if this and that happens.  Let's just remember what danger awaits the pursuit of that path, the harm that was brought to this economy simply by the flirtation with default in the summer of 2011. 

We should and — we can and should negotiate over how we continue to reduce our deficits in a responsible and balanced way, but we should not play chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States.

Q    One other topic, real fast — reported drone strike today along the AFPAC border region.  As you know, Afghan and Pakistani officials have been vocal about their concerns about them possibly killing civilians as opposed to terrorists.  What can you say to address their concerns?  And can you talk a little bit about the President's thinking when it comes to drone strikes?

MR. CARNEY:  I won't talk about anything specific like that. I can tell you that, as John Brennan and others and the President have said, in the effort to battle al Qaeda and other extremist groups, we endeavor to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible.  And I think that the broader record here of success in taking the fight to al Qaeda and eliminating al Qaeda leadership and leadership of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations is one that has made the United States safer.

Q    If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, is it safe to assume the drone program will continue and –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I'm just not going to — I think that there has been some discussion of the drone program as it relates to the Department of Defense, but I'm not going to get into any further discussion of it from here. 

Yes, Peter.

Q    There are several looming battles for this White House that will be coming up over the course of the next several months — the debt ceiling; we have gun control, as we've already addressed here; and now with the nomination of Senator Hagel, there’s the likelihood of a contentious battle, as we heard from members of the Senate, frankly, on both sides.  Does this White House have any concern that this fight right now will complicate the ability to –

MR. CARNEY:  Which fight?  You listed a bunch.

Q    I'm saying that the fight over Senator Hagel right now will complicate that for gun control and debt ceiling and other ones where you're going to need bipartisan support?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we fully expect that — after the fair hearing that Senator McConnell said he hoped Senator Hagel would receive — that he will be confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense.  And we certainly hope and expect that he will be supported by Democrats and Republicans, and that he will then have the opportunity to serve as the first Vietnam veteran and first enlisted serviceman to lead that department.

Look, we have a lot of work to do.  And we have disagreements on some fundamental issues with members of Congress.  But it is incumbent upon all of us to press forward and confront those challenges and get the work done.  That applies to the economy and budget matters, to fiscal matters.  It applies to immigration reform, to actions we can take to reduce gun violence, to matters of energy and climate change.  These are all things that need to be addressed.  And we can't, either here or in Congress, simply say there is too much to be done so we're not going to press forward.  We have to press forward with all of it. 

Q    We heard within the last year that the President says he supports gay marriage.  He said at that time that that issue would be worked at the local level.  But given the fact that the Supreme Court has now said that it will hear arguments just two months from now, in March, should we expect the President will publicly advocate against Proposition 8, and would he also advocate for same-sex couples to have the right to federal benefits?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let's be clear about a couple of things. For comment on specific Supreme Court cases, I would point you to the Department of Justice.  On the issue of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, the administration's position on this is well known and has been, and that’s that the President has determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, and that his administration will no longer defend equal protection challenges against it in the courts.  The DOJ has participated in the DOMA cases consistent with that position, and asked the Supreme Court to resolve the questions.  So that is the DOMA issue. 

On Prop 8, the administrative is not a party to that case, and I have nothing for you on that.

Q    Whether he would speak out at –

MR. CARNEY:  I have nothing further on that.

Q    And then to conclude, Hillary Clinton arrived at the White House a short time ago.  This will be the first opportunity for the President to see the Secretary — outgoing — soon-to-be-outgoing Secretary of State since her accident.  Did they have a chance to speak yet?  And how did that conversation go?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, they have spoken –

Q    Face to face, this will be the first time.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not sure, but you should know that he spoke with her not too many days ago, as well as after her accident, and was keeping tabs on her condition throughout.  So this would not be — when they see each other today, it would not as if they hadn't been –

Q    There was no exchange of helmets or something? (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I wasn't there. 

Yes.

Q    Back to Afghanistan.  On the troop levels, reports say the White House is considering keeping between 3,000 and 9,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014.  Are those numbers accurate?

MR. CARNEY:  I have no announcements to make about the pace of the drawdown that will continue, that continues as we speak, after the initial withdrawal of the surge forces, nor do I have any decisions by the President to make regarding post-2014 security arrangements.  We've talked about the possibility of assisting — a counterterrorism effort and assisting in the training of — for the training of Afghan forces.  But beyond that, I have no new numbers to report to you.  As we've said in the past, the President is in the process of reviewing proposals, and when he is ready to announce a decision, he'll do that.

Q    And is the administrative encouraged by the reports that there's been some progress in the talks involving the Karzai government and the Taliban?

MR. CARNEY:  We support, as you know, reconciliation led by the Afghan government with the Taliban, and our position on that hasn't changed.  I don't have an assessment to give to you from here of progress being made.  I think the Afghan government is a good place to look for that.  But we do support it.  We believe ultimately that is an essential part of a process that would lead to a more peaceful and stable Afghanistan.

Connie.

Q    On Palestine, does the President have a position on the new Palestinian state that Abbas has proclaimed?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we've expressed it many times, the fact that we oppose unilateral actions.  We oppose the unilateral action taken by the Palestinians at the United Nations.  We believe that when it comes to Middle East peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, it is essential for direct face-to-fact negotiations to resume, and it is essential for each side to refrain from taking unilateral actions that make it more difficult to engage in face-to-face negotiations, and to allow that process to proceed to a point where a sustainable peace is possible.  So our position was frequently stated when this was an issue at the United Nations General Assembly and prior to that last year.

Q    — talks with Abbas about this?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I haven't personally, no.  But obviously we as an administration have conversations and made our views on this directly known to Palestinian leaders.

Q    A quick one on Egypt and Pakistan.  Does the U.S. still plan to give billions of dollars of aid to each country?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't have a breakdown specifically on aid status for either country, but we believe that it is important to continue to support progress in Egypt, and we work with the Egyptian government to ensure that progress is made.  And that would be true with Pakistan.  We’ve talked a lot in this room about the complicated relationship with Pakistan, but it is one that is in the interests of U.S. national security to pursue, and we continue to do that with Pakistan.

Laura.

Q    There’s a developing story in France involving taxes on the wealthy, with Gerard Depardieu who is leaving France because he wants to avoid to pay higher taxes.  He has been granted by Vladimir Putin the Russian nationality, and now he is going to be appointed Minister of Culture of Russia.  (Laughter.)  Is there any comment from the White House?

MR. CARNEY:  Is Andrei here?  (Laughter.)  I want my friend Andrei’s opinion about that.  I have no White House comment on that startling development.  (Laughter.)

Mike.

Q    Thanks.  On the fiscal cliff, moving into the — to talk about the debt ceiling, it seems that the concern is not getting pushed up against that deadline in March or whenever it’s going to be, that probably the best thing to do would be to get into those issues now and see if you can’t come to some sort of accommodation between the two sides before that even becomes an issue.  Is that something that the President is looking at doing, to get those talks started as soon as possible?  Or how is the White House viewing that?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me be clear.  We will not negotiate with Congress over the fulfillment of Congress’s responsibility to raise the debt ceiling.  The President has been very clear about that.  I have, and others have.  If Congress is concerned, as it should be, about not showing any indication of allowing a default, then it would be best to act without drama or delay when Congress returns to raise the debt ceiling.  We would hope that Congress would do that. 

But we won’t negotiate over it.  We won’t ask — the choice that would be presented in such a negotiation presumably would be to ask Americans to either — it’s basically to pay Congress through voucherization of Medicare or slashed benefits in Social Security or other types of reductions in exchange for Congress doing its job, and that is paying the bills that it’s already incurred.  And that’s not an equation the President supports.

There is absolutely room for negotiation and discussion about how we continue to reduce our deficit in a responsible and balanced way.  The President has demonstrated, through his proposal to the super committee, through his budget proposals, through his negotiating proposals with Secretary — I mean Speaker Boehner, that he is willing to compromise; that he has been willing, consistently, to meet Republicans at least halfway when it comes to taking action to responsibly reduce our deficit and get our fiscal house in order.  And he is absolutely willing to continue to do that when we talk about turning off the sequester, or just simply dealing with our long-term fiscal challenges.

But he does not in any way accept the premise that he should negotiate with Congress over Congress’s fundamental responsibility to pay the bills that it’s already incurred.  We are the greatest nation on Earth.  We are the wealthiest nation on Earth and the largest economy.  And one of the reasons why we are what we are is because investors around the world, people around the world understand that we pay our bills.  And we should never cast doubt on that prospect.

Q    So just to clarify, are you saying you won’t enter negotiations with them unless they verbally or in writing or somehow say that they haven’t linked the two issues?  I mean, what exactly does that mean — that the President won’t talk to them unless they delink them or –

MR. CARNEY:  I think that — it’s hard to be more clear:  We won’t negotiate over raising the debt ceiling.

Q    But would you be willing to start talking to them now?

MR. CARNEY:  The President has been willing, and I think demonstrated through his negotiations with the Speaker and through the process that followed, to engage with Congress on matters of deficit reduction and necessary measures to help our economy grow and create jobs at any time.  His principles remained throughout that process, which is fundamentally that we have to do it in a responsible way and a balanced way.

But again, he won’t have that negotiation over the debt ceiling because Congress has to simply pay these bills that they’ve incurred. 

Again, I could read through it but I’ll spare you — what happened last time.  And throughout this recovery, the weakest month of job creation was in August of 2011.  And the primary reason for that was because of the insistence by House Republicans in July and June, the insistence by them to flirt with the prospect of default.  And consumer confidence plummeted, the DOW plummeted, investment dried up, and the American people paid the price.  And they were not happy by having to pay that price, justifiably.

Q    Jay, can you clarify?  It sounds like you’re sequencing that Congress has to handle the debt ceiling first before the President will discuss sequestration, or –

MR. CARNEY:  I’m separating.  I’m separating.  Congress — we called on Congress to act without drama or delay throughout the end of the year last year.  We continue to call on them to act without drama or delay to deal with the debt ceiling, to deal with its responsibility. 

But again we are separating — again, the process that you’re envisioning doesn’t — well, this is the question I answered 45 minutes ago.  Congress isn’t here.  When Congress returns, I imagine that we will engage in conversations about the sequester and other economic issues.  But we will not negotiate over the basic responsibility of Congress to do its job, which is to pay the bills incurred by the United States.

All the way in the back, yes.

Q    A follow-up on Hagel with a specific regard to his experience in China — in the ‘80s as a businessman.  Can you talk about whether his experience in China was a factor in his nomination, given the fact that the Asia pivot is a big part of his responsibility at the Pentagon?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t know specifically whether that experience — how much that experience played into the President’s decision.  It is certainly a fact that Senator Hagel has a varied and broad resume that includes his experience as a businessman.  But I think you heard the President cite his service in Vietnam and his service in the Senate, his service on the Intelligence Advisory Board as well as his time as a CEO as part of a broad package of experiences that make him the right choice to be the next Secretary of Defense.

Thank you all.

END  
1:46 P.M. EST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:17 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Thanks for being here.  I think as you know, the President and Speaker of the House had a meeting here at the White House a little earlier today.  Conversations continue.  I have no readout of that meeting to provide, though I'm sure you will ask for one.  And with that, I will take your questions.

Q    Can we have a readout of the meeting?  (Laughter.) 

Q    I want to ask you about gun violence and then fiscal cliff.  The President made an impassioned plea last night for the nation to do more to protect its children, and I want to try to get a little more specific about what he means.  Can you tell us when he talks about using the power of his office whether that includes using the power of his office to push for tighter gun control?

MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the question.  The President spoke last night at the vigil in Newtown and he spoke about the fact that the families of Newtown are not alone.  And he also spoke about the fact that the kind of violence that occurred in Newtown occurs too often in this country, although what we saw in Newtown was particularly horrific.  He said that in the coming weeks he would use the power of his office to engage the American people and lawmakers, law enforcement, mental health experts, educators and others in an effort to try to prevent these kinds of terrible tragedies from happening in the future. 

It’s a complex problem that will require a complex solution. No single piece of legislation, no single action will fully address the problem.  So I don't have a specific agenda to announce to you today.  I would simply point you to what the President said last night about moving forward in coming weeks and I would look for him to do that.

Q    In the comprehensive solution, do you think it’s fair and accurate to say that addressing gun violence, gun control, would have to be part of it?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that it’s part of it, but it is far from all of it.  And as you know, the President has taken positions on common-sense measures that he believes should be taken to help address this problem, but he made clear that more needs to be done, that we as a nation have not done enough clearly to fulfill our number-one obligation, which is to protect our children.

Q    One more on this.  As you know, we've seen these horrific moments come and go and the debate about gun safety, children’s safety goes with it.  Does the President think that he needs to capitalize on this, get this conversation going and see some action in the short term, or does he feel like he can get through fiscal cliff, immigration, and there’s now a mind-set and a will to get this done months down the line?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have a specific timeline for you for what the President will do moving forward.  I would simply refer you to his remarks last night when he talked about the action he hoped to take to engage the American people in the coming weeks. I think that what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School has clearly shocked the entire nation and has laid bare the necessity of evaluating the various things that we can and must do as a nation to try to better protect our children.

