If you are old enough to remember the 1990s when the Republican party did everything in their power to destroy President Bill Clinton and his wife, you know what’s going to happen if the Democrats lose control of Congress in this year’s election. It’s going to be all-out war against President Obama. The government will cease to function. We might actually see another Newt Gingrich-esque shut down of the federal government entirely. There will be one investigation after another and the White House will be unable to govern, and that’s the point.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is correct, it’s going to be a witch hunt.

The last time a Democrat sat in the White House, he faced a nonstop witch hunt by his political opponents. Prominent figures on the right accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from drug smuggling to murder. And once Republicans took control of Congress, they subjected the Clinton administration to unrelenting harassment — at one point taking 140 hours of sworn testimony over accusations that the White House had misused its Christmas card list.

Now it’s happening again — except that this time it’s even worse. Let’s turn the floor over to Rush Limbaugh: “Imam Hussein Obama,” he recently declared, is “probably the best anti-American president we’ve ever had.”

To get a sense of how much it matters when people like Mr. Limbaugh talk like this, bear in mind that he’s an utterly mainstream figure within the Republican Party; bear in mind, too, that unless something changes the political dynamics, Republicans will soon control at least one house of Congress. This is going to be very, very ugly.

Read Krugman’s column.

Tomorrow, President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech about the Iraq War. August 31 marks the official end to combat operations in a war that has dragged on for more than seven years.

It’s also been seven years since President George W. Bush delivered his famous “Mission Accomplished” speech on May 1, 2003. “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush boasted. “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Obama won’t be landing on any air craft carriers wearing a military uniform costume and boasting about victory. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine the end to the Iraq War as a victory. Since the war began in March 2003, “victory” has never been defined.

What Obama will talk about are the sacrifices that the soldiers made for their country. They were asked to fight and die in Iraq, and nearly 4,500 soldiers have been killed and close to 32,000 wounded.

Obama most likely won’t mention that he never supported the war. In 2002, Illinois Senator Obama gave a speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago and said, “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Obama warned that “even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

And when he became a US Senator he continued to oppose the war. In 2007, Obama introduced a bill, “Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007.” The bill was designed to stop Bush’s proposed troop surge and to begin a phased redeployment of US forces out of Iraq. It was referred to committee, but failed to become law.

In 2008, Obama campaigned heavily on ending the war. When he took over as president on January 20, 2009, Obama issued presidential memoranda and executive orders for the military to develop a plan to end the war.

But now, conservatives are claiming that the withdrawal of troops by Obama is proof that Bush’s “troop surge” worked and that Obama’s taking credit for his predecessor’s success. Sarah Palin tweeted that Obama is a failed leader who opposed the troop surge and isn’t giving “credit where credit’s due. Credit due GW, McCain, troops.”

While Palin is correct that Obama did oppose Bush’s “troop surge” tactic, however, the troops are leaving Iraq not because the war has been won, but because of a 2008 Statement of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraq.

Article 24 of the agreement says, “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”

And this phased draw down of combat operations has been ongoing since last year.

“All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009,” the agreement says.

Violence in Iraq has not subsided, despite the American public’s lack of interest. Just last week dozens of people were killed when a series of bomb attacks rocked Iraq.

So this troop withdrawal doesn’t mean the US won the war. It doesn’t mean that Bush’s troop surge “worked.” It doesn’t mean anything other than that the government of Iraq wants all occupation forces out of Iraq by the end of next year. Keep that in mind when you listen to politicians and talking heads boast about victory in Iraq. And don’t forget about the more than $1 trillion the war cost taxpayers now and for generations to come.

Wow. Time magazine published a story this week by Adam Cohen describing a horrific decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding privacy and warrantless surveillance.

Basically, if you’re poor and can’t afford to live in a house with a locked gate, the government can put a tracking device on your car parked in your driveway, and they monitor your movements without a warrant. If you can afford to live in a house with a gate, fence or wall around your property, you’re fine.

I live in an apartment and park my car on the street, so my 4th Amendment protections are limited to my bathroom.

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

Read this story

On his radio show today, Beck said, “God will wash this nation with blood if he has to, but he doesn’t have to.”

“There is one exit left, and it is God.”

If we don’t turn to God for the answers, Beck said, “The country will be washed with blood.”

Racism and xenophobia are always lurking under the surface in American life and politics. And when times get tough, more and more people will cling to the ugliness that is bigotry, and politicians will try to caress the anxiety that slithers along this dark underbelly of America.

Matthew Yglesias explains why xenophobia is coming to the forefront of American life and politics this summer – it’s more than that we have the first black president.

Politics always seems to get a bit off-kilter when the temperature goes up. But instead of the familiar silly-season stuff of years past — made-up scandals and who-cares gossip — the past two summers have been filled with vitriol. Last year we had town halls gone wild, fueled by the threat of death panels pulling the plug on Grandma. This year, us-vs.-them controversies are proliferating, linked by a surge in xenophobia. This is our summer of fear.

Read Yglesias’ complete story on the Washington Post.

Mort Zuckerman is a liar. Like the vast majority of conservative commentators he lies through his teeth on a regular basis and his sloped-forward mouth-breathing readings go, “Yup. Uh-huh.”

Well today, Paul Krugman calls out Zuckerman for a recent op-ed he wrote in the Financial Times. Zuckerman sprinkles right-wing lies throughout the entire story, but one Krugman found particularly interesting was his total bullshit out-of-context accusation that President Obama was bashing the business community in a recent speech.

Here’s what Obama said:

Too much regulation or too much spending can stifle innovation, can hamper confidence and growth, and hurt business and families. A government that does too little can be just as irresponsible as a government that does too much — because, for example, in the absence of sound oversight, responsible businesses are forced to compete against unscrupulous and underhanded businesses, who are unencumbered by any restrictions on activities that might harm the environment, or take advantage of middle-class families, or threaten to bring down the entire financial system. That’s bad for everybody.

Nothing shocking here, right? Well, here’s what Zuckerman wrote:

The predilection to blame business was manifest in one of President Barack Obama’s recent speeches. He was supposed to be seeking the support of the business community for a doubling of exports over the next five years. Instead he lashed out at “unscrupulous and underhanded businesses, who are unencumbered by any restriction on activities that might harm the environment, take advantage of middle-class families, or, as we’ve seen, threaten to bring down the entire financial system.”

This kind of gratuitous and overstated demonization – widely seen in the business community as a resort to economic populism on the part of Mr Obama to shore up the growing weakness in his political standing – is exactly the wrong approach.

Obama wasn’t “blaming business.” What he said is that without some government regulation, we’ll have a race to the bottom. One company may want to do the right thing by the environment, but if their competition doesn’t care and doesn’t have to incur the costs associated with caring, well, the good company can’t compete. This is pretty basic stuff. It’s something that the Financial Times should be able to recognize.

Here’s what Krugman had to say:

I think this is telling. This is the only actual example of Obama’s alleged demonization of business that Zuckerman offers — and it’s essentially a mini-Breitbart, a quote taken out of context to make it seem as if Obama was saying something he wasn’t. That’s typical of the whole argument.