Q    A couple quickly on fiscal cliff.  The President said to the Business Roundtable recently that Republicans need to reach what you called a conceptual breakthrough on rates, tax rates going up, and then once that happens, a deal could come together pretty quickly.  Does he feel he has that now that Speaker Boehner is talking about rates as part of the conversation?

MR. CARNEY:  I won’t comment on specific reported proposals or counterproposals on internal conversations between the President and the Speaker, or the President’s team and the Speaker’s team, or with other members of leadership.

The President’s insistence that rates need to go up on the top 2 percent was based on an economic reality, which is that in order to achieve a broad deficit reduction package that puts our economy on a sustainable fiscal path in the future, a certain level of revenue gleaned from the wealthy has to be met.  And the only way to do that was through, in part, rates rising.  That remains his position.

So we have seen since the election a change in tone and, in some cases, a change in position from different Republicans, including elected Republicans, on the issue of, first revenue, and then acknowledging that rates have to go up.  But thus far, the President’s proposal is the only proposal that we have seen that achieves the balance that’s so necessary.  And the balance is important because a plan that does not have it puts unduly the burden on senior citizens, or on middle-class Americans, or on parents with disabled children, and that is not acceptable. 

Balance is essential because in order to move forward in a way that protects the middle class, we need to have the package include the kind of revenue that the President has talked about.

Q    Last question.  The President campaigned on taxes going up on households over 0,000.  He was very clear and specific about that.  When you were asked about that threshold over the summer, you said the President’s position has been the same for a long, long time; it has not changed and it will not change.  I know you don’t want to talk about the Boehner proposal of a million, but I’m just asking about the President’s stand.  Is it still and will remain that 0,000 is the threshold?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I will say what I’ve said many times from here in recent weeks and months, which is that the only plan that we’ve seen that achieves the size and the balance that’s required for sustainable — for long-term deficit reduction and putting our economy on a sustainable fiscal path is the President’s.  And an element — an important element of that on the revenue side is allowing current law when it comes to the top 2 percent to remain in place, which would see rates on those wealthy Americans rise even as we extend, and in the President’s mind, make permanent, tax cuts for the 98 percent of the American people — for the other 98 percent of the American people.  That's the President’s position.

And again, it’s not — as I’ve said repeatedly, his position is not based on the notion that these rates have to go up because that's good in and of itself.  It’s based on the necessity of having enough revenue as part of this balanced package, and revenue only coming from the wealthiest Americans, those who can afford it most, to ensure that we’re not unduly putting the burden on the middle class or on seniors or families with children with disabilities.  So that's the underlying premise that the President has always had, and it’s been the foundation of the proposals he’s put forward.

I’m going to mix it up here, go in back.  Yes, sir.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  On Japan’s incoming Prime Minister, instead of visiting China first, like his first term, he said he would like to visit the U.S. first, early next year.  What’s the President’s expectation of his visit?  And also he said he would like to stop the challenge from China over the disputed islands. Will the U.S. support that position?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, I’d like to say that we congratulate Liberal Democratic Party President Shinzo Abe on his election as Japan’s next Prime Minister and on his party’s success in the elections in Japan yesterday.  The U.S.-Japan alliance serves as the cornerstone of peace and prosperity in the Asia Pacific, and we look forward to working closely with the new Japanese Prime Minister, cabinet, and the people of Japan on a range of important bilateral, regional and global issues. 

I’d also like to say that the President appreciates Prime Minister Noda’s contribution — contributions rather — to U.S.-Japan relations on a range of global, regional and bilateral issues.  And we would like to thank Prime Minister Noda for his service and wish him well in his future endeavors.

As you know, of course, the new Prime Minister does not take office — and I wouldn’t want to get ahead of that before we start talking about potential meetings or policy discussions with him.

Q    So, Jay, you made the point last Friday that that was not the day to start to talk about policy as it relates to gun control.  But we are looking for some more specifics, especially now that the President has said quite plainly that he’s going to use all the powers of his office to engage Americans on the issue.  Senator Lieberman has suggested a national commission on violence.  Would the President be — would he consider setting up a presidential task force on this?

MR. CARNEY:  What I think is important to note is what the President said about the actions he intends to take in coming weeks to engage the American people in efforts to try to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening again in the future, and to engage broadly — that means lawmakers and law enforcement officials, and mental health professionals, and educators — because this is a complex problem that requires many solutions, not just one.  And I don’t have a series of proposals to present to you.  Again, the President spoke yesterday about moving forward in the coming weeks –

Q    Would he consider such a –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to rule in or rule out specific proposals.  I think, broadly speaking, it’s I think a reflection of the tragedy in Newtown and its horrific nature that both elected officials and others are thinking broadly about ways that we can move forward, and that’s a good thing — and being thoughtful in their approach, because it’s just generally important as we move forward on this not to get into a situation where anybody retreats to the usual corner or starts issuing the usual talking points.  I think it’s important that we — and the President does — that we all recognize that we need to change a situation in this country that has led to too many senseless deaths of American children.

Q    And you said on Friday as well that the President remains committed to working to reinstate the ban on assault weapon sales.  Senator Feinstein said over the weekend that she will come back from the holidays, next year, with a new Congress, and she will put forth such a proposal.  Will the President and the White House support that effort and help push it?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I’m not going to engage in specific point-by-point policy proposals or prescriptions.  But the President, as you know, has long supported reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.  And as the President has said, and I just said, this is a complex problem that requires complex and a variety of solutions.  So I don’t have a specific policy outline for you today from the President.  And I think it’s important to remember that this is about our gun laws and enforcing them, but it’s also about a broader series of issues, including issues of mental health and education and the like.

So the President’s position on the assault weapons ban has not changed; he still supports its reenactment.  But you’ll hear from him I think, as he said last night, in the coming weeks to speak more specifically about what he thinks we can do moving forward.

Q    Okay.  So last question on this — even in the aftermath of this tragedy –

MR. CARNEY:  I want to give others a chance here.

Q    I’m sorry — just what if any concern does the President have that his fellow Democrats, as well as some Republicans, will be hesitant to, in the face of opposition from the gun lobby, to move forward on — that they’ll feel intimidated, they won’t move forward on actions to bring gun control into force?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I think we all recognize that this is a complex problem and there are obstacles to taking action of a variety — coming from a variety of places.  And what the President hopes, as you heard him say last night, is that everyone steps back and looks at a situation that has to be addressed, and thinks broadly and thoughtfully about how we can move forward.  And he certainly hopes that that will happen.

Yes, Mike.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  Getting back to the fiscal cliff, is there concern on the part of the White House, given the reaction that some conservative groups have already got to the latest proffer from the Speaker — a very negative reaction from some quarters — that you could get in a situation where if you push the Speaker too far, you get an agreement with him but it becomes moot because he can’t marshal the votes to pass it in the House? How are you balancing that? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, John Boehner is the Speaker of the House, he is the leader of the House of Representatives, the leader of the House Republican conference, and I believe the third most powerful elected official in the land.  So I won’t tell him, and we won’t tell him what his politics are or how he should work with his conference.

But we are obviously engaged in conversations with the Speaker and his staff and other leadership members, and believe that we can — that the parameters of an agreement have been and are clear.  It requires balance, in our view.  It requires a deal that does not unduly put the burden on seniors, or middle-class Americans, or families with children of disabilities, or kids trying to go to college.  And on the issue of revenues, it is absolutely a fact that rates will go up on the top 2 percent.

And again, I’m not addressing specific proposals and reactions to proposals, but it has always been the President’s position that we need to extend tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people.  That is a position that Republicans and Democrats alike support, and the President has been arguing for months now that the House ought to simply pass that Senate bill that gives the certainty that it would give to the middle class, that their taxes won’t go up on January 1st, and then we can discuss the issue of tax rates for the remaining 2 percent — the top 2 percent in the United States.

The purpose, broadly, is for balance.  And the President has always said that part of this is revenue and part of this is spending cuts.  And he is willing to make tough choices on the issue of spending cuts, and that remains the case.  So any potential agreement would not only have to align with the President’s principles; it would require tough choices by both sides, including the President and including Republicans.  And that’s the only way it can come together.

Q    So just to clarify, is the goal here to get the best deal you can from the Speaker, or to get the best deal that you can get through the House?

MR. CARNEY:  It’s the best deal that we can sign into law for the American people.  And there are very clear principles that the President has laid out, and one is that we will not — he will not sign into law an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent.  He will not.  He would veto any legislation that got to his desk that extended those tax cuts for the top 2 percent.  Any deal that attempted to reduce our deficit broadly for the long term, a bigger deal that he has been seeking, has to be balanced.  It has to have enough revenue from those who can afford it, and a mix of spending cuts that do not unduly put the burden on seniors or the middle class or students or families who have children with disabilities.  I mean, these are the fundamental parameters that the President has brought with him in these conversations.

He believes that a deal is possible.  He believes that it would be a good thing for the economy if we were to get a deal that met those parameters and also allowed us to continue to invest in key areas of our economy, because the purpose here, by the way, on the first instance of avoiding the fiscal cliff is to avoid a situation where — that would affect our potential to continue to grow and create jobs.  And the second issue is engaging in longer-term deficit reduction in a way that allows the economy to grow faster and create jobs more quickly.

So these are big goals, lofty goals, but they’re important ones.

Q    Jay, unfortunately we’ve realized that there’s sort of a pattern to the public engagement following these shootings.  At first, there’s a lot of shock and there’s outrage, but then over time it sort of gives way to I guess people being — people having less concern than they did.  In light of that, isn’t it more likely that people retreat to their corners, which you say you don’t want to see, the farther out from this event?

MR. CARNEY:  The President mentioned yesterday that he would, in coming weeks, use the power of his office to try to engage the American people and lawmakers and law enforcement officials and mental health experts and others in an effort to try to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening again, and he will do that. 

On the first part of your question, I think that it’s hard to imagine people in any near term somehow forgetting the rawness of what happened on Friday.  It is hard to think about 20 six- and seven-year-olds and what happened to them on Friday and imagine that, in a few weeks or a few months, that pain would not still be incredibly intense and present.  I think that’s probably true for everyone in this room, and I suspect it’s true for the vast majority of people in Washington and around the country.  So what happened was both consistent, unfortunately, with a series of events that have been happening in the United States, but also exceptional in its horrendousness.

Q    So does he feel that engaging right now is counterproductive or inappropriate in light of the fact that obviously he feels that this is different, that somehow this pushes the shelf life of concern?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President spoke about this from the heart with great passion and conviction just last night.  So the idea that he’s not engaging in this at present I think doesn’t explain the speech that he gave last night.  I just don’t have a series of specific steps –

Q    I mean, what you said about how it’s not the time to sort of push specific policy prescriptions.  Is that because he thinks it’s inappropriate?

MR. CARNEY:  But I said that on Friday, at a time, remember, when there were still bodies in the school.  The President has spoken twice since then and you heard him speak about what he plans to do in the coming weeks just last night.  So I will leave it to him to follow what he said he would do, and, again, that’s coming weeks.

Jon Christopher, then Peter.

Q    In the aftermath of what happened on Friday and the President’s two speeches, does this issue of serious gun control legislation, is that still the third rail of politics for Democrats?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to engage in political analysis. There have been challenges to moving forward on a variety of issues that relate to the problem of gun violence in America, and there’s no question that the complexity of the problem and the complexity of the solutions will mean that there will be obstacles moving forward.  But I’m not going to speculate about how that might play out in the future.  Again, I don’t have a specific set of proposals to discuss with you today, at least from the President’s perspective.

Peter.

Q    Jay, in the course of the last four years as President, he’s been consoling communities now four times — Aurora, Arizona, Fort Hood, and now in Connecticut.  Given the fact that in 2008 he pledged, I think it was at the DNC that year, where he said specifically that he would keep AK-47s out of criminals’ hands and had advocated among other things reinstating the assault weapons ban, what does the President say today to Americans in communities like the one he visited just yesterday why nothing more has happened yet?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President’s support for reinstatement of the assault weapons ban has been the case ever since it expired, and was true — has been true for the past several years.  The fact is we have taken steps to improve background checks, which goes at the issue of preventing those who should not have guns from acquiring them.  But as you heard the President say last night, we all need to do more.  We must change.  We must take more action and greater action to address this problem, because we have not adequately in his view taken care of our first priority, which in this case was protecting our children.

So he’s committed himself, as you heard him last night say, to using the power of his office to help bring about that change. And he will do that in a way that is inclusive because it requires more than a President; it requires more than gun laws and more than legislation.  So he will engage in a process that encompasses a lot of different communities and potential actions.

Q    Is it then unfair for Americans to say that the President should have done more in the course of the last four years?  They point today to facts like — that he signed bills allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrak, and say, why is this conversation starting only now?  Should he have done more in the course of the last four years?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think you’ve heard over the course of his presidency the President speak about these tragedies and about taking common-sense measures to deal with gun violence, to prevent those who should not have weapons from acquiring them.  And we have taken some actions, but there is no question, as the President said last night, that we need to change and we need to do more.  And he’s committed to doing that.

George. 

Q    If combating gun violence is moving up on the President’s legislative agenda, how do you keep that from distracting from the focus on jobs, the economy, fiscal issues and the way that critics said health care did in the first term?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you’re getting way ahead of yourself, George.  I think that we have a lot of priorities as a nation, and this President will work on a series of issues that he considers priorities for the nation.  And I think that we all as a country need to have the bandwidth to move forward on all of them.  He certainly will do that.

Q    But, Jay, as legislative items go, is this now a priority?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to rank priorities.  This is clearly extremely important.

Q    But he did last night — he said — he made it sound like this was the most important thing on the nation’s agenda.

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to rank priorities.  We have to take — the President just met with the Speaker of the House to continue discussions on the fiscal cliff and efforts to get our deficits under control.  We have the priority of immigration reform.  We have further steps we need to take to enhance economic growth and job creation.  And we need to take meaningful action when it comes to the problem and scourge of gun violence in America.  We need to do all of it.  And this President is committed to just that.

Ed.

Q    Jay, on another topic, Benghazi, the State Department today said that Secretary Clinton received the report from the Accountability Review Board and they’ve been waiting for that.  Can you give us an idea of when the President — when you expect the President may receive that, and what kind of action the White House may take to prevent another terror attack like that?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t have a timetable for you in terms of that process, when that report moves from the State Department.  The President has looked forward to the Review Board’s work as he looks forward to the completion of the investigation by the FBI.  So it’s hard to say what action he will take since we haven’t seen those reports.

Q    Quick follow-up then — to cooperate with that investigation, the FBI is still investigating as well.  Do you have any sense of when the last time the President got an update from the FBI on where their investigation on Benghazi stands?  And also, Secretary Clinton has been ill, obviously, and nobody would expect her to testify right now.  But is the administration committed to having her testify before she leaves office, basically?

MR. CARNEY:  I would ask the State Department about her schedule and her illness that she’s dealing with.  And I certainly haven’t — I’m not aware of any updates the President has gotten on an investigation.

Jake.

Q    Jay, last night the President said in his speech, “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” When he referred to “our freedom,” was he referring to gun rights?  Was he referring to the difficulty that some societies have, some communities have now when it comes to committing people against their will?  What exactly did he mean by “freedom”?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that he meant, broadly, those and other issues — that we obviously have a society that is one based on laws, but it is a free society that creates a balance between the laws that we must abide and the freedoms that we enjoy.

Q    So both?

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, again, I’m not going to get — I think that both could be encompassed within the meaning of what he said and other issues of freedoms and responsibilities more broadly.  So I don’t think — it wasn’t a single specific meaning.  I think it was broader than that.

Q    Okay.  The President has been focused on the health care system in this country since he took office.  Does he feel that the mental health care system in this country is adequate?

MR. CARNEY:  It’s a very good question, and I would say that the Obama administration has taken action for the past four years to ensure that more Americans have access to mental health services, and we will continue to work with leaders across the country to help ensure people get the care and treatment they need.  As you know the Affordable Care Act will ensure that 30 million more Americans have access to health care, including mental health services.  And the law makes recommended health services available without a copay or deductible. 

One of the reasons why the President explicitly talked about engaging not just with lawmakers and law enforcement officials and educators but mental health experts is because that's clearly a factor that needs to be addressed in some of these cases of horrific violence.  So what the Affordable Care Act has done, Obamacare, if you will, has ensured that mental health services are integral and part of the services that the 30 million people who will be — additional Americans who will have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act will receive, and in terms of the recommended services, receive them without a co-pay or deductible. 

So I think that reflects the administration’s view on how important mental health services are.  But when it comes to this broader — or rather this more specific issue of mental health and the kind of violence that we saw in Newtown, I think that he believes it’s important that experts in that field are part of this discussion.

Q    Okay.  And lastly, Jay, after the Tucson shooting that left Congresswoman Gabby Giffords seriously wounded and six others dead, including a little girl, the President wrote an op-ed, this is in 2011, in the Arizona Star, and he talked about the gun restrictions he favored.  He said that “The laws on the books should be enforced more when it came to the background check.  It relies on data supplied by states, but the data is often incomplete and inadequate.  We must do better.  Second, we should reward the states who provide the best data.  And third, we should make the system faster and nimbler.”

So that was about — that was almost two years ago, so what’s the progress on –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the fact is — I mean, I would refer you to the Justice Department for the specifics, but we have taken steps specifically on the issue of background checks to make the system more thorough and complete because this is a key component of an effort to enforce existing laws that when properly enforced do not allow weapons to fall into the hands of those who should not have them under existing law.  So that's an important component.  We have taken steps — and I’m sure that will be part of the broader discussion moving forward, but it is an issue that we have taken steps on because the background check system,  making it more complete and thorough, is an important component. 
Q    And last, Jay, in the October presidential debate, the President said — one of the debates:  “Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets.”  Can you name one thing the President has done in the last four years to help remove weapons of war from our streets?

MR. CARNEY:  There’s no question, Jake, that the scourge of gun violence is a problem that has not sufficiently been addressed, because, as we saw in Newtown, we continue to have horrific tragedies that result in innocent victims.  The President supports the assault weapons ban and the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, but we have to –

Q    — tell me about his thinking.  I mean like has he taken one measure, one act — one — to remove the weapons of war that he talks about?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, he supports legislation that is designed to ban some weapons.  But as you know, this is a complex issue and that requires complex solutions.  And he looks forward to engaging the American people in an effort to do more.  As he made clear last night, we need to change.  We have not done enough — we as a nation.  And he will, in coming weeks, use the power of his office to try to help make that change.

Q    So that’s a no?

Q    Jay?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, Major.

Q    Speaking of the power of his office, the President, of course, sits atop agencies that have a tremendous amount of resources they can pull together for him at his direction options, new policies.  Has he, since Friday, asked either HHS, the Justice Department, any one at the DPC to either form a task force or do anything to bring to him either new ideas, research, data, anything to address what you described as a complex problem that requires a complex solution?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to get into internal policy deliberations.

Q    But that would be different.  I’m not asking about deliberation.  I’m just asking if he had asked for things to be brought to him to be assembled.

MR. CARNEY:  That would be an internal request or an internal policy deliberation as to make those kinds of requests or to compile those kinds of proposals.  The President looks forward, as he said last night, to engaging with the American public in the coming weeks in an effort to try to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening in the future, and engage broadly — not just with lawmakers, not just with legislation related to guns, but broadly — on all of the issues that are in play here that affect this scourge of gun violence.

Q    Michael Bloomberg on Friday and then Joe Califano in the Post today said time is of the essence.  Does the President disagree that there is a clamoring from some corners to move more rapidly on this one particular issue — not the wide, complex range of issues, but on this issue, gun control, specifically — does the President disagree with that assessment either as a matter of timing or politics or policy, and if so, why?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you heard the President say and use the phrase, “in coming weeks.”  They didn’t talk about months or years; he said coming weeks.  But that is not specific to any one particular avenue of pursuit.  Again, gun laws are a part of this, but they are not the only part of this, as anyone who is truly an expert on these issues will tell you. 

But he will — and again, I’ll just cite him again from last night — he will engage in an effort in coming weeks to bring an array of people in the American public and move forward in this effort to try to prevent these tragedies from happening again.  These are — there is no single legislation, no single bill that’s been written, that’s been enacted and expired that alone solves this problem.  And that’s why you have to take a broader approach.

Q    Over the weekend, through conversations on the Hill and in this building, it has been suggested to many of us that some genuine progress has been achieved on the fiscal cliff, that things are not where they were a week ago, either atmospherically or in the exchange of the ideas, the productive nature of the exchanges of ideas.  Broadly speaking, would you agree that this process is in a different place than it was a week ago, and that, not predicting anything in the future, that a sufficient number of issues have been at least dealt with and that you might be closer to a deal than we were, let’s say, a week ago?

MR. CARNEY:  Without going into details of conversations, I think it’s fair to say that we have continued to engage in communications with the Speaker’s office and his staff and with the other leaders and their staff.  And the President believes that the parameters of a potential agreement are clear.  It is also the case that we have not seen a proposal, besides the President’s, that achieves the balance that the President insists be part of a deal — because we can’t have a situation where deficit reduction is borne unduly or primarily by the middle class or by seniors, or by families with children who have disabilities or kids trying to go to school.

So I’m not going to characterize discussions beyond that.  They’ve been, as we’ve said in the past, frank and direct and deliberate.  And I think we’ve used words like that, and that remains the case.  But our goal here is to have an environment that maximizes that possibility of an agreement that works for the American people and that achieves the goals the President has laid out.

Q    Back in the summer of 2011, the President at least considered a different inflation measure — the slowing of the rate of adjustments, the so-called chain CPI.  But in the package September 19 that was submitted to the Hill on tax increases and cuts, that formula was not adopted.  Can you tell us right today what is the President’s thinking on a chain CPI?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to get into specific policy proposals.  The principles the President has brought forward in this process are clear.  The spending cuts that he has put forward are clear and specific, as are the revenue ideas that he’s put forward.

As I’ve said in the past, he’s prepared to make tough choices.  He also understands that his bill will not, as written, likely be what the final compromise, if there is one, looks like.  But he insists and will insist, before he signs anything, that there is the balance that he seeks, that is fair, and that seniors aren’t bearing the burden so that the wealthy bear less
– those who can afford it most bear less; that the middle class isn’t stuck holding the bag so that the wealthiest pay less.  That’s just not a balance the President thinks is fair to the American people, and it’s not one that makes economic sense in the long term.
 
Q    Is it fair to conclude, then, that since they weren’t included and he’s not including them now, that he’s not –

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to get into the specifics of the conversations or proposals that may or may not have been put forward as part of them.  The principles that I’ve outlined are what is guiding the President now.

Yes, Scott.

Q    Mike asked you about Speaker Boehner’s ability to bring Republicans along on an idea.  Can you talk about what outreach and hand-holding and temperature-taking the White House is doing with Democrats to make sure that they’ll agree to the parameters of any — on the spending side?

MR. CARNEY:  I think, as we’ve said all along, a compromise that meets the President’s principles and the objectives of deficit reduction that is done in a way that protects the middle class and seniors, and asks the wealthiest to pay more, will require tough choices by all sides.  It will not be a deal that any single person or either party is going to say reflects exactly what they wanted.

The President speaks frequently with Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill and as well as Democratic lawmakers in general.  And he believes that it’s important to be guided by the principles that he’s laid out and to seek and hopefully achieve a deal that is big enough to really make a dent in our deficits in a way that puts us on a fiscally sustainable path, because that is good for the economy and good for the middle class.  And that deal just has to be structured in a way that’s balanced, that doesn’t protect the wealthiest by shifting burdens to seniors, for example, or students or the middle class. 

But he believes we can find a deal that should earn the support of Democrats and Republicans alike.

MR. CARNEY:  Andrei.

Q    Thank you.  You talk about the complex solutions, but looking here as an outsider, as a very sympathetic outsider, I see that the United States is basically the only country in the world — major, developed country — that has these terrible, recurring attacks — criminal attacks.  We’ve lived through similar things in Russia, but those were terrorist attacks.  The criminal attacks –

MR. CARNEY:  What’s your question, Andrei?

Q    My question is:  The solution is basically known, not even talking about the freedoms that Jake asked and I asked, that the President now asked.  Without gun control — okay, question — (laughter) — the question is, when you look at the solutions –

MR. CARNEY:  I thought you were going to ask me about permanent trade relations.  (Laughter.)

Q    When you look at the solutions, will you consider the experience of the outside world, the experience of other countries that do prevent such things?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that the President is going to engage the American public and — in trying to find a solution, or solutions, to the scourge of gun violence so that the kinds of things that happened — or what happened in Newtown, Connecticut don’t happen again in the future.  I think that this is — the comparative issue is not in the forefront here.  The issue here is what steps can we take, working together, to try to address this problem.

Q    Has he heard from his colleagues around the world about this?

MR. CARNEY:  He had not on this issue that I’m aware of.

Alexis.

Q    Following up on this, quick question.  Brianna was talking about the potency of the moment.  Is the President eager to talk about this in his inaugural address — that kind of outline of where we can go forward –

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any more details to give you about how or when the President will address this issue in coming weeks, except to cite what he said yesterday about doing so in coming weeks.

Q    And can I also ask, did the President talk to any other leaders on the Hill today?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any other conversations to read out to you today. 

Susan.

Q    So the timing of this horrific event and the nation mourning, and we have that sort of juxtaposed against this fiscal cliff deal — does that put any more pressure on you — sort of on Washington and the different players, the President and Speaker Boehner — to sort of get their act together, get a deal together?  Does it put more pressure on?  Because the nation is watching what Washington is doing right now as the President is speaking about how important it is to do something to discourage the gun violence, to do away with the scourge of gun violence.  But it’s coming at the same time, so my question is, does it put more pressure to get a deal done?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that that is an interesting question.  I would simply say that, echoing what the President said, that what happened in Connecticut reminds us truly of what matters most and what really matters in our lives, and it is also true that we have other challenges that have to be addressed.  And I think one of the reasons why it would be such a good thing if an agreement could be reached on these fiscal and budget issues, is that it would send a signal that Washington can function and that compromise can happen.