Oh, and one more thing: are there no copy editors at the FT? When I quote someone in my column, I supply the source material, and my copy editor checks, not just to be sure that the quote is accurate, but that it’s not taken out of context. But I guess such rules don’t apply if you’re a conservative.

After Rolling Stone published a profile called “Runaway General” about General Stanley McChrystal, in which the Afghanistan commander criticized President Obama, Vice President Biden and Obama’s national security staff, McChrystal was fired.

Technically, Obama accepted the general’s resignation, but in reality he was fired.

Obama said today that McChrystal’s comments were not appropriate and they were disrespectful of the chain of command and civilian leadership of the military.

General Petraeus will now be the commander in Afghanistan.

You can view Obama’s speech here.

You can read the Rolling Stone story here.

This week, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd puts her finger on the problem with President Obama.

He’s too passive, too willing to compromise and too comfortable sitting back and letting things play out. As a result, Dowd said, Obama is losing control of the storyline.

Right now the story line is oil is spilling into the Gulf of Mexico at an alarming rate and there’s apparently nothing anyone can do about it. For some reason, BP was allowed to drill with no plan on what do if there’s a blow out.

But Obama’s been afraid to step up and take control of this mess. He sat back and waited to see if BP could get a handle on it. When they couldn’t stop it, Obama held a press conference and took ownership of the disaster.

That was more than a month after the initial explosion April 20.

That’s been Obama’s strategy, to sit back and see how things play out.

Calculate the risk. Process the data. Then act.

While that strategy can work in the political world, when you’re dealing with an actual crisis, waiting to see how it all plays out probably isn’t the wisest course of action to take.

President Obama announced this morning his nominee for retiring Justice John Paul Stevens’s Supreme Court seat: Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Widely regarded by those on both sides of the aisle as one of the nation’s top legal minds, Kagan, 50, has forged a groundbreaking career in law and government service, distinguishing herself through her intellect, integrity, judgment, and work ethic.

On Wednesday, Fox News’ Neil Cavuto interviewed Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) about the congressional investigation into the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but Pence was more concerned with the alleged slowness of the Obama administration’s response to the disaster.

Pence said the people “want to get to the bottom of what happened on April 20.”

Evidently, what Pence meant was that he wants to use a congressional investigation to attack what he says was Obama’s lackadaisical response to the crisis.

Read this story in its entirety on Examiner.com

As the auto industry and financial markets begin to stabilize, the President says the government’s emergency interventions can now wind down. He pledges that real reform, particularly on Wall Street, must now begin.

Whether like it or not, Sarah Palin gets to say whatever she wants, and the mainstream media will simply regurgitate it.

The Associated Press ran a story on Sunday about how Sarah Palin was taken aback by President Obama’s comment regarding the US as a superpower. What she said was a total misrepresentation of the facts and the AP story just went with it.

Here’s what’s got Palin all riled up.

Obama said earlier this week that the United States must do its best to help resolve conflicts peacefully around the world, because if we don’t, it will fall on our shoulders – militarily and economically – to fix the problem.

Obama said:

But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it’s also in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

Here’s what Palin said on her Facebook page:

Mr. President, is a strong America a problem?

Asked this week about his faltering efforts to advance the Middle East peace process, President Obama did something remarkable. In front of some 47 foreign leaders and hundreds of reporters from all over the world, President Obama said that “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it.

Maybe Palin really is just as dumb as a box of hammers and she just doesn’t understand what the president said, but what Obama meant was that whether we like it or not, the US will get pulled into international conflicts because of our superpower status if we don’t work to resolve conflicts peacefully.

And if we do get drug into a conflict, it will cost American lives and treasure.

Maybe that’s the part Palin really likes – seeing people killed and taxpayer money spent on international conflicts – and any attempt to prevent that is just un-American gosh darnit.

Thanks John McCain. Thanks for introducing Sarah Palin to us, because now we get to spend an inordinate amount of time debunking her outrageously ignorant lies. It’s not like we don’t have anything else to do.

White House press conference with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on April 6, 2010. Transcript and video downloaded from WhiteHouse.gov on April 8, 2010 at approximately 2:15 p.m. Eastern.

Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 4/6/10
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:12 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Let’s start with a few quick announcements. As you all know, the President will host, on April 12-13, the Nuclear Security Summit at the Washington Convention Center here in D.C. I wanted to list for you all a couple of different things — first, the 47 countries including the United States that will participate in the summit.

They include Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Vietnam. The United Nations, the IAEA, and the European Union will also be represented.

As part of the Nuclear Security Summit, the President is currently planning to host a number of bilateral meetings. Those include President Sargsian of Armenia; President Hu Jintao of China; Chancellor Merkel of Germany; Prime Minister Singh of India; King Abdullah II of Jordan; Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia; Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan; President Zuma of South Africa; and President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan.

In addition to the President’s activities this evening, at the White House the President will host a screening of the documentary film, Nuclear Tipping Point, a film which focuses on today’s global nuclear dangers. The screening will be attended by four distinguished statesmen featured in the documentary: former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn; as well as film narrator Michael Douglas, and General Colin Powell, who provides a prologue to the film.

In the film, Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn share the personal experiences that led them to write three Wall Street Journal opinion editorials describing their efforts to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, and to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately end them as a threat to the world.

Q What time is that?

MR. GIBBS: That is — I want to say 6:30 p.m., but I will double-check.

Q It’s Prime Minister Gilani, Robert, not President of Pakistan.

MR. GIBBS: Let me see if I was wrong when I had it written — they had it as Prime Minister. I will admonish the note-takers for — and I regret the error.

With that, I think we’re done with our previously scheduled announcements.

Q Any coverage on the event tonight?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q A couple questions on the mine explosion. The President said that federal resources are already down there. Have there been any federal resources that have gone to West Virginia so far?

MR. GIBBS: The Department of Labor’s Mine Safety Division and FEMA both have dispatched teams; they are there. The President, as you know, spoke with Governor Manchin last evening, pledged our full support and cooperation in the investigation, and that is obviously currently ongoing.

Q And this mine seems to have a pretty significant history of safety problems. Is the President considering any review or overhaul of federal oversight over the mines?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, first and foremost, obviously our thoughts and prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones and for those that continue to pray for a miracle for those that are missing. So I think rescue and recovery is our — first in our mind right now.

Secondly, we want to see obviously a thorough investigation, as you’ve heard the governor and others discuss. The President, as I said, has pledged his full cooperation and resources for that investigation. And I think legislative plans about that might better be addressed at the conclusion of that investigation when we have a few more details about what might have happened.

Q Are there any plans for the President to go to West Virginia?

MR. GIBBS: Not at this point, no.

Q Robert, two questions, one on the Nuclear Posture Review and one on the weekend announcement about currency. Starting with currency, after having put off this report, what are the next steps that the administration will take at the G20 or in other fora to press China to move their currency?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jeff, obviously as we’ve mentioned many times, the President has spoken directly with the leaders in China about his concern and his

GAP

market-based. There are three important meetings coming up, finance ministers of the G20, our yearly dialogue with the Chinese here being two of those, at which the administration will continue to press the Chinese to, as the President has said, value their currency in a way that’s much more market-based.

That’s the way we think is best at this point. And I think you’ve seen reports over the past week or so about the Chinese beginning to take some steps and realize on their own that this is the best path forward.

Q Will you be pressing India or Japan or any other countries in the G20 to get this particular issue on the agenda for the G20?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there’s no doubt this is of great concern to a number of economies around the world. I think the best thing to do is let Secretary Geithner and others work through this process in these upcoming meetings and evaluate where we are.

Q And then once that three-month period is over, you come back to this report?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the exact timing at the end of the meeting period, but we can certainly check with Treasury on that one.

Q All right. And then just quickly on the Nuclear Posture Review — what is your response to criticism from some who are saying that it just makes the United States less safe by taking a big — the possibility of nuclear deterrent off the table?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think this is — first of all, I don’t — I’m not entirely sure what nuclear deterrent it takes off the table. The document obviously contains no assurance for a country that currently possesses a nuclear weapon or for a country that fails that fails to live up to — sign the NPT or live up to its obligations, which obviously the two biggest examples of that are Iran and North Korea.

So I think this is a — and the President believes — a very logical policy intended to, in many ways, help bring security not just to here but to other countries that have — live up to their obligations and give up, if they have programs, nuclear weapons. If not, they’re going to make themselves less secure.

So I think this is an important and balanced step, and this is the beginning, as you’ve heard the President discuss of now more than a week of events that start with the Nuclear Posture Review. The President travels tomorrow evening to Prague to sign with President Medvedev the next START treaty. And then we return here to focus, as I mentioned, with 46 other countries, on locking down any vulnerable nuclear material over the course of the next four years to ensure that we are not faced with that kind of material falling into the hands of a terrorist organization.

Yes, sir.

Q The Nuclear Security Summit, what were the criteria for invitations? Obviously most of those countries are not nuclear powers. And is every country sending their head of state?

MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily, no. I don’t have specific — who’s going to be here for each country. For instance, I know that Prime Minister Brown called an election in the United Kingdom and because of that and I think upcoming debates is not going to be somebody who will be attending.

Let me — as we get closer to, we’ll do a longer briefing on this. We’ll have a better sense of attendees for each of the countries involved and more information on what the President hopes to speak to each of the countries directly about as part of the bilateral meetings that I said are currently planned.

Q Okay. I want to review a quote and get your reaction. “Our nuclear arsenal helps deter enemies from using chemical and biological weapons. In the first Gulf War we made it very clear that if Saddam used chemical or biological weapons then the United States would keep all options on the table. We later learned that this veiled threat had the intended deterrent effect as Iraq considered its options.” That was Secretary Gates two years ago. He now disagrees with that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Secretary Gates obviously was heavily involved in the latest Nuclear Posture Review as the current Secretary of Defense. The briefing that was held to unveil it today was held at the Pentagon.

I would certainly say, as it relates to a country — there’s two things, as part of the Nuclear Posture Review, that I think are important to keep in mind. If a country — if we see that a country greatly expands its biological or chemical weapons capability, the posture review calls for the ability to reevaluate any assurances that have been given; and secondly, I think goes without saying that our country possesses a massive conventional arsenal that we believe has an important deterrent effect on anybody that might make the poor decision to attack our country.

Q But that was your Secretary of Defense saying that the nuclear threat helped deter Iraq in the first Gulf War from chemical and biological –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say that the Secretary of Defense was obviously heavily involved in the formulation of the current posture review; extensive meetings with the President on this subject, and something that, like I said, was rolled out of his building today.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, at any time while this policy was being developed, did the President step in and object to something because it would make America less safe?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I’m not going to get into the — there were dozens and dozens of meetings, not all of which involved the President but involved principals and deputies from any department in government that had an equity in this review.

Dan, the President gets up each day with the safety and security of the American people foremost on his mind. So you can be assured that whether it’s in a meeting about the latest nuclear posture review, or the President’s daily intelligence briefing, or, quite frankly, walking from the Residence to the Oval Office, the safety and security of the American people are on his mind.

Q Was there a push or pull at any time during that process where he was saying, you know, what you are proposing here, I don’t think it would make America safer?

MR. GIBBS: Dan, I think you can be assured that the document that we’ve come up with is done so in a way that the President believes can best keep this country safe.

Q But he actually stepped in? That’s what I’m trying to find out. Did he ever step in at any point in the process?

MR. GIBBS: This is his document. This is his document.

Yes, sir.

Q I do have another question on the health care — the selling of the health care law. And I’m wondering how you feel it’s getting through to the American people. Do you feel it has been effective in knocking down what the President has said have been myths?

MR. GIBBS: This is not a 10-day program. This is — health care is — the law will be implemented over the course of many years. So I don’t — I do not doubt that in the intervening many days, you all will poll every other day to find out whether Joe in Peoria has changed his mind. This is a longer-term effort to reform our health care system in a way that was, in the President’s mind, desperately needed.

Our implementation and our efforts to ensure that what is laid out in the law is — that those promises are kept by insurance companies and others will be the focus of this administration, and has been since the moment the President signed that bill. The first meeting the President had with the team at the conclusion of health care reform was to discuss its — the next morning, was to discuss its implementation.

Q And one more thing — on the Karzai invitation, anything change on that — on the May 12th invitation?

MR. GIBBS: No, I would say that that meeting is still on the schedule as of now.

Q Your answer to Jake about the President speaking to each of the countries’ leaders or representatives directly about — what are you talking about? What agenda items are on the President’s mind for these meetings, these bilats he is going to have?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, each of these — some of them are — some of them, obviously, deal with — directly with our proliferation efforts. Some of them will also deal with the fact that some of these countries we’ve not had a chance to sit down with. Some of them — there are issues that may lie slightly outside of something like proliferation — Armenia comes to mind with the normalization of relations. So I think there are a whole host of things. Obviously the focus is on nuclear security.

Q By proliferation efforts you mean what these countries are doing or not doing?

MR. GIBBS: What these countries we hope can and will do to ensure that vulnerable material — they make every effort to lock down the type of vulnerable material that the President sees as such a danger.

Q Will the President on this trip express support for goals which go beyond the goals of the START treaty he’s about to sign — for further reduction and nuclear capability?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we are returning, Bill, to the city that the President laid out a vision, shared by the four men that are coming for the documentary tonight, to see a world without nuclear weapons. The President I think rightly said that that’s not likely a goal that he will live to see. But that’s the trajectory and the path that he believes that we can and should be on. I don’t doubt that he will express that while this is an important step, it should be the first step in our efforts to reduce the risk between two countries like the United States and Russia.

Q What’s his argument to Republican senators, who have to ratify this if it’s to become United States law?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he would certainly demonstrate that this is far and away in our best interest to reduce the threat that so many of these weapons have.

I would point out, Bill, that this is — Secretary Clinton brought this up when we did our briefing in here a few Fridays ago — and I can get the statistics at the end of this; I think they’re on my desk — that on the last three big treaties, arms control treaties, the votes were in the mid-90s for all three of those treaties. This has always been — and the President believes always should be — a bipartisan issue. The President came to this issue through a friendship with Senator Lugar of Indiana. Obviously Nunn, Perry, Shultz, Kissinger, two each from each party — I think the President hopes that Democrats and Republicans can work together to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and ratify this treaty this year with the type of majorities that we’ve seen done so in the past.