That was true — that is true more narrowly if the House would simply pass tax cuts for the middle class that supposedly House Republicans want as much as the President and Democrats want.  But it would also apply broadly to a bigger deficit reduction deal if one were achieved.

I think that on that issue, on the issue of gun violence, and on issue after issue, most Americans out in the country do not look at this as which side is up and which party is winning, but is Washington functioning and is it working in a way that’s good for the country and good for them.

So I hope that whatever the issue is, that we can come together and respond to that call and that desire.  I know that’s how the President feels.

Q    Thank you, Jay.

MR. CARNEY:  Thanks very much, guys.

END
2:07 P.M. EST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:10 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon.  Welcome to the White House.  I have no announcements to make.  I’ll go straight to the Associated Press.

Q    Thank you.  Speaker Boehner said today that he’s advised his members to not make plans for Christmas in an effort to sort of set expectations for the public here.  Are you looking at a situation where a deal is still likely before Christmas?  Or is the end of the year more realistic?

MR. CARNEY:  I can't speculate about the timeframe.  What the President is interested in is working with Congress to achieve a deal that avoids the fiscal cliff and, beyond that, addresses our long-term fiscal challenges in a balanced way.  He wants to makes sure, first and foremost, that the middle class does not have their taxes go up on January 1st.  That is something that Congress could do today.

The House of Representatives, or at least the House Republican leadership, has refused to take that action, has refused to give middle-class Americans that certainty.  Why?  Because they have refused to accept the fundamental fact that higher-income Americans, millionaires and billionaires, the top 2 percent of earners in America, are not going to have their tax cuts extended.  The President has made that clear, and he will not sign a bill that extends tax cuts for the top 2 percent.

And to tell the rest of the American people, to tell the 98 percent out there who have to plan for next year and the bill — and figure out how they're going to pay their bills that their taxes are going to go up because of indignation over the suggestion that people making 0,000 or 0,000 or million should get a tax cut, that's just not a position the President shares.

Q    The President has previously said, though, that he was hopeful, optimistic that a deal could be reached before Christmas.  Given what you said about Republicans not backing down on their position on taxes, is that still a realistic goal?

MR. CARNEY:  The President said yesterday that he remains confident that a deal is possible.  The parameters of what a deal would look like are clear.  And he has made abundantly clear, both in his policy presentations and in what he has said to you and to the American public, that he is willing to make tough choices on the spending side; to reduce our spending as part of a broad package that includes cuts in discretionary spending, savings from our entitlement programs and increased revenues that are borne by those in this country who can most afford it.  And he believes that a package like that is still possible and hopes that Republican leaders join the majority of the American people — another poll today demonstrating this, even close to 50 percent of Republicans in the country agreeing with this position — in acknowledging that rates have to go up on the wealthiest Americans. 

This is not new information for most people.  This was the  subject of fierce debate for an entire year.  The President’s views and intentions were made clear again and again when it came to this.  He is eager to find a compromise.  He understands that that would require tough choices by him and Democrats.  But a position that says we want tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and that is our number-one priority is not a position that the President could ever sign on to.

Q    On a separate topic, there are some reports that Syrian forces have fired Scud missiles at insurgents.  What can you confirm about those reports?  And if they prove to be true, does that cross any type of red line for the President?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I cannot confirm this story.  I have seen it.  Nor can I discuss intelligence, as you know.  But if true, this would be the latest desperate act from a regime that has shown utter disregard for innocent life, utter disregard for the lives of its own citizens.

Again, the idea that the Syrian regime would launch missiles within its borders at its own people is stunning, desperate, and a completely disproportionate military escalation.  What is clear is that the regime's efforts to defeat militarily the opposition are failing.  The opposition is becoming more unified, more organized.  In fact, there is an international conference, as you know, this week to further help the opposition as it organizes and unifies, and the sooner that Assad goes the better it will be for the Syrian people.

I know you know that the President yesterday announced our decision to recognize the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.  And we are working with our international partners to help strengthen the opposition and to further isolate and sanction the Assad regime.

Again, if this proves to be true, it's just another indication of the depravity of Assad and his cronies.

Q    So then you think it's true?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, I wouldn’t put this kind of act — it would not surprise me that Assad would take this kind of action, but I cannot confirm the reports at this time and I can't discuss intelligence.

Q    Jay, also on foreign policy, the existing sanctions regime against North Korea has not prevented it from doing exactly what it wanted, which is launching a long-range rocket.  What further sanctions or other options are there, either unilaterally or through the U.N. Security Council, to deal with this?

MR. CARNEY:  The United Nations Security Council is meeting today on this issue, and I would point you to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for indications of next steps within the Security Council.

What we have said, both leading up to and now in the aftermath of this launch, is that it was a provocative act that threatens regional peace and security and undermines the global non-proliferation regime.  And it is regrettable that the leadership in Pyongyang chose to take this course in flagrant violation of its international obligations.

As you know, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718 requires the DPRK to abandon its ballistic missile program in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.  U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 require Pyongyang to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and to reestablish a moratorium on missile launches.  Therefore this action is, again, in flagrant violation of a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions.  It demonstrates a decision by the regime to continue a pattern of disregard for its international obligations.

And what we have seen since the President came into office is the building of an international consensus that includes Russia and China in opposition to these actions.  I think you saw the Chinese made clear their opposition to this launch prior to it, and their regret over the fact that it took place after it happened.

So we will continue to work with our international partners to ensure that the North Korean regime is further isolated, that it is further punished for its flagrant violations of international obligations, and the specifics behind those further steps will await action in New York.

Q    You mentioned China.  Does the U.S. have a strategy for encouraging China to be more receptive to further sanctions against North Korea?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we engage with the Chinese, the Russians and others on the Security Council and beyond in our effort to build a consensus about the unacceptability of North Korea's actions with regards to its ballistic missile program and obviously its nuclear program.  And we will work with those partners and others as we move forward to make clear how isolated, how in violations of norms this action by North Korea  — how isolated the regime is and how in violation of its obligations North Korea is.

Q    Given what you're calling the flagrant violations by North Korea, does the President believe there is a way to stop them and it — does he believe another approach should be considered?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would simply say that the President is concerned about North Korea's behavior, and has been.  He has made non-proliferation a top national security priority and will continue to do that, and he will continue to work with his international partners, our international partners, to put pressure on North Korea, to isolate North Korea, and to impose consequences on North Korea for the actions that it continues to take. 

There has, and remains, a path for North Korea to end its isolation, but that requires abiding by its international obligations, abiding by the United Nations Security Council resolutions that I mentioned before.  And it has chosen not to, and therefore, there will be consequences for that.  I don't have a preview of next steps, but we take this matter very seriously and we take it — and we are not alone.  In fact, we are far from alone in taking this matter very seriously.

Q    On another topic, Ben Bernanke today announced continuation of the so-called stimulus policy of the Fed.  Is the President concerned that this could lead to inflation or weakening of the U.S. dollar?

MR. CARNEY:  You know that I won't comment on actions by the Fed from here.  The President is focused on, when it comes to economic policy, working with Congress to ensure that middle-class Americans don't have their taxes go up, to ensure that –

Q    Can it help with — in the context of the fiscal cliff, can it, in the President’s view, help create an environment in which it’s easier to get to a deal?

MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the question, but I won't comment on Fed action.

Yes, Jake.

Q    A White House official told me that in his counteroffer yesterday, Speaker Boehner asked for — part of his proposal was a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top two brackets, for all the Bush tax cuts but including the top two brackets.  The House Speaker’s office disputes that.  I was hoping that you could shed some light on what exactly John Boehner, in his counterproposal, suggested should happen.

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to get into the details of the proposals that have gone back and forth, but I can say that — because it has been public in the positions that the Speaker has put forward — that we do not accept the position that was outlined in the letter that the Speaker sent previously that Bush tax cuts for the top earners can be extended.  The President has made clear he will not support legislation that hands another tax cut to the wealthiest 2 percent of American earners.  We can't afford it.  It is bad economic policy.  And the result of pursuing that policy  would mean added burdens to the middle class, added burdens to seniors, added burdens to families with children who have disabilities.  That's unacceptable to the President.

He is willing to make tough choices and he has made clear and specified the spending cuts that he is willing to make, and he has said that he is willing to go further as part of a broader deficit reduction plan.  But he will not extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

And it is not a plausible position, as Jason Furman from the National Economic Council made clear in his presentation to you last week, to say that we can somehow magically achieve significant revenue on the order that we need for the balanced deficit reduction package simply by closing loopholes that they will not name, or capping deductions that they will not specify sometime in the future.  That is — those magic beans are just beans, and that fairy dust is just dust.  It is not serious.  And the President will not sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Q    Just to clarify, I'm telling you that a White House official told me that that was what Speaker Boehner said –

MR. CARNEY:  I understand.  I'm not disputing the characterization.  I'm just simply saying that we know what — and you know I'm not going to talk about internal discussions that have been taking place or proposals that are changing hands. It is, I think, explicitly in the letter that the Speaker put forward and made public –

Q    Right, but that was two weeks ago.

MR. CARNEY:  And I don't believe that we’ve heard anything from the leadership that suggests they have moved off their position — we certainly haven’t heard it publicly — anything from the leadership that suggests they have changed their position, which is they want an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest and that they hold out some vague promise that they can achieve significant revenue through closing loopholes and capping deductions.  Again — zero specificity on how that would happen.  And that's just not a position the President shares.  He will not accept an extension of those tax cuts.

And remember that the letter the Speaker put forward said that through that magical tax reform, they would lower rates.  So even a further additional tax cut for the wealthiest Americans is just not plausible economic policy.  And when Jason Furman stood up here and showed you why propositions suggesting that you can achieve levels of revenue that are necessary here don't hold water, he did it in a fact-based way — not in a single sentence or two that promises action in the future that everyone knows isn’t plausible.

Q    I wasn’t here when The New York Times published this report.  I’ve been — I was off for a couple weeks when The New York Times published this report about the Obama administration drafting policy for drones in the weeks leading up to the election just in case the Obama administration was not going to be in charge for the next four years.  Given the administration’s desire to be more — stated desire to be more open about its foreign policy, as exemplified by John Brennan’s speech a few months ago, is there anything more you can tell us about that policy?  Is there anything more we can expect in terms of transparency and discussion about the drone policy?

MR. CARNEY:  There is nothing more that I can add to that discussion beyond that John Brennan said in his speech that you refer to.  Obviously, the broader focus of the President on taking the actions that are necessary to keep America safe will continue.  But I don't have any more details about that issue in terms of moving forward.

Q    Those actions that are done in Yemen and Pakistan and elsewhere sometimes result in civilian deaths.  And yet because this program is not discussed very often, certainly not from that podium, but also not by the Pentagon and in press releases, we don't know what is being done in the name of national security that is resulting in not just bad guys being killed, but also sometimes women and children who are either related to the bad guys or just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Is there no desire for greater transparency at all when it comes to this?  I mean, would that not live up to the President’s desire for transparency as repeatedly stated?

MR. CARNEY:  Without discussing classified matters or other intelligence matters, I would point you to the remarks that John Brennan made, which I think demonstrate our position on these issues and the broader issue that you talk about in terms of transparency.  I just don't have anything new to say or to add to that conversation today.

Q    Thank you.

MR. CARNEY:  Kristen.

Q    Jay, thanks.  According to multiple sources, the conversation yesterday between the President and Speaker Boehner was tense.  How would you describe the phone call?  Is that accurate?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to dispute multiple unnamed descriptions.  I’d simply say that, yes, we confirm the call — one in a series of conversations, as well as a meeting, as you know, recently that the President has had with the Speaker aimed towards the effort of trying to find some common ground on this important issue.  And the President has made clear that his desire is to do a big deal that not only addresses the fiscal cliff but achieves the kind of significant long-term deficit reduction that has been the stated goal of many people for a number of years now on the order of roughly trillion. 

And he has put forward a plan to do that that includes spending cuts, entitlement reforms, and increased revenues from the wealthiest Americans.  And to achieve on the revenue side that package, it has to be done in a way that both raises rates and in an economically wise and politically feasible way, closes some loopholes and caps some deductions.  That’s the way to do it. 

And the President is open to other proposals.  He has made clear that he is not wedded to every item in his plan.  He knows that he will have to make tough choices, but there has to be a willingness on the other side to recognize some fundamental facts and one of the fundamental facts is that there is no way to do this without rates going up on top earners.

Q    There’s a sense that after yesterday and the sort of two proposals were offered, that these negotiations are, yet again, grinding to a halt.  Is that accurate?  Where do these negotiations stand and what’s the President going to do to move the process forward?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think you’ve seen the President actively engage in moving the process forward.  I think you’ve seen him make clear his willingness to make tough choices and also make clear what his principles are and what he won’t do, which is go along with a vague promise of insufficient revenue gleaned from unnamed sources in return for substantial cuts that affect programs like Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid.  That’s not a balanced plan.  And we know where the public stands on this.  And, look, we know where now dozens of Republicans — including elected officials, including members of Congress who are Republicans — stand on this. 

But the obstacle thus far has been the adamant refusal to accept the proposition that rates have to go up for the top 2 percent and that rates must continue to stay where they are so that there is no tax hike on 98 percent of the American people.  And I think what Republicans have to explain somehow is why — Republican leaders, anyway — why it is better for you, broadly speaking, the American people, 98 percent of you, to have your taxes go up if the wealthiest Americans don’t get a tax cut.

Q    But according to Speaker Boehner, the .4 trillion in new revenue that the President is now offering wouldn’t make it through the House, it might not make it through the Senate, so is it a realistic proposal?

MR. CARNEY:  The President has made clear his willingness to negotiate and compromise.  He has made clear his willingness to make tough choices.  He has put on the table specific cuts and savings in entitlement programs, including our health care entitlement programs.  He has put on the table specific ways that we can achieve the revenue targets that are necessary to have a balanced package.  And what we have not seen yet is any kind of specificity from Republicans on how they would do it differently. 
And, again, going back to the Speaker’s letter, it is not a realistic position to say that we can resolve this by extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and vaguely promising that we’ll glean additional revenue by closing loopholes and capping deductions in a way that everyone knows is unrealistic.

Q    But just to be clear, the President thinks it’s realistic to get .4 trillion in new revenues through the House?

MR. CARNEY:  The President — look, I can — and I’ve got page after page here.  I can read to you quotes from the press, probably some of them from NBC, Politico, Fox, elsewhere, of Republicans saying that they would accept a tax increase, or that tax increases have to be part of this for the wealthiest Americans, that rates have to go up –

Q    — the entire House.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, they're the people who vote.  And we’ve also heard again yesterday from the Business Roundtable, and individuals like the CEO of Goldman Sachs or others who have said rates going up has to be part of this package.

And the holdouts here seem to be those who are beholden to a subset of one party in one house of Congress, as opposed to those who are holding the broader American interest in mind as they approach this challenge, the goal of which is to achieve long-term deficit reduction in a way that will help the economy grow, help it create jobs that will give an enormous boost of confidence if achieved to our economy, and could potentially allow for substantially greater growth and job creation, which could create greater economic security for the middle class — and by the way, the way it did in the 1990s, even with higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, more millionaires and billionaires — the wealthy would do well, too.  That's the goal. 
The President’s vision here is an economy that allows for broad-based prosperity and broad-based opportunity.  It is not a vision that says we’re not going to do anything unless the top 2 percent get a tax cut.  It’s not his position.

Q    One question on Syria.  The administration has recognized the opposition forces, has also called al-Nusra a terrorist organization.  Some people within Syria are saying this is too little too late.  What is your reaction to those people?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the United States is working with a broad array of international partners in its support for the Syrian people and the Syrian opposition.  And a major step is being taken today, as the President made clear yesterday in recognizing the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

We will continue to provide support to the opposition — nonlethal.  And we will continue to provide humanitarian support to the Syrian people who are suffering greatly under the regime of Bashar al-Assad.  And the international community has been very clear in its views that are shared by the United States and shared by this President about which direction Syria has to go.

And the designation that you mentioned was a demonstration of the fact that we believe that those elements within the Syrian opposition who do not hold the views that Syria needs to move towards greater democracy and rights for their citizens, that they should be isolated.  Because the broader section of the opposition actually supports that, and that's why we’ve recognized the Syrian Opposition Coalition.

Major.

Q    Based on the conversation yesterday, how would you rate Speaker Boehner’s flexibility?

MR. CARNEY:  I won’t get into the conversations that the — the private conversations the President has with the Speaker or others.  I would simply say that, as made clear by the letter, that the Speaker made public –

Q    And reiterated in the call yesterday.

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’ll speak about the public presentation here.  There is no indication yet that the Republican leadership is willing to acknowledge the basic fact that rates need to rise on the top 2 percent in order to achieve the kind of broad-based deficit-reduction package that a significant majority of the American people support and even numerous Republicans have publicly come out in support of.

Q    Why did the White House lower its request for revenue? And how does it achieve that 0 billion?  What 0 billion did you take out of that request for extra revenue?  I’m told it’s from tax reform.  Is that true?

MR. CARNEY:  I can simply say that — well, it is our position that rates have to go up on the top 2 percent.  So that is absolutely the case.  It is our position, as Mr. Furman demonstrated in his presentation to you last week, that you cannot achieve significant levels of revenue solely by capping deductions or closing loopholes.  So that is why you have to have a combination package of both reforms that include those kinds of actions, as well as allowing rates to rise on top earners.

As to the proposal that you — or the offer that you reference, I mean, I think it demonstrates the fact that we are willing to try to find a compromise.  We are willing to try to work with the Republicans to find an agreement that achieves the broad-based deficit reduction that is supposedly the goal that we all share, and achieve it in a way that doesn't stick it to the middle class, that doesn't leave seniors holding the bag, and that asks, as the President made clear he thought was the right thing to do, asks those who can most afford it to pay a little bit more. 

And that's where he’s been, and it is demonstrated in the proposals he’s put forward.  And it is demonstrated in the spirit with which he has approached these negotiations.  He knows that compromise requires tough decisions by both sides, but it cannot require compromise by one side only.

Q    Why did you add yesterday corporate tax reform to the mix?  And how do you respond to the Speaker’s contention that that is a red herring, that they always assumed corporate tax reform would be part of these broader conversations on the future of the tax code, and it’s not a concession or an offer or a sweetner.

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not — what I won’t do is negotiate the particulars from here because I think that as I said yesterday and have said –

Q    That's been confirmed here and up on the Hill.

MR. CARNEY:  But again, I won’t negotiate the particulars of it.  The President supports –

Q    No, you’re not negotiating.  There’s something that’s been confirmed that was put on the table yesterday.  I’m just asking what –

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not disputing –

Q    Okay.

MR. CARNEY:  — anything.  I’m just saying I won’t — you citing what one party said and what others said about it — I will simply say that corporate tax reform is a goal the President shares with many members in Congress, as well as the business community, and it is one that he’s serious about and hopes to pursue. 

His goal is to try to find an agreement with Republicans that strengthens and protects the middle class, that helps our economy grow, that helps to create jobs and that achieves the deficit reduction that also will help our economy grow and create jobs in a balanced way.  So that's the President’s goal.

Q    Last question.  Based on where we are now, does the President feel it’s incumbent upon him to provide any new proposals to the Republicans?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to game out how the next days and weeks play out.  The process we hope will continue.  Again, there is a simple proposition here that –

Q    So it’s possible that if the Republicans can reiterate their position, the President could compromise some more?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think I’ve said before, we’re not going to just negotiate with ourselves.  But the President believes, as he said yesterday, that a deal is possible.  He’s confident that a deal is achievable.

Q    That was before the –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, there have been more than — obviously, he’s had more than one conversation with the Speaker and many conversations with many other stakeholders in this process and the process continues.  But let’s make clear what is absolutely his position — and he’s been clear about this for quite a long time.  He will not sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent.  It is not a viable position to say that the highest priority here should be that wealthy folks get another tax cut.  That is not good economic policy.  We can’t afford it. It’s not fair. 

And the President believes that the focus ought to be on the middle class here.  And if the focus were on the middle class universally up on Capitol Hill, 98 percent of the American people would already know that they were getting a tax cut next year.  But that hasn’t happened.

Q    You mean a tax –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s a tax cut compared to what current law is.  And let’s also recognize the fact here that when those who oppose that position say that we can’t hike taxes on the top 2 percent, nobody is asking them to vote for a tax hike for the top 2 percent. 

We’re asking that they vote for a tax cut — a tax cut extension for 98 percent of the American people, and to let the rest of that law stand as is, which means that those tax cuts for the wealthiest expire.  That’s how the law was written.  That’s how it was designed, as you know because you and I both covered it back in 2001 and 2003, with a 10-year window and then an extension — precisely because the designers, the authors of those tax cuts knew that they were explosively expensive in the out-years, knew that they were budget busters. 

And while they promised otherwise, that’s what America got. They got a series of economic policies that took record surpluses and turned them into record deficits, and now you have some of the same people who supported those policies saying we’ve got to do that again because it was so good for America.  The President disagrees.

Wendell.

Q    You said a short while ago the President is eager for a compromise.  How is that helped by him predicting publicly that Speaker Boehner will cave on the tax cuts for the top 2 percent?

MR. CARNEY:  Look, what the President was saying is reiterating his position, which is that he will not sign an extension of tax cuts for the top 2 percent, as I think I've made clear several times just today, and that a reasonable compromise has to include rates going up on the top 2 percent while taxes are cut for the rest of the country — income taxes.

And that, again, is a position that supposedly is universally supported up on Capitol Hill.  Let's give extended tax cuts to the middle class.  The President supports permanent extension of those tax cuts to the middle class.  And by middle class, again, we're talking about 98 percent of Americans.  And we should be able to act on that right away.  So the fact that the President is saying that –

Q    But he's not diplomatic in his language.  He predicted the Speaker will cave. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I think the President predicted that the Speaker would not want to hold a position, and that Republicans in general would not want to maintain a position that would result in everybody's taxes going up because of their insistence that the wealthiest Americans get a tax cut.  That doesn't seem like a very popular position to take.  But I will leave it to the Speaker and others to decide if that's the position that they'll maintain.

But the President believes that there is broad acknowledgement of the fact that rates need to go up for the top earners.  We had a sustained debate about this issue; the public has made clear their views on it, broadly speaking.  And he understands that as part of a broader deficit reduction package, that everyone is going to have to make some tough choices, including him, and he has demonstrated his willingness to do that.

Q    You've often said the President is the only party in this dispute that's put a comprehensive plan on the table, but that was the September plan of last year that included stimulus spending and various other things, and was rejected.

MR. CARNEY:  Actually, you're misremembering.  The September proposal that we’re talking about was the proposal to the super committee, aimed specifically at achieving the necessary deficit reduction that was –

Q    That is I presumed what you were talking about when you were talking about a detailed plan for spending cuts and stuff.

MR. CARNEY:  I held it up here just yesterday. 

Q    Exactly.  Why is that still relevant?

MR. CARNEY:  Why wouldn't it be?

Q    Because of things it includes, like stimulus spending and various other things that have been roundly rejected.

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, I think you're talking about — there is the President's proposal that he has put forward to leaders in Congress, that includes our belief that we need to make infrastructure investments; we need to make sure that millions of Americans don’t fall off a different kind of cliff when their unemployment insurance benefits expire.  Those benefits were extended under President Bush when the unemployment rate was lower than it is now. 

The specific spending cuts that we're talking about in the proposals the President put forward to the super committee in September of 2011 are absolutely viable today.

Q    So it's only portions of that plan that you say are –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I’m happy to go over the details of the plan.  There's the President's budget, there's the President's proposal to the super committee.  The goal of the super committee, which it failed to achieve, was to enact deficit reduction on the order of .2 trillion to avert the sequester.  Well, they didn't do that, so now the sequester is upon us. 

Mark.

Q    Jay, can I pick up on what Kristen asked you about earlier on Syria?  You talked about how designating a group like al-Nusra is a way of isolating an extremist force that doesn't share the U.S.'s vision for the future in Syria.  But based on our paper's reporting from the ground, that designation appears to have actually, far from isolating the group, unified people in Syria from secular liberals to conservative Islamists in rejecting the American action.  Many of these people view al- Nusra as, for whatever flaws it may have, one of the most effective fighting forces against the Assad regime.  So I'm wondering, in light of that, what evidence you can point to that there isn't a rising tide of anti-American sentiment in Syria, and that indeed, to use Kristen's words, that whatever the President did yesterday in terms of recognition is too little, too late.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I would dispute that characterization.  What the United States has done is recognize the main opposition group, the Syrian Opposition Coalition, and in doing so we've also — in designating al-Nusra as a terrorist organization, we've recognized that there are elements of — that the Assad regime is creating an environment essentially in Syria that fuels the growth of extremism, and the al-Nusra front is al Qaeda in Iraq's attempt to rebrand itself in order to hijack the struggles of the legitimate Syrian opposition to further its own extremist ideology. 

We firmly believe that the vast majority of the Syrian opposition do not share those extremist goals, and that we will work with the opposition — we, and broadly speaking with our international partners — in their efforts to isolate those with extremist views.  Because we believe that the Syrian people and the Syrian Opposition Coalition — reflected by the Syrian Opposition Coalition, are interested in a future for Syria that includes a transition towards greater democracy, greater rights for its citizens, more economic prosperity, and does not include enacting a vision propounded by extremists.

Q    Would you reject the contention that anti-American sentiments are on the rise in Syria?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I haven't made that assessment.  I would simply say that we encourage all responsible actors to speak out against and distance themselves from extremists like the al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front.  And we will continue to work with the Syrian Opposition Coalition and our international partners to achieve the kind of future in Syria that we firmly believe the vast majority of the Syrian people seek.

Q    Jay, you said “firmly believe,” but you guys got it firmly wrong in Libya and in Egypt, where you firmly believed that you were working with — I forget the phrase — moderates.  We now are heading towards a theocracy in Egypt.  We have the war in Libya spread out into Mali.  What's the evidence that your firm belief in the moderation of the Syrian group is correct?