Samantha.

Q On Karzai, are you considering canceling this May 12th meeting?

MR. GIBBS: We certainly would evaluate whatever continued or further remarks President Karzai makes as to whether that’s constructive to have such a meeting, sure.

Q Sort of, three strikes you’re out? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I’ve not seen the form that one fills out to cancel the meeting.

Q But what are the consequences for those remarks? I mean, he’s been pretty defiant. He kind of doubled down on those remarks after a call from Secretary Clinton.

MR. GIBBS: I can’t speak to why he said those things.

Q I was asking if there are consequences from –**

MR. GIBBS: Let me — I mean, they’re troubling, they’re confusing; they’ve been investigated and they’ve been found to be untruthful. So whether there’s some domestic political benefit that he’s trying to gain, I can’t say.

We are in Afghanistan, and our young men and women are in Afghanistan because of the threat that al Qaeda and its extremist allies pose, and posed on September 11th when attacks planned in that area came to New York and just outside of Washington, D.C. So we are there to — for the safety and security of our country. And we understand, and we think that President Karzai needs to understand, that the safety and security of his country is not going to be gained simply by rooting out or moving extremist threats in certain areas that isn’t ultimately then filled with good governance. The President has been clear with President Karzai, going back to last fall, and in numerous meetings and videoconferences since.

Q Robert, can I do a quick follow of that? Is Karzai our ally?

MR. GIBBS: Karzai is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan.

Q But that’s not what I asked. Is he our ally? Is he the ally of the United States?

MR. GIBBS: There are times in which the actions that he takes are constructive to governance. I would say that the remarks he’s made — I can’t imagine that anybody in this country found them anything other than troubling.

So our position on this, Jake, is that when the Afghan leaders take steps to improve governance and root out corruption, then the President will say kind words. When leaders need to hear stern language from this administration about the consequences of not acting, we’ll do that as well.

Q If I could follow on Jake’s follow, which is — (laughter) –

MR. GIBBS: Little early for Wimbledon.

Q Peter Galbraith was on MSNBC this morning saying that Karzai was mentally unstable and suggesting that he was on drugs. Following up on Jake, is he a credible partner to the U.S.?

MR. GIBBS: Again, he is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan. And as I just said to Jake, we will not hesitate to ensure that the remarkable investment that our men and women are making is met with the type of governance that has to in place in order to secure parts of a dangerous country.

We’ll continue to speak out again if need be. And we want to see President Karzai fulfill the commitments that he enunciated both at his inaugural address and at a donors conference in London — those commitments he made not just to his people but to the international community that have invested in ensuring the security of his country.

Connie.

Q I want to ask about coal and nuclear. And by the way, isn’t this poppy season in Afghanistan, parenthetically? Anyway, on coal, does the President favor stronger penalties for coal companies that might have violated safety rules?

MR. GIBBS: Obviously, if there are safety violations, the President believes that those violations have to be met with the full force of the law.

Q And on the nuclear — I know nuclear weapons, but why can’t** you discuss nuclear power and nuclear waste? Is that likely to come up?

MR. GIBBS: At the Nuclear Security Summit? I don’t think that’s something that they’ll spend a lot of time on, no.

Mark.

Q Robert, did the United States receive a clarification of Karzai’s remarks that you asked for last week?

MR. GIBBS: Secretary — President Karzai called Secretary Clinton I believe on Friday, yes.

Q And did that clarify anything?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’d refer you to the statement that PJ in the State Department on that, yes.

Q Well, PJ made it sound as though Karzai was stunned that his remarks caused a stir.

MR. GIBBS: Well — (laughter) — now you’re asking me to think for Karzai through PJ. So I think it’s — (laughter) — that seems out of body.

Q Well, do you need a further clarification?

MR. GIBBS: Again, as I’ve said, the remarks are troubling and untruthful. Again, I don’t know why somebody continues to insinuate that there was some sort of foreign corruption when the very thing that he speaks of was looked into. So I can’t begin to decide what reasoning he had for making those comments. Again, our focus is on ensuring that he is continuing to take the necessary steps in governance and corruption.

Q And next week’s bilaterals, are those here or at the Convention Center?

MR. GIBBS: They’re at the Convention Center. If I’m not mistaken, there’s a pretty big press build-out over there. And those will all — at least the last time I checked, they were all over at the Convention Center. I will double-check.

Q You didn’t mention Netanyahu. Is he coming? Will there be a bilateral there?

MR. GIBBS: Israel will be here; I’m not sure if he’s coming. We will have at that point recently met with President Sarkozy, President Medvedev and Prime Minister Netanyahu, so we are not meeting separately with those three because we’ve done so fairly recently.

Q Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said today that Russia may exit the Arms Reduction Treaty if the U.S. increases missile defense. What’s the President’s reaction to that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, any country can leave any treaty at any time. So I don’t — I’m not entirely sure what he’s threatening to do.

I would simply say that, as I spoke of here when we announced a change in our missile defense capabilities to ensure that the threat — the potential threat from Iran in protecting the security of both Europe and the United States — that was our focus and that remains our focus on missile defense.

I would point out that when we announced that, the Russians hailed that. So our stance on missile defense hasn’t changed, despite the fact that they are now — seem to be looking at it through a different lens. I think he’s also — if I’m not mistaken — talking about a missile defense capability, offensive in nature, that doesn’t exist.

Q Will the President bring it up in Prague when he goes?

MR. GIBBS: If President Medvedev — if they discuss missile defense — the President will simply reiterate what he and others have told anybody in the world that our posture on missile defense is to ensure the security of this country and our allies in Europe from a growing threat, and possible threat, from Iran.

Q And the Prague schedule doesn’t have any Obama-Medvedev availability on it, press availability. Is that going to happen?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, it is — there was I think a little confusion on the press schedule that went out. There is a — the signing, the statements, and the Q&A, it’s all blocked off as the signing. So our apologies if that confused –

Q The usual number of questions per side?

MR. GIBBS: A half each, yes. (Laughter.) I always love these things. We go to these things, and we’re like one question apiece. And then whoever gets called on asks four questions and –

Q Well, do you blame us?

MR. GIBBS: No, but it’s always curious to know that when you’ve asked four questions and then you say, I can’t believe we only got one question.

Yes, ma’am.

Q I know what that feels like. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Lester, I would not, in your case, be thinking of a question for Prague. (Laughter.)

So go ahead, I’m sorry.

Q You will come back to me.

MR. GIBBS: I will.

Q Thank you very much.