MR. CARNEY:  We make assessments all the time.  We have spent a lot of time evaluating the Syrian opposition.  We've spoken about that from here.  The Secretary of State and others from the State Department have spoken about that.  And one of the reasons why we've taken the actions that we've just discussed is because we believe it is in the interests of all parties to speak out against the kind of extremist views that are represented and espoused by the al-Nusra Front, even as we support the democratic aspirations of the broader Syrian opposition and the Syrian people. 

Q    But what's the evidence that the moderates — forgive the phrase — are moderates?

MR. CARNEY:  I understand that you have an editorial opinion here, but the –

Q    Of course.

MR. CARNEY:  Of course.  (Laughter.)  But the fact is we believe, and we think there is ample evidence to support the idea that the Syrian people want a future free from Bashar al Assad and a future that is more democratic, a future that allows — that includes a government that recognizes the rights of the Syrian people and that allows for greater economic prosperity in a more peaceful country.

So it is in the United States' interests to work with the opposition and with our international partners to pursue that, and we will continue to do so.

Q    You need to explain that down the road.

Q    You do have a Friday deadline approaching for states to let the administration know if they're going to be part of this health care exchange under the Affordable Care Act.  What is the President's message to the majority of governors who are either sitting on the fence or flatly opposed to this thing?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would say that there have been a number of states who have — whose applications have been approved.  We've had over 20 states to date that have agreed to operate an exchange, either on their own or in partnership with the federal government.  And we will continue to work with states in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act because, as you know, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.  And the President's team will work to continue to implement that law.

We have, as an administration, consistently worked to give states the flexibility, time and resources they need to move toward — forward, rather, in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  And for details on that process, HHS is the best place to go.

But we believe there has been considerable progress towards implementation and more and more states that have either had their applications approved to run their own health insurance exchanges, or have agreed to operate an exchange either on their own or in conjunction with the federal government. 

Q    Process aside, though, Jay, is the President — this was his signature measure, as we all know.  Is he disappointed that most states still have not signed on to this thing?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the President is pleased with the progress that's been made, and he's — his administration is working to continue to implement the Affordable Care Act.  And that process continues.

Q    Why do you think most states have not signed on?

MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to HHS for details.  I think it is a fact that there was consideration of the Affordable Care Act by the Supreme Court and that decision was only earlier this year.  We continue to implement the law.  The Court upheld the law.  And the President looks forward to full implementation.

Q    Thanks.

MR. CARNEY:  Mara.

Q    Just a question about the fiscal cliff.  Clearly you've shown some flexibility on the amount of the revenues that you need.  I’m wondering how flexible the President is on entitlements, which is the other thing that Boehner needs in order to get his troops to do something that’s clearly outside of their comfort zone.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I won’t negotiate from here, but the President has made clear that spending reductions, including savings from our entitlement programs must be part of this broad package that also must include a balance, which means the revenues that we’ve talked about.  And he understands that he’ll have to make tough choices and that others will as well. 

But I won’t negotiate the specifics of what those choices will be.  I would point you to the fact that this President has already put on paper savings from entitlement programs and he has already implemented a law that the CBO acknowledges, or has shown in their documentation, is a long-term deficit reducer.  And it achieves savings in our health care costs rather than burden shifting of those costs over to seniors, which was the goal of the Republican proposal in the Republican budget.  That’s not an approach that the President supports, as I think he made amply clear over the past year that asking seniors to take on thousands and thousands of dollars in extra costs in order to give tax cuts to billionaires and millionaires — not the approach this President supports.

Q    Right, but the things you just listed that he’s proposed — is that what you mean by getting outside of your comfort zone generally?

MR. CARNEY:  If you’re asking me is he willing to do more, I think the President has made clear that he has made tough choices and he’s willing to make more tough choices.  But he is not going to accept a deal that extends tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that offers no specificity on how to achieve revenue targets, only vague promises that they can be achieved through some process of reform that in the Speaker’s letter suggests that we would lower rates again, give another tax cut to millionaires and billionaires.  That’s just not serious math and it’s not policy this President could accept.

Q    Does the President believe that the Republicans have to wave the white flag first on rates?  I’ve asked this before, but it seems like we still haven’t gotten beyond that.  Do they have to do that first before you can even discuss entitlements?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to get into the back-and- forth that has taken place and is taking place between Capitol Hill and the White House on the specifics of a hoped-for deal.  But I think the President has demonstrated in his proposals and in these negotiations his willingness to make tough choices.  But he is — has been and is very clear that there is not an avenue here to a deal that includes tax cuts for the top 2 percent.  I mean, those who continue to insist that that’s their bottom line seem not to understand that that’s not acceptable.  That cannot happen as part of this deal because it is simply not good policy.

And I've just been around long enough — and you have too, Mara — to know that we have recent examples of how these two policy positions play out and what results economically from the implementation of those policies.  And some of the very leaders on Capitol Hill who insist we can't raise rates on the wealthiest Americans — on millionaires and billionaires — because it would be bad for the economy insisted the very same thing in 1993, when those rates were first implemented under President Clinton.  And, boy, were they wrong. 

They don't really explain it well how they took that position and predicted with great confidence that it would lead to economic decline.  They don't explain how it led to the longest economic expansion in peacetime in the United States and the creation of vast amount of wealth not just for millionaires and billionaires, but for the middle class and 23 million new jobs.  Now, we have that to go by.

And then we have what happened after the implementation of a series, two, massive tax cuts, the benefits of which went disproportionately to top earners, surpluses turned to deficits and a cascading economic crisis and financial crisis and recession the likes of which none of us in our lifetimes have ever seen. 

It would seem that going out and saying we want to do that again would not be a great plan for — in an effort to get popular support.

Thanks.

END 
2:08 P.M. EST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:50 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  No announcements to make at the top, so I will go straight to your questions.  Mr. Henry is a bit disappointed that I have not a single announcement.

Jim.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  The Speaker, as you know, spoke today and turned the conversation over to the spending cuts and the fiscal cliff negotiations.  Two questions on that.  One is, does that suggest that there's been movement, since we're no longer talking about tax cuts or tax increases?  And where is the administration?  I know you guys have argued back that you have provided details on the spending cuts.  But are you prepared to offer more?  Today you have a letter from CEOs urging that spending cuts, entitlement adjustments and so forth be a multiple — a greater multiple than revenues.  Is the White House prepared to do more on that front?

MR. CARNEY:  Let me take your questions in relative order.  First of all, I did hear what the Speaker of the House had to say, and I would note that if there is one fact that should not be in dispute it ought to be this:  The President, unlike any other party to these negotiations, has put forward detailed spending cuts as well as detailed revenue proposals.  It is a simple fact that the President put those forward to the not-so-super super committee in September of 2011, and that he again, in the process of these negotiations, put them forward as his position when it came to both the revenue that was required to achieve the kind of balanced deficit reduction package on the scale of trillion that was necessary, as well as very specific spending cuts, including savings in entitlement programs.

And again, it's not a mystery.  We've seen this before.  This is the document that contains the specific spending cuts.  The Speaker of the House sent us a proposal that was two pages long that included one sentence on revenue.  The proposal here includes, I believe, from pages 17 to 45, details on proposed spending cuts by the President — pages 17 to 45.  I recommend them to you.

Now, it is entirely our expectation that Republicans may not agree with all of our spending cuts; Republicans may want to propose additional spending cuts.  And the President has said that he is prepared to make tough decisions.  He has said that he's not wedded to every detail in this plan and that he understands that compromise requires all sides to accept something short of the ideal, and he's committed to doing that.  What we haven't seen from Republicans, to this day, is a single specific proposal on revenue, and, in fact, we've seen less specificity from Republicans on spending cuts than the President himself has proposed.  So that's point one. 

I think that the letter you mentioned from the executives at the Business Roundtable adds to the growing chorus of voices from a variety of sectors of both our economy and the broader American public demonstrating a desire for compromise; demonstrating agreement that there has to be a balanced approach, an approach that includes revenues as well as spending cuts.  So we welcome that and agree with it.

Furthermore, on the ratio question, the President's proposals have, taken together, shown roughly two and a half dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue.  So we think that ratio makes sense.

Q    And for that, you're counting the trillion from the Budget Act and the savings from –

MR. CARNEY:  Everyone is counting the trillion from the Budget Act because it should be counted.  Let's go back, again, on the spending cuts:  While we have yet to see a single specific proposal from Republicans on revenues, the President has signed into law — law of the land — trillion in spending cuts, and he has proposed additional specific spending cuts as part of this document that I showed you.  So, absolutely.

When we talked about trillion, as did the Simpson-Bowles Commission and others, that was prior to the signing of the Budget Control Act.  And the trillion dollars in spending cuts that were agreed to by all sides and signed into law and voted for by Congress were part of, had there been a grand bargain, part of the trillion.

Q    One of the items in that book that you just showed us includes some Medicaid adjustments that presumably are part of this — part of the President's offer.  But there were reports yesterday that HHS is backing off some of these Medicaid changes that would allow for a blended percentage of rate adjustments with states.  Is that true?  And if you are backing down from some of these proposals, what does that say about where the President — how the President –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me say two things about that.  While there has been a call for greater specificity in where the cuts  — the fact is this document was produced more than a year ago and has been available to everyone in this room for that time, and everybody on Capitol Hill.  So that is a fact.  As part of that fact, there have been some changes in the world that affect some of the proposals here, including the Supreme Court's decision.  And so some — a very small percentage of the provisions in here, the proposals in here that affect Medicaid we would no longer put forward but would absolutely make up in terms of the size of savings in other ways.  But we're talking about 10 percent here; nothing too sizable.

Q    Can I follow on just on that specific question?

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.

Q    So isn't it 0 billion in Medicaid savings?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have the details in front of me.  It's not on that scale when we talk about the overall percentage of — when we talk about the overall amount of entitlement program savings as well as, broken out, the health care savings.  So –

Q    But didn't the President also offer, and wasn't this also on the table during the last fiscal cliff negotiations or whatever it was called at the time — I guess the debt ceiling negotiations?  Wasn't that one of the items on the table that the President had already agreed to, the 0 billion in –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't have the specifics for the different iterations here.  But time has passed, and there have been some impacts on the Medicaid program that changed our calculations on this.  But we're not talking about a sizable portion of the proposed — specific proposed savings from health care entitlements or overall savings from mandatory entitlement programs.  And we would find other savings.  We would propose — we will propose other savings to make up for the difference.

The fact is, is that the vast majority of these proposed savings account for a higher degree of specificity than we have seen, by far, from the Republicans.  And going back to the revenue side of this, we've seen exactly no specificity from the Republicans except for a vague promise of an insufficient number — 0 billion in revenue — gleaned from unnamed closed loopholes and capped deductions. 

So if the issue is where are your proposals, I think we've answered that question in full, acknowledging that we're not going to get exactly what we've put forward, that there's a discussion and negotiation that has to take place.  And the President has been very clear that he understands that and that he'll make some tough choices in order to reach a balanced proposal on the scale that he's talked about.

Jeff.

Q    Jay, the Speaker's comments today seem to indicate that despite his meeting with the President on Sunday here at the White House, that very little progress has been made.  Does the White House share that assessment?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't think that's what he said.  I think he said that the discussions have been cordial, and we would agree with that, and we think that lines of communication remain open. But what we're not going to do is give a daily or hourly assessment of whether or not progress is being made, or what specific items are being discussed, because we don't think that's fruitful or helpful towards achieving the goal that we think we all share, which is reaching a compromise that Congress can pass and the President can sign into law. 

Q    You don't think it's helpful to say whether there’s progress being made?

MR. CARNEY:  I answered this question yesterday.  I don't think it is helpful to give hourly or daily readouts of progress, because our interest is in achieving a workable compromise that reflects the principles the President has talked about so clearly and has put forward before the American people for so long when it comes to having balance and making sure that everyone pays their fair share; and, as part of that, requiring that Republicans acknowledge and accept that rates are going up for the top earners in this country, and that a certain amount of revenue has to be a part of this deficit reduction package in order for it to be balanced, so that we’re not asking seniors, or the middle class, or students, or families with disabled children to bear the burden, in exchange for some vague promise that the top earners in this country might pay a little bit more down the road.  That's not the kind of deal that can work.

But there is a deal out there that's possible, and we do believe that the parameters of a compromise are pretty clear.  What is required is agreement by Republicans to some specific revenues that includes raising rates on the highest earners, and some decisions in the two-stage process that we’ve put forward and I think the Republicans agree on, on how we move forward on spending cuts and broader entitlement and tax reform.  So these things are possible, but they're less possible if we try to negotiate them on an hourly or daily basis in the media.

But having said that, I understand and I sympathize with the desire for more detail.  And if it weren’t for the broader interest here, which is in trying to allow some space for the parties to see if they can achieve a compromise, I’d be spilling my guts from here.

Yes.

Q    Just one follow-up? 

MR. CARNEY:  Sorry.  Yes.

Q    Yes, it’s just one follow-up, and that is, in terms of the deadline, as the end of the year draws near, at what point do you have to have some kind of an agreement at least in principle to give Congress enough time to pass it?

MR. CARNEY:  That sounds like a question for Congress, and I wouldn’t hazard a guess.

Yes, Kristen.

Q    Jay, thanks.  I want to go back to something that Vice President Biden said on Friday.  He seemed to suggest that there was room to negotiate on the tax rates for the top income earners.  This is something that we’ve obviously talked about.  He kind of made a more definitive statement.  He said, “theoretically, we can negotiate how far up, but we think it should go up” — referencing the rates.  Is that something that the President agrees with?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, I would simply point you to what I have said and the President has said and others have said, including the Vice President, and that is there is a clean and simple way to do this that achieves the kind of revenue package that is necessary in terms of its scope for the balance that's required in a fair plan for broad deficit reduction:  Extend tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people; do nothing on rates for the top 2 percent.  That means you don't have to vote to raise taxes.  You simply let current law stay at it is, which would result in those rates for top earners, above 0,000, going back to the rates from the Clinton era; and then find those targeted loopholes that you can close and deductions that you can cap that, combined with the revenue gleaned from raising rates, produces a size of — in the scope that’s necessary for the balance that we’ve talked about.

As I’ve said before, there’s no — the fact that there could be theoretical ways of reaching that goal that are different from the one proposed by the President may be true, but we have yet to see anything along those lines from our negotiating partners, any specificity at all, or any acknowledgement in any concrete way from Republican leaders even that rates have to be part of this.

Q    It seems like the Vice President was signaling that they don’t have to go all the way back up to that 39.6 percent figure.  Is he suggesting that might be the way to –

MR. CARNEY:  The way you said it is theoretically, and I’m saying that a discussion about what’s theoretically possible could go on forever.  What is concretely possible is that we extend tax cuts for virtually 98 percent of the American people, allow rates to raise for the top 2 percent of earners, and address the loopholes and deductions in a way that achieves the kind of revenue package that we need for a broader deficit reduction goal.  That’s what’s on the table and that’s the way to do it.  Talking about what’s imaginable is one thing.  What we haven’t seen is anything like a concrete proposal from the Republicans when it comes to revenue.

Q    I want to take one more stab at the timeline question as well.  A lot of people are saying that you actually have to get a broad framework by this Friday.  Does the President see it that way — in order for this to get passed by December 21st?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to set deadlines.  I don’t think that’s helpful to the process.  You can certainly either speak directly with people on Capitol Hill or have your colleagues up there do that to find out what their assessments are about how long it would take Congress to act on certain possible legislation. 

Our focus right now is working to see if we can reach an agreement that helps us avoid the so-called fiscal cliff and also achieves a broader deal, which would address this longer-term deficit challenge that we face in a way that helps the economy grow and create jobs.  That’s our focus at the moment.  And we believe there is time.

Dan.

Q    On Susan Rice, the clock is winding down on Secretary Clinton’s time at the State Department.  She’s expected to leave at the end of next month.  And there’s been a lot of speculation that the decision would have been made by now as to who will replace her.  What is the holdup?  Is there a holdup?

MR. CARNEY:  There’s no holdup.  The President has made no decisions and I have no personnel announcements to make.

Q    Jay, can I ask a question?

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.

Q    About the decision to allow corporate donations for the inaugural festivities, why did the President change his mind on that?

MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to PIC, which has been set up and I think is taking questions on that.  I haven’t had that discussion.

Q    The President was part of the Transition Committee in 2008 and 2009 when they announced that the reason that they were setting up these new limitations was part of President-elect Obama’s pledge to put the country on a new path.  This is not just a PIC decision.  This is a presidential decision.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I understand, but PIC is handling questions like that.  I haven’t had that discussion with anyone here.  It’s the province of the Inaugural Committee so I would address your questions there and I’m sure they are taking questions like that.

Dan.

Q    I just wanted to continue on that.  Is the thinking that the President, the White House wants to get the fiscal cliff situation settled before the President starts making any announcements about nomination?

MR. CARNEY:  The President is working on a number of issues including resolving the fiscal cliff — working with the Speaker of the House and other congressional leaders, also engaging with business leaders and labor leaders and others on that important issue.  And he’s certainly engaging in discussions about some of the personnel decisions that we all know he will be making.  But I haven’t got a timeline for you about when you’ll hear those announcements.  And since, as previous questions indicate, I can't give you a date for when we're going to resolve the fiscal cliff challenge, I wouldn't say that any other decisions or announcements are dependent upon that.

Q    And you don't really want to give any kind of a characterization of what happened in that meeting between the President and Speaker Boehner, but the White House has often talked about how there’s a need for certainty in the market for businesses to know what’s going to happen so they can start hiring, for middle-class Americans to know that their taxes are not going to go up.  So what is the harm in giving some progress report, that you're more optimistic now than you were last week that this deal will get done?

MR. CARNEY:  I would say that the best thing we can do for the middle class is take concrete action by having the House pass the tax cut for the middle class.  The President would sign it into law.  The best thing we can do for business confidence is produce a compromise that averts the fiscal cliff and achieves a broad-based, balanced deficit reduction package that helps our economy grow and helps it continue to create jobs. 

The ups and downs that always take place in negotiations like these I think are probably not all that conducive to creating certainty because, as you’ve seen from the variety of rumors that come out, that one hour it’s the talks are over, there’s no progress, the next hour is there’s progress, and a lot of tea leaf reading — I don't think that — having me participate in that kind of speculation probably doesn’t help the process. 

And like I said to Jeff, I really — I understand there’s great interest in this, not just in this room but around the country, and we all here appreciate that.  And this is important, and it’s because it’s important that we believe it’s most helpful to the process to try to let those who are working on these challenges and trying to reach a compromise work with as much — with the ability to focus on that work, rather than the kind of conversation on the outside, as much as possible.

Let me get Major.

Q    Jay, when you say “the work,” what kind of work are you talking about?  Lines of communication are open.  So far as I can tell, and based on your comments at the podium just now, no proposals are being exchanged.  There are no ideas being bandied back and forth between the White House and congressional Republicans.  It sounds like we're stuck. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, Major, I'm not going to read out what’s happening.  And so I would neither confirm, nor deny any characterizations about what’s happening or the progress that's being made beyond the fact that we confirmed the meeting the President had; we've confirmed various phone calls and other activity — in part because some of it takes place on Capitol Hill with some members of the President’s team and we can't really keep that secret.  But I'm not going to talk about –

Q    — it sounds as if there’s nothing actually being exchanged between the two sides who have to create a deal.

MR. CARNEY:  I'm simply responding to the public statements by the Speaker of the House.  I'm not going to characterize internal negotiations. 

Q    Okay.  Can you tell us and the public what the coverage will be of the swearing-in for the President on Sunday for the inauguration?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't believe those decisions have been made, and I'm sure once they –

Q    Why is it even a question?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't know that it’s an open question.  Nobody has — we just haven’t had discussions about press coverage.

Q    But the public would be entitled to –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I just don't have an answer for you on that.  But I'm sure there will be and we'll make sure –

Q    There will be coverage?

MR. CARNEY:  — I'm sure there will be an answer for you.  We haven't made those –

Q    You can't guarantee the public there will be coverage?

MR. CARNEY:  Major, I'm telling you that we don't have an answer for you yet, but I'm sure we will soon.

Q    You’ve invited a lot of us to look at the details when you talk about the mandatory spending cuts.  I take you up on your invitation.  On the 0 — not the health care savings, but the other entitlement spending cuts that are identified — would you say that those represent efforts to make the government smaller and reduce the size and scope of government activity?  Because that's a priority for Republicans. 

MR. CARNEY:  I think this President is committed to reducing spending by government — and spending including tax expenditures, as the Simpson-Bowles Commission identified them — and to having a leaner, more efficient government and a more effective government.  That's been reflected in the steps he’s taken to reduce spending.  What he signed into law last summer represented one of the largest cuts in discretionary spending in generations.  And he is continued to committed — he continues to be committed to doing that. 

What he does not believe is helpful is making cuts in areas of investment that actually help the economy grow like research and development or education.  This was some of the debate we had.  And I would note that the irony of this — and it goes to the broader point about I think some misunderstandings about what we’re contemplating.  What I think a lot of people don't understand is that the fiscal cliff is not about spending; it’s about cutting spending too fast and the impact that would have on our economy.

Q    I understand that.  But we’re just talking about other non-health care mandatory savings that the administration put forward — 0 billion of that 0 billion is better IRS enforcement, meaning more rapid and efficient gathering of tax revenue; and a billion financial crisis fee, which is a tax. And then there’s a billion changing in payment on timing.  That's only a one-time-only savings.  And billion from higher fees for federal employees.

Republicans would look at that and say that's not reducing the size, scope of government.  That's fees, better IRS enforcement and making federal employees pay more.  That's not really changing anything structurally in the federal government.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, here’s what I would say.  As demonstrated by your recitation, there’s a lot of specificity in there.  We have not seen anything like that kind of specificity from Republicans.  And what I said at the top is, no question Republicans may have different proposals; we just haven’t seen them with any great specificity about how they would reduce spending.

Q    But those aren’t reductions –

MR. CARNEY:  And they may want –

Q    — they're fees, mostly.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I don't have the item-by-item here to go over.  I have the document, but I’m not going to go item by item with you.  There are significant savings represented that the President put forward.  If the Republicans have specifics that they want to put forward, they ought to do that.  And then we can discuss about how we achieve that kind of balanced package that I think most people agree is necessary to help our economy and most people agree is fair when it comes to everyone bearing the burden fairly and equally to get our deficits under control.

Q    Jay, to Major’s point on the size of government, if you look at Labor Department statistics, there have been about 135,000 more federal workers hired during the President’s first term — it’s about 95 workers per day, every day in his first term.  Is that really reducing the size of government?  To Major’s question about — since this whole exercise in part is about reducing the size of the debt, is the President proud of the fact that the number of federal workers is increasing?  And do you see in the second term any decrease in that number coming?

MR. CARNEY:  The President has put forward a proposal to streamline and reorganize the variety of agencies that deal with commerce in the federal government and exports.  And as part of asking Congress for the authority for that kind of reorganization that existed up through President Reagan, he has made — he has added as an incentive a component of that request that would require any reorganization to save money for the taxpayer, to save federal dollars.  So I think that demonstrates his commitment to making a more efficient and effective federal government.

The broader issue here is how do we make choices that ensure that the middle class is protected, ensure that our economy continues to grow, ensure that it continues to create jobs, that we are making investments in education and research and development and infrastructure that the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, as well as the President of the United States all agree are essential for long-term economic growth. 

That's the vision the President has.  That's the vision he talked about during the campaign.  Again, we have put forward a specific set of proposals on both the revenue and the spending side.  We look forward to specificity from the Republicans.  And the President believes that we can reach an agreement if everyone acknowledges that they’re not going to get what they want and everyone acknowledges that the agreement has to be balanced, that it cannot — we had the debate about whether we should put this all on the backs of senior citizens and middle-class Americans and families with kids who have disabilities, and I think that debate was settled.  The American public, by and large, does not support that approach. 

The approach they do support is one that asks everyone to pay their fair share, that includes asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more, but that also demands that we all contribute and that our government perform efficiently and effectively.  And the President understands that he’s going to have to and he is ready and willing to make some tough choices as part of that process.

Q    Quick question on Michigan and the right-to-work debate, which has gotten a bit testy today on the House floor.  There’s one Democrat, Doug Geiss, who said today that if this right-to-work initiative is signed into law, “there will be blood.”  Since the President weighed in yesterday, and obviously made his feelings known, but has talked about changing the tone here in Washington and around the country, does the White House feel any obligation to tell fellow Democrats to debate this issue, but debate it in a peaceful and sort of –

MR. CARNEY:  The President believes in debate that’s civil.  I haven’t seen those comments and I’m not sure that they mean what some would interpret them to mean.  I just haven’t seen them.  You heard the President talk about his views.  He has always opposed the so-called right-to-work laws.  As he said, those laws are generally political and not economic.  They’re more about the right to earn less pay than they are helpful to our economy.  And he presented those views yesterday in Michigan.

Q    Last thing on that — when we were asking about the Chicago teacher strike in September, right before the election when that was getting a little tense, you were kind of suggesting it was a local issue.  At one point you said that the President “has not expressed any opinion or made any assessment about this particular incident” that was going on in his hometown in terms of the teacher strike.  So why was this different?  This is playing out in Michigan.  It’s playing out in various states; we saw it in Wisconsin several months ago.  Why all of a sudden — I understand that he was in the state of Michigan, but he was also — he’s from Chicago.  So why did he not weigh in before the election?

MR. CARNEY:  The President’s position on right-to-work laws, so-called right-to-work laws is well known.  He stated before.  He stated it again yesterday.  The specific teacher strike was one where he called on all sides to work together to reach a compromise that was in the interest of the children, who had the most to lose from a prolonged strike.  And he welcomed the resolution of that strike.

Let me move around.  Peter.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  Yesterday we saw an e-mail come out from a campaign official urging people, the President’s supporters, to contact members of Congress and express support for the President’s view of — proposal for resolving the fiscal cliff.  Does the White House believe that this debate will be solved through internal negotiations between the parties or through outside pressure being brought to bear from the general public?