Q I want to ask about an issue brought up by the group called the September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Apparently, they’ve sent a video letter to the President expressing concerns about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. They support the decision to go with a civilian trial. They’re expressing concern now that there are discussions and negotiations of a compromise with folks like Senator Lindsey Graham for getting KSM to a military tribunal. They say to do so would amount to the President buckling under political pressure. First, is there anything new on that front with discussions about the trial? And, second, how do you respond to their –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I do not know whether the letter has — I don’t know in what part of transit that’s in. I would say this, there’s nothing new that I know of. I still think we’re a few weeks away from a decision. I would say that we are looking at many possibilities based on the fact that Congress became heavily involved in the potential choosing of venues for such a trial. And we understand the security and logistical concerns that a city like New York has. So, given those concerns and given congressional prerogatives, we’re looking at all available alternatives.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, two quick questions. On the ratification in the Senate, do you all have any early indication of whether any of the Republicans in the Senate do plan on blocking it or trying to block it? I mean, do you have any sort of early read since you announced it on any stumbling blocks? You talked about the ones that are supportive, but you –

MR. GIBBS: I will check with NSC and see whether they have heard — I think when people get an opportunity to look at the text of the treaty, which will happen in short order, they’ll see, as I said earlier, that this is strongly in our national interest. I don’t think this prejudges his decision, but the statement that Senator Lugar put out around the time of our announcement I think many believed was encouraging in his desire to see swift ratification.

And I would — again, I’d just mention, as I said to Bill, this is normally an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to put aside what normally happens in Washington and come together to ratify something that we have seen Democratic and Republican Presidents do for many years. And we’re hopeful that that happens again.

Q And then just on the meeting this morning with the African American religious leaders, can you describe how that meeting went and what they talked about?

MR. GIBBS: I do not have a readout from that, but let me try to get something for you guys.

Q Just two, Robert. Does the –

MR. GIBBS: You were acting all aggrieved a minute ago, Lester, like somehow you only — (laughter.)

Q No, I’m delighted. I’m very grateful. (Laughter.)

Does the President’s apology to Doris in North Carolina for his 17-minute answer to her one question mean that in future White House press conferences he will also be brief in response so as to allow more than 13 questioners, presuming he ever has any more press conferences? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Was that one or four? (Laughter.)

Q That was one.

MR. GIBBS: That was just one? So there’s another?

Q Just one other. Just one other.

MR. GIBBS: I’m looking forward with great anticipation to that.

Lester, I think I’m largely the one who coined the phrase that it used to take the President several minutes to clear his throat giving answers, so — I hope he’s not watching. (Laughter.)

Look, there are complex issues in our times that this President and this Congress have to deal with. Not all of it can be done in neatly phrased eight-second sound bites. When talking about something the size and the scope of health care reform it takes a while to sketch out the landscape and that’s what the President enjoys doing, either in an interview setting or in a town hall meeting where citizens get to ask those questions directly of the President.

I was going to give another 16 minutes on that answer, but I decided — (laughter.)

Q No, no, no, keep it short. Is the President grateful for the statement, “We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of Obama’s government,” as made by Fidel Castro?

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen that statement.

Q Well, he made it and it’s there.

MR. GIBBS: He probably e-mailed you directly, Lester. (Laughter.)

Q But the President likes this statement, Robert. Did the President like it or not?

MR. GIBBS: I am unaware that he’s aware of the statement.

Yes, ma’am. I’ll come back.

Q Oh, you funny man. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I got to keep myself entertained, Lester. So please tip your waitresses. I’ll be here all week. (Laughter.)
Yes, ma’am. Sorry.

Q On Iran, there’s a psychological statement saying, we cannot change anything unless we accept it. Have you tried to change your situation towards Iran — to accept nuclear Iran? And dealing with nuclear Iran?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President has — the President, in an interview yesterday, said he understands and it’s certainly the right of countries to peacefully pursue nuclear power. But Iran has obligations as part of the NPT that it must live up to. Over the past many years, it has taken some very provocative steps in direct avoidance of those obligations. The President outlined with President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown at the G20 an effort by the Iranians to go around the IAEA in a clandestine effort that many presumed was to create nuclear material for a nuclear weapon. Again, that is — that breaks their obligation and their commitment to the international community.

So I think what you’ve seen over the past more than a year are efforts at engagement that Iran has decided on each and every — at each and every turn to step back from. That has brought the international community along to the point where our partners in the P5-plus-1 will soon, as the President and others have acknowledged, take strong sanctions into the Security Council. And the President hopes to see the sanctions pass the Security Council by spring.

Q But regarding meeting with President of Armenia and President of United States, any meeting with the Prime Minister of Turkey? The three of them?

MR. GIBBS: No meeting. Obviously on any number of occasions, offers have been given to accept the help of the international community if it lives up to its obligations. And each and every time, when faced with either living up to those obligations or walking away from them, the government of Iran has every single time walked away from them.

Goyal.

Q Two questions, thanks. One, as far as President decision last week to sign 123 U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, Indians are celebrating in India, and also across the street at U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S.-India Business Council, 500 Fortune companies, are applauding President’s decision. Are you making any kind of — having any kind of ceremony when Prime Minister of India visits next week here on this issue?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not aware of any specific event around that issue. As we talked about last week, that’s something that the President — President Bush and President Obama both supported. I assume it will come up in their bilateral meeting next week.

Q And as far as this U.S.-Russia nuclear agreement and also this posture is concerned, many think tanks are saying that although U.S. and Russia will reduce, but China is rising and building up all the nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons and spreading. So what — where do we stand as far as China is concerned in the future?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously proliferation and many other topics the President — President Obama and President Hu will get an opportunity to discuss next week.

Obviously we had an expired START agreement with Russia that needed to be renewed, needed to see deeper cuts in each side’s nuclear capabilities. And the President believes it was an enormously — it is an enormously important step, as I said earlier, on the road to reducing the nuclear threat in our world.

Q So obviously there’s a number of cases sort of wending their way through the courts right now challenging DOMA and “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Last week the Department of Justice filed another brief defending “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It angered a lot of advocates; some legal scholars thought it was a step backwards in terms of dismantling the law. Is the President at all concerned that DOJ is a little insular or tone deaf on issues that are sort of politically sticky, especially those of interest to the L/G community?

MR. GIBBS: I will say this, obviously the President has enunciated his support for ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” rolling back — made a commitment to roll back DOMA in the campaign. Obviously, the Justice Department has — is charged with upholding the law as it exists, not as the President would like to see it. We have obviously taken steps on the front of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and I think we’ve made a genuine amount of progress. I will say, was it odd that they included previous statements from General Colin Powell on a belief set that he no longer had? I don’t think the President would disagree with that.

Q Does the President think it’s constitutional, “don’t ask, don’t tell?”

MR. GIBBS: I have not heard him talk about that.

Q To get back to what Secretary Gates may have said a couple of years ago regarding nuclear use posturing, it’s always been sort of ambiguous by design in the past. Does the President believe that that didn’t work or really needed changing significantly?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say this, we have — as I said earlier, I think the President’s new posture review is predicated on the logic of incentivizing good behavior, of ensuring the security of those that live up to their obligations, and provides no assurance to those that either have a nuclear weapon or in the case of Iran and North Korea aren’t living up to its obligations.

I think it’s a — obviously, we’ve entered — we’re entering into a different period with relative stability and peace among larger countries in the world. This is a posture review obviously designed to drill down a bit on places like North Korea and Iran, and to demonstrate to countries around the world, as I said earlier, if you live up to those obligations, you will enjoy the benefits of being an active, responsible member of the international community.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, a couple things on the NPR. Is it true that the administration was considering a blanket “no first use” policy as recently as a few weeks ago?