MR. CARNEY:  Both.  It’s our position that this is one of those issues that is very important to the American public, an issue that affects everyone, and one where it’s absolutely appropriate for the President and for members of Congress to engage with the public on and seek their opinions and encourage members of the public to participate by adding their voices to the debate. 

We were talking about this I think the week before last in anticipation of a trip the President was going to make, and to me, I think it makes all the sense in the world for leaders in Washington to go out in the country and engage the American people on these incredibly important issues.  I mean, we saw that this was the subject of sustained debate during the campaign, and I think that reflected the assessment of both the candidates and their campaigns that this was of great interest to the American people.  And it remains of great interest, because they have a great deal at stake. 

I mean, think about it:  If Congress fails to act, taxes go up on everyone.  Everyone who pays income taxes will see a tax hike.  The President believes that that should not happen, that the House of Representatives ought to follow the Senate’s lead and pass a bill that extends tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people because supposedly we all agree that that’s what should be done.  So let’s get it done and — as many Republicans have now said, let’s get that done and continue to debate about whether or not the top 2 percent should get another tax cut. 

You know the President’s views on that.  You know the public’s views on that.  But we ought to take care of extending those tax cuts for the middle class.  So the answer, again, is both.  We will continue to engage with leaders on Capitol Hill.  We’ll continue to engage with a broader coalition of people who have a stake in this, and that includes ordinary Americans out in the country.

Yes, Mara.

Q    Given that he’s dark today, doesn’t have anything scheduled public in the days to come, whereas in the past week or so he did something almost every single day — either with stakeholders or a family or went on Twitter — is there a change now?  Are things kind of moving indoors and there will be less — this is not the time to do something public every single day?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we did travel to Michigan.  It was only yesterday — only yesterday.

Q    This is a day-by-day kind of thing?

MR. CARNEY:  So I’ve gotten one question about how come he’s going out and campaigning among the people, and the next question is how come he stopped campaigning among the people. 

Q    Has he stopped for the moment?

MR. CARNEY:  No, and I wouldn’t expect that he will.  I wouldn’t expect that he will stop engaging with the American people in the manner that he has at any time during the next four-plus years.

Q    So what’s the next thing that he’s going to do?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have a scheduling announcement for you, but you can be sure that the approach that we’re taking, which includes engaging with leaders on Capitol Hill and it includes engaging with the broader public, will continue.

Q    Jay, I understand your wish to leave the negotiated space and room to maneuver and all the rest of it.  But one of the parties to the negotiations just finished holding forth on Capitol Hill and said you folks are slow-walking this.  Are you slow-walking?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m speaking for another party to the negotiations, and my response is we would like to see some specifics.

Q    But that's not even a yes or a no.  It’s just –

MR. CARNEY:  We’re not going to characterize the internal process here, the phone calls or the conversations or the meetings.

Q    But that confirms they're not specific conversations, right?

MR. CARNEY:  I said that in response to the inaccurate suggestion that we haven’t put forward spending cuts, I pointed out that we have.  And I pointed out that Republicans have thus far not proposed a single specific savings through revenue, and we would welcome it if they did.

Roger.

Q    Hill Republicans are saying that talks on a budget plan remain deadlocked because the administration’s negotiators have taken different positions than what the President did when he spoke with Mr. Boehner on the 9th; different positions — they vary on revenue as well as the amount of spending cuts.  Can you –

MR. CARNEY:  I’m just not going to comment on internal — conversations that the President had, meetings the President had, meetings and conversations that the President — the members of the President’s team have had because it doesn't help the process.  And speculation about what was said and spin about what it means does not in my view or our view help the process move forward.

And we hope and remain optimistic about the possibility of an agreement being reached, and that is why we are taking the approach that we’re taking.

Q    A follow-up on what Jim and Jake were asking about, that 0-billion item — in the September 19th proposal from 2011 that's now off the table, you said because it’s been — it’s changed a little bit since it’s been more than a year.

MR. CARNEY:  There has been — there are some changes to our views on that, but it does not represent a sizeable portion of the overall savings put forward in the proposal.  And again, we’re committed to achieving that level of savings.

Q    Okay.  The 0 billion was about one-third of the health savings, which was 0 [billion].

MR. CARNEY:  And I’m saying that the issue here, the changes that we would make do not represent a third.  They represent a much smaller portion.

Q    Okay, has there been any replacement –

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll have to get more –

Q    — and substitute?

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll have to see if we have more specifics for you.

The point I’m making, though, is that the President has put forward spending cuts and will continue to do that in discussions if we get to a point where there is an acceptance and acknowledgement of the fact that as part of this, rates have to go up on the top 2 percent; revenue has to be for a big deal of the — on the order that we’ve been talking about and that everybody who has looked at this has been talking about.  And we will not — there’s no deal that envisions — there’s no deal available that will see the tax cuts of the Bush era for the wealthiest Americans extended.  And it’s simply not acceptable to have a deal where all these specific burdens are placed on the middle class and seniors and others, on the one hand, and then there’s some vague promise that tax reform will produce savings from wealthy Americans sometime in the future without any specifics.  That can't be how it works.

Mark.

Q    Jay, how do you explain this enormous disconnect that you say the President has put forward spending cuts, and yet today Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell say no, you haven’t.  There’s no leadership on that.  They haven't gotten any.  Isn’t that something you need to address?

MR. CARNEY:  I have.  And I think I made –

Q    — pages 17 through 45, is that –

MR. CARNEY:  I’m making it clear that that assertion is incorrect.  We all know it is because we have access to the computer.  I don't have any more hard copies for you, but I can give you the link.

And having said that, I also acknowledge, as the President has, that in seeking a broader compromise, we understand that not every detail of his proposal will make it into the final product, and that there will be tough choices that he will have to make as part of that.

And we recognize that Republicans might have different spending cuts that they would prefer over the ones the President has put forward.  They might and I think are probably likely to suggest that there should be more, greater spending cuts than the President has put forward.  We acknowledge all of that.

But on the question of whether or not we have put forward specific spending cuts, the answer is we have.  And not only that, we’ve signed into law a trillion dollars in specific spending cuts.  So if you combine what’s signed into law with what we’ve proposed versus the total absence of any specificity from Republicans for a single dollar in revenue, and I think in the battle of specificity, the outcome has already been decided.

We’re looking for more concrete specifics from them, and I understand that this is a negotiation.  And we continue to be optimistic that — or hopeful that we can reach a deal.

Q    Do you understand why the Republican leaders might say they didn't receive any when you say they have?

MR. CARNEY:  Mark, can we just end the charade here that we say they have?

Q    Well, we didn't go to the floor of the Senate and the House saying this.  They did.

MR. CARNEY:  No, no.  But it’s not that we say one thing and it might be true, and they say one thing and it might be true.  This is a real piece of — this is a real document here with pages and tables and numbers.

Now, I understand they may not agree with all of it, but it exists and it was put forward.  And the President understands that there’s more to this process than just his proposal.  But it has — it contains specificity and detail, and it is certainly — it certainly represents his willingness to enact further spending cuts to achieve savings through our health care entitlement programs, as well as other entitlements.  And it represents his belief about how we can achieve the kind of revenue that's necessary for a balanced package in a way that ensures that we don't put all the burden for long-term deficit reduction on seniors or the middle class or other vulnerable communities.

Q    Syria, Jay?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, Syria. 

Q    Can you explain to us which groups you're going to support and which groups you won’t and what your reasoning is?

MR. CARNEY:  I can say a few things.  Tomorrow, Deputy Secretary of State Burns will attend the Friends of Syria   — Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Morocco.  We will do all we can to broaden our support of the Syrian opposition coalition and to work with like-minded countries to bring this crisis to an end.

We are pleased with the Syrian Opposition Coalition’s continued efforts to organize, form technical committees, engage with the international community, and take concrete steps to promote a unified, just, democratic future for Syria.

These actions are in line with what we and our international partners hoped would result from the formation of the Syrian Opposition Coalition in Doha last month.  As we look to tomorrow’s meeting and our ongoing efforts to support the Syrian people, let me be absolutely clear:  The United States stands with the Syrian people in insisting that any transition process result in a peaceful, unified, democratic Syria, in which all citizens are protected — Sunni, Alawite, Christians, Kurds, Druze, men, women and children.  And a future of this kind cannot include Bashar al Assad.

Q    Still no plans for the U.S. to get involved militarily?

MR. CARNEY:  That's correct.  We provide significant assistance to the Syrian people in humanitarian aid.  We provide significant non-lethal assistance to the opposition.  But our position on providing lethal aid has not changed.

Q    Jay, can I follow up on Syria?

MR. CARNEY:  Okay, let me — I've got to get to some folks in the back.  But go ahead, Kristen, on this.  On Syria, go ahead.

Q    Okay, thank you.  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta seemed to suggest that the Syrian government had slowed its preparations of chemical weapons, that the administration is not as concerned about this as it may have been last week.  Can you talk a little bit about that?  Is that accurate, and what has changed?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not going to get into assessments beyond what Secretary of Defense Panetta said.  I would simply reiterate our clear warning to the Assad regime about the potential use of or proliferation of chemical weapons.  And that warning was made by the President, and that warning stands.

We take this very seriously.  And were the Assad regime to unwisely make the wrong choice here, there would be consequences.

Q    Jay, the incoming and outgoing leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee have written a letter calling on the President to close the PLO office in Washington.  Will he do that?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven't seen the letter.  I'll have to take the question.

Yes, Alexis and then Justin.

Q    Jay, to clarify, when you're saying that the administration is looking for concrete specifics, and then you also say that you're not discussing the Sunday meeting between the President and the Speaker, are you separating the two?  Are you saying the concrete specifics have to be publicly and brought forth by Republicans?  Or are you saying that the President spent a lovely moment in time on Sunday with the Speaker talking about generalities?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm trying to be incredibly opaque about the distinction.  I know, look — (laughter) –

Q    It's working.

MR. CARNEY:  It's working.  (Laughter.)  The Speaker made a public statement and I'm responding to that with the fact that we have put forward specifics, and that answers his charge that we have not put forward specific spending cuts.  We have.  We understand that Republicans may not agree with all of them, but it is simply uncontestable that we have put forward a plan with spending cuts. 

Beyond that, and beyond our insistence — our public insistence that Republicans accept and acknowledge that rates on top earners have to go up, and accept and acknowledge that any package on the revenue side would have to include that element, I'm not going to get into the sausage-making or the internal discussions and deliberations, only because we hope that this process actually produces a positive result.  I’m not guaranteeing that, but I’m saying that this is the reason why we’re not really commenting on the process, or at least trying not to.

Q    Well, actually, I’m not asking about the process.  Do you want us to come away with the thought that the Speaker came to the White House and that two men did not discuss these two things?

MR. CARNEY:  I want to leave your thoughts to you and not frame them or shape them on that issue.  I think I would simply say that the President met with the Speaker and as a part of a series of engagements with the Speaker, as you know, and that the lines of communication remain open, as we have said, and that we hope the process moves forward.

Q    And can you also add when was the last time that the President talked with Harry Reid — Senator Reid?

MR. CARNEY:  I believe it was yesterday.

Q    There was a poll released this week that showed 76 percent wanted across-the-board spending cuts as part of the deal, which is a higher margin than actually said they wanted tax increases on the rich.  But I also want to ask about the timeline for spending cuts.  A complaint among some conservatives in the past has been when these deals have been made, so much — .00 in spending cuts for every .00 in tax increases, the cuts are always out 10 years ahead or 5 years ahead, or somewhere along the line.  Would the White House agree to something along the lines of upfront cuts early on?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would make two points.  The first is that when rates rise on the top 2 percent, as a subject much discussed during the campaign, the savings achieved from that would be gleaned over 10 years.  It’s not collected all in the first week or month or even year.  This is — all of this is about a period of over 10 years, both the savings from spending cuts and the savings from revenue increases.  That’s one.

Two, the President has signed into law specific spending cuts as part of the Budget Control Act.  What we have not seen, as I’ve said already, is any specific proposal from Republicans — at least Republican leaders — about how we achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary for a balanced approach.

So the President is committed to achieving a package that includes all three pieces here:  the discretionary spending, much of which we’ve signed into law; the savings from entitlement programs, and the savings from revenue.  And he looks forward to reaching a compromise with the Speaker of the House and others.

Justin.

Q    Jay, will the administration take a public stance on the Proposition-8 case that was taken up by the Supreme Court on Friday, in particular some of the broader questions raised by that case, including whether or not the Constitution protects the rights of same-sex couples to marry?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I appreciate the question, but for comment on the Court’s actions on that case, I would point you to the Department of Justice.  As you know, the administration is not a party to this case, and I just have nothing more for you on it.

Q    Did the President have any reaction to the court taking up the DOMA or the Prop-8 case?

MR. CARNEY:  I have nothing more for you on that.  Appreciate it.

Q    — going to be able tell us what the President’s views are on that case.  Is the President not concerned about the outcome of that case?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I just don’t have anything more for you, and I’d refer you to the Department of Justice.

Thank you all very much.
   
END
2:40 P.M. EST

White House.gov Press Office Feed