MR. GIBBS: I can check with those — I was not in the 150 or so meetings that –

Q Also, I’m told that during the campaign, the then-candidate Obama talked about de-alerting the nuclear force. Is that true? And if so, why did he –**

MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say this, we obviously have bombers that are no longer on alert. We have ICBMs and sea-based missiles that do remain on alert status. Our forces are configured in such a way that a retaliatory strike does not need to be launched at the first detection of a foreign launch. The Nuclear Posture Review proposes that we consider a series of options that extend presidential decision-making time, by strengthening command and control apparatus around those nuclear weapons, and that we open discussions with Russia to reduce the possibility of either an accidental launch or a false detection of a launch.

Q So you consider this a version of a de-alert?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that the President believes that this gives — extending that decision-making times gives a President the ability to ensure that that decision is — whatever decision he makes is one that’s based on the best available information for the longest period of time.

Stephen.

Q Thanks. There’s been several very serious bomb attacks in Baghdad over the last couple of days. How serious — closely is the White House following this situation? Is there any concern that the continued political vacuum following the elections could offer a window for insurgents?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think many expected that insurgents would use this time to roll back the progress, both militarily and politically, that we’ve seen in Iraq. The leadership and team here have spoken with our ambassador and with General Odierno. He believes that this does not threaten our ability to draw down our forces later in the year. And obviously we are very focused on, and Vice President Biden is very focused on, the steps that need to be taken to ensure political advancement in Iraq after these elections.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Robert, just back on China really quick. Can you give me a little more detail on what the President is expecting out of this meeting with President Hu next week? NPR mentioned several times the need for transparency with their nuclear arsenal. Is there anything tangible that’s expected to come –

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think obviously proliferation will be a big part of that. Obviously whenever we get together with China, discussions about energy will be on the table, discussions about the global economic recovery, and certainly discussions about what the President has talked about in terms of a market-based currency will be on there.

We’ll have something, again, more detailed at the conclusion of it. I think it’s — and I think right now it’s scheduled for, if I’m not mistaken, Monday morning.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Robert, on two things. On Karzai and his statements, what kind of credibility concerns are there when it comes to Karzai’s commitment to find Osama bin Laden?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I don’t want to get into, from up here, the efforts that are ongoing to specifically root out and identify and capture terrorists. We’ve obviously — you’ve seen the President step up the pacing in this region of the world, in both Afghanistan and in the surrounding countries, to the point that has degraded the capabilities of al Qaeda. And I would just leave it at that.

Q But has he caused any kind of concerns in this administration about his credibility? Are you concerned that there are credibility issues with him after these statements about voting in his country?

MR. GIBBS: About what?

Q The voting statements in his country.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think that we have — we found the remarks to be — continue to be troubling. I don’t — I think people that read the remarks here don’t understand based on, as I said earlier, based on the notion that what he alleges has fully been investigated.

Q But I understand you about the remarks, but does it lend you to feel like, okay, it might permeate into other areas, it’s not just about this one area? Are there concerns about other areas –

MR. GIBBS: Again, we have and the President has been concerned about governance and corruption in Afghanistan before the election, during the time period in which the election was in flux, and on the phone call congratulating President Karzai on his reelection. So obviously the team spent an enormous amount of time discussing governance and corruption during the Afghanistan-Pakistan review that took place over the fall, over many, many hours.

Q And also, the black ministers meeting. Why was it important to have today and why did it even happen?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have a readout on the meeting. Obviously the President wanted to, as we celebrate Easter, have folks here at the White House to share in what is a very important holiday for many. And I will try to get a readout of some more specifics –

Q But not necessarily the readout, but they were a subset before the –

MR. GIBBS: Right, that’s what I’m talking about.

Q I just wanted to know why.

MR. GIBBS: I think the President just wanted an opportunity to talk to them about the work that the administration is continuing to do.

Bill.

Q Robert, on the Census, Erick Erickson, a commentator for CNN, a couple of days ago, he said he was not going to fill out his Census form, and if a Census worker came to the door, he said he would “pull out my wife’s shotgun and see how that little twerp likes being scared at the door.” So my question is, do those remarks concern the White House? And are there any –

MR. GIBBS: It should concern CNN — probably first and foremost. Probably concerns his wife as well.

Q Any thoughts about protection for Census workers?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there are a lot of people that get on cable TV and say stuff so that people will quote it back to other people.

Obviously the Census determines the representation you have in what we call representative democracy. I think it’s why somebody like Karl Rove, who obviously I and others in this administration have disagreed with for going on many years, understands that the lunacy of ripping up your Census form or not sending it in or, God forbid, the remarkably crazy remarks of somebody that would threaten somebody simply trying to ensure that they’re adequately represented in this country. These days it never ceases to amaze you — and usually it’s only trumped by what somebody will knowingly say tomorrow about — I think it was Lincoln who said, “Better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” I think that would be my advice.

Glenn.

Q Robert, thanks for giving me a chance to validate Lincoln’s quote. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: It is Lincoln, right?

Q There’s some remarkably disturbing footage out today of a U.S. helicopter engaging with some folks in Baghdad in 2007; 12 fatalities. In this video the pilots can be heard remarking when an individual flees holding a baby in his arms, that it was the fault of those individuals for bringing the children into combat. Has the President seen that? And do you think that that sort of activity on its face appears to have been appropriate?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Glenn, I do not know whether the President has seen the video that was released on the Internet.

Obviously it is very graphic in nature and it’s extremely tragic. For details of the investigation that the Defense Department and the Pentagon did on that, around that incident, obviously I would point you over to the Department of Defense.

Many of you all have traveled with the President — this President or other Presidents — in war zones. Many of you know colleagues that have reported from exceedingly dangerous places in the world. Our military will take every precaution necessary to ensure the safety and security of civilians, and particularly those that report in those dangerous places on behalf of news organizations.

Q Do you think that this warrants some additional investigation, though?

MR. GIBBS: Glenn, I don’t in all honesty know enough about what was done previously, which is why I would point you over to the Department of Defense.

David.

Q Do you have any statement on the decision that just came down this morning on net neutrality? And also — I’ll give you two now. Related to that there are two vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court that the President has yet to put nominations for. Why the delay?

MR. GIBBS: I will check on the circuit court. I have — I don’t think the administration — I don’t think the White House has had an opportunity to fully evaluate the court case representing a — [cell phone rings] — double pepperoni available at the gate? (Laughter.) Yes, I will — yes, extra cheese, onions ready to be picked up.

I will check on the D.C. court. We have not had an opportunity to fully evaluate the FCC’s decision — the decision affecting the FCC, which as you know is an independent agency.

Q Doesn’t the administration broadly support the notion of net neutrality, though?

MR. GIBBS: It does, it does, it does. And the President discussed that obviously in the campaign. We’re committed to that and committed to providing businesses with the certainty that they need, as well.

Thank you.

Q Thank you for letting so many people ask questions. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate that pat on the head, Lester. (Laughter.)

END
2:07 P.M. EDT

White House press conference on Mar. 31, 2010. The video and complete transcript were provided by WhiteHouse.gov on Apr. 2, 2010 at 9:06 p.m. eastern.

Press Briefing by Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, 3/31/2010
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:38 P.M. EDT

MR. BURTON: Hi, guys. So we’re just going to go ahead and just get started.

Q Going to leap right in?

MR. BURTON: Yes.

Q So can we talk about the politics of the offshore drilling announcement?

MR. BURTON: Sure.

Q Both sides. How can — can you guys afford to kind of anger the environmentalists, sort of liberal side of your base, with the pretty expansive decision on offshore drilling? And then, on the other side, how much do you think it can actually help in bringing Republicans along on climate change?

MR. BURTON: Well, it’s the President’s view that what we need to do here is take a comprehensive approach to energy policy. And there are people on the right who support some aspects of that; there’s people on the left who support some aspects of that. But he didn’t go into this looking at what the political coalition was going to be getting if this passed. He went into this thinking what’s the best policy for our country and how do we get it done.

It’s something that he talked about on the campaign trail; it’s something that he’s talked about for a very long time. So I think that for people who have followed the President, a lot of this policy isn’t much of a surprise to them.

Q Right, but –

MR. BURTON: One thing I would say, though, Jennifer, is just that I was — the President was encouraged this morning to see Senator McConnell’s spokesperson say that this was an issue that he had spoken specifically with President Obama about. And so it does look like there’s some support on both sides of the aisle. We’ll have a rigorous debate about this and hopefully get something done.

Q Well, can you talk, though, specifically about environmentalists? Obviously they’re not happy with the way this decision played out. So how much can you afford — understood that it’s a decision he had kind of hinted at, hinted he was going to make, but at the same time he has to deal with the fallout from that decision. So how does that play out for you?

MR. BURTON: Sure. Well, we’re the Democratic Party; we often have disagreements among our friends. But the President is going to continue to talk to folks in the environmental community, and people in the Democratic Party, and people in the Republican Party, to make the most amount of progress that we can make on this critical issue. It’s important because we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and we need to move forward on some of these investments in order to create some of the most important jobs that we can create here in the 21st century.

The President’s view is that the country that comes out on top — on investments in renewable energy and on creating new technology — is going to be leader in the 21st century, and he’s not playing for second place.

Q So the drilling announced today — there was no thought about the implications this might have for advancing the climate change legislation that seems to be running into obstacles in Congress?

MR. BURTON: Well, I would say that it’s obviously a part of the climate legislation and the entire package that the President is working with Congress to move forward. So I would say that this is mostly about coming through on a promise that he made to the American people that he would have a comprehensive energy plan that would include some increased domestic production of energy but also some big investments in renewable technology, as well as finding ways to promote efficiency and things like that. So all these things are connected.

Q Well, Robert yesterday showed sort of acceptance of a timetable of getting financial regulatory reform through Congress onto the President’s desk by no later than September. What is the timetable you all are thinking of for climate change legislation?

MR. BURTON: I don’t have specific dates for you necessarily, but this is something that the President thinks we need to move forward on as quickly as possible. As recently as a couple weeks ago he had a bipartisan group of senators into the White House to talk about some of the proposals that they have, some ways that we can come together in order to make progress on this issue. And he’s going to continue to work with them in order to make progress as fast as we can.

Q Does the President believe that this can be done before the midterm elections in November?

MR. BURTON: His goal is to do this as fast as he possibly can.

Yunji.

Q I’m curious, what changed? I mean, the President, again and again on the campaign trail, said that this was — this would be insignificant, that expanding these kind of leases would not do much in terms of consumer relief, short term or long term. So what’s different?

MR. BURTON: Well, what the President said was that there’s no silver bullet when it comes to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and having a comprehensive view on energy. If you remember the conversation that was being had, a lot of people treated offshore drilling as a panacea to solve all of our problems as it related to energy. But what the President thought was that it just had to be one part of a comprehensive strategy to dealing with that.

That’s why, over the course of the presidency, you’ve heard him, at the State of the Union, talk about this, and in other venues talk about it. He’s talked about increasing production of domestic oil. He’s talked about finding ways to get nuclear energy moving in this country, clean coal moving in this country, and all those different things.

But along with the increased production, he’s talked about ways to make vehicles more efficient. There’s new fuel-efficiency standards, which is something that was very hard to get an agreement on but, bringing all the relevant parties to the table, he was able to. He’s done things to make the federal fleet more fuel efficient, using hybrid vehicles, buying plug-in cars, to make sure that we’re doing everything we can, from the federal government’s standpoint, in order to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

So nothing has changed. What you see here today is a fulfillment of what the President said he was going to do.

Q But the President said that this was insignificant. If it’s insignificant, then — and you have the kind of political fallout that Jennifer is talking about potentially happening, then what makes this worth it?

MR. BURTON: What the President said was that this in and of itself would not be enough to get us on a path to energy independence, and so as one part of his strategy, finding places where you can reasonably and safely drill offshore to increase production is a key part of that. So — but it’s just one part of that. And that’s what he said in the campaign and that’s what he’s following through on today.

Dan.

Q Why did the President not go further in terms of drilling off of Alaska where it’s believed there are a lot of resources?

MR. BURTON: Well, what the President thinks we ought to do is use the best science available and the safest methods that we can in order to find oil and gas, and then go and retrieve it and use it domestically. So what this proposal represents is what he and the team of experts around him think is the best way to go about that in the most responsible and safe way.

Q On health care, what’s going on behind the scenes in terms of the President selling to the American people — beyond just the trip that we’re seeing this week — selling to the American people the short-term and long-term benefits of this new law?

MR. BURTON: Well, as the President said when we were going through this process to get health care passed into law, he was going to spend some time going out talking to the American people specifically about the short-term and the long-term benefits that they were going to get out of it. And that’s what you see. Tomorrow the President will be in Maine where he’ll be talking about some of the benefits that small businesses will get in the short term and the long term as it relates to health care.

So you’ll see the President travel and talk about it. You’ll see members of the administration talking about it. And we’re going to continue to make sure the American people know exactly what’s in this bill for them and when it comes into effect.

Q Bill, I want to revisit a health care issue from yesterday. Regarding the write-downs for big companies like AT&T, Caterpillar, I’m unclear — is it the White House’s position that these write-downs are purely political; that they could have been done in a more gradual way? Or is it the position that, yes, their hands are tied by accounting rules and they had to take these write-downs immediately?

MR. BURTON: Well, I’m not going to make a statement on the motivations of people announcing what 30-year projections are saying about the impact that health care reform will have on their business. But it’s the White House’s view that all the benefits in health care reform will have a much greater positive impact on those businesses than the loss of a double subsidy will to their business.

Q You seem to be scoffing at a breakdown over 30 years. Is that true that you’re saying this –

MR. BURTON: No, I’m not scoffing at it. I’m just pointing it out.

Q Okay, and secondly — it sounded like scoffing. Secondly, I sent you a high-priority email yesterday — I’m sure you saw it — but I was questioning the reading habits of Mr. Gibbs. Has Mr. Gibbs actually read all the reports he cited yesterday to justify — to claim that there will a bending of the cost curve in the health care bill?

MR. BURTON: I assume that he has, because he’s a really fast reader and he’s been very interested in the subject. But the good news for you is that I’m just doing this part-time, and you’ll have your chance to ask him directly.

Bill.

Q Does the President believe that his proposal today will make it easier to raise the cap and trade bill and actually get it debated in the Senate?

MR. BURTON: Well, the President’s view is that what he did today is an important part of moving it forward. And so the President has been –

Q But I’m asking about the politics.

MR. BURTON: I understand that. And I know that here in Washington — I haven’t been here that long, but I know that everything is viewed through a lens of who does this help, who does this hurt, who’s up, who’s down. The President’s view is that this is the best policy, and that working with members of the Senate on both sides — the Republicans and the Democrats — this is policy — that there are things that people of both political persuasions can agree to and we can move forward on it.

Q Presumably you’ve also been here long enough to know that that’s the way they think inside, too.

MR. BURTON: Well, I wouldn’t go that far. Having talked to the folks who I work with here in the West Wing all day today, I know that there is a real belief that what we’ve proposed today doesn’t just follow through on what the President promised on the campaign for the sake of following through on it. It also would put our country on a new track towards more domestic production of energy, towards more renewable energy use, and towards creating jobs of the future.

Q If you’re willing to set deadlines for other legislation, will you set a deadline for getting cap and trade passed?

MR. BURTON: I don’t have a deadline for you today. I just know the President wants to move forward on this as fast as possible.

Savannah.

Q Given that you guys haven’t considered the politics at all with this, is it possible there was a strategic blunder here by conceding so much — doing offshore drilling, you’ve announced new grants for nuclear reactors — without getting any concessions from Republicans? You didn’t have any Republicans standing up there with the President today. Is it possible that you’ve kind of given away the store without any guarantees that you’ll get Republican support in exchange for that?

MR. BURTON: Well, I’d start by saying that actually Senator McConnell’s spokesperson’s statement was very encouraging, that this was an issue that he had brought up specifically with the President and that we believe that we’ll be able to work with Republicans on. But also, like I said, this — none of this should have been a surprise to anybody. We’ve been talking about all these different elements for a very long time and the President is following through on promises that he made to have a comprehensive energy strategy.

So in terms of the politics of this, we think that there are good things in this package that appeal to people of all political persuasions and that in the short term, not the long term, we’re going to be able to move forward and pass some of this into law.

Q Well, McConnell — in his statement, which I just read, actually, since you mentioned that, kind of frames it as a small step. All the Republican statements say — have kind of a lukewarm response to it. Will the President get involved as closely as he was by the end of health care? Did he learn something from the health care debate that he plans to use in this debate?

MR. BURTON: Well, I would say for starters I don’t think there is anybody who anticipated that the President would roll out an energy plan and people on the Republican side would be cheerleading it right from the get-go. But if you saw what happened over the course of the health care debate, where you had senators saying that this would be the President’s Waterloo, stop this at all costs, this is the way that we can halt the agenda of the President, I think even lukewarm statements are a step in the right direction.

Mark.

Q Bill, to what extent is the administration joining the chorus of those who chant, “drill, baby, drill”?

MR. BURTON: Well, I would say that this comprehensive approach is a lot less “drill, baby, drill” and more “drill where it’s responsible, promote efficiency, invest in clean energy, and create jobs of the future.” I know that doesn’t fit on a t-shirt quite as well, but that’s a lot more about what President Obama thinks is the right direction for this country.

Q And is it the plan to expand oil and gas leases throughout the Atlantic Ocean? I read a figure of 160 million acres of ocean would be available for new oil and gas drilling.

MR. BURTON: I don’t know the specifics on the acreage. I think there’s actually a call happening right now that some of your colleagues are on where they’re going through some of those particulars.

Roger.

Q Bill, looking ahead to Friday, the jobs report comes out, as you know, and the President is going to be down in North Carolina. The analysts so far seem to suggest that this will be showing job creation for the second time since the recession started. Does that suggest that the White House will stop now on offering any more jobs plans, or are you going to kind of lay back and let things take hold and see where it goes?

MR. BURTON: Well, unless the jobs report comes back and says that we’ve created 8.5 million jobs in this last month, the President is going to treat this jobs report the same way he’s created all the — he’s treated all the rest of them, which is to say that we’ve got a lot more work to do.

And there’s analysts across the spectrum who have different views of what the jobs report is going to say, and I know there’s different factors that will play into this specific one. Last month there was the huge snowstorm, and this month we might see some of the reverse effects of that. I’ve seen reports that the Census Bureau has hired thousands of folks. So there’s a lot of different factors that we’ll see in this jobs report.

But the President is committed to putting the American people back to work and keeping this economy on track. And the jobs report that comes out on Friday is just going to be one set of data, but it’s not necessarily going to mean the President is going to change course when it comes to doing everything that he can to move through some of the ideas that he’s put forth on helping small businesses, helping big businesses, helping everybody who’s hiring that he can to create an environment where people can create jobs.

Q So you’re leaving the door open for another jobs creation package at some point, if needed?

MR. BURTON: Well, keep in mind that some of the things that the President has talked about even as recently as December have not come to a vote, haven’t been passed, and so some of his jobs ideas are still out there, including some of the things to — since this is energy day — but to make homes more efficient and give people credits to retrofit their own houses and that sort of thing. So the President is still very much focused on creating jobs.

Q One just minor housekeeping question. Will the First Family’s tax returns be released either Friday or over the weekend?

MR. BURTON: I don’t know the timing on that, but they’re generally released and they’ll be out sooner than you think. I don’t have a date for you.

Lester.

Q Thank you very much. And thank you for your very crisp answers. Does the President believe that the Holy Father has been fairly treated by The New York Times and The Washington Post?

MR. BURTON: That’s not something I’ve spoken to him about. I’ll see what I can find out.

Q You will? Good. (Laughter.) Why does the President believe that it is fair to bar all private-school children from the Easter Egg Roll, including scholarship students at Sidwell Friends?

MR. BURTON: I’m not familiar with the Easter Egg Roll policy, but I would direct you to –

Q But it’s been announced. You must be aware of the announcement.

MR. BURTON: Like I said, I’m not fully familiar with the Easter Egg Roll policy. I appreciate the question. But you should direct it to the East –

Q You’ll get me an answer then?

MR. BURTON: No, I would direct you to the East Wing where they know a little more about it.

April.

Q Yes, today is March 31st, the deadline for the Black Farmers $1.25 [billion] congressional approval for its settlement. Robert was supposed to come back with information about if the President supported an extension — because we understand that CBC members as well as the Black Farmers were looking for an extension. Do you have any information about the President supports an extension to this deadline after 15 years of their wait?

MR. BURTON: I checked in with Leg Affairs after you asked that question yesterday, and they told me that they are in fact working with Congress with some urgency to get this done as fast as possible. I don’t have any specific timing for you, but this is something that they’re working to make progress on to make sure that we get this done.

Q So it’s not going to happen today, but you mean that they could possibly use the extension — I mean, because today is the deadline and they’re not there –

MR. BURTON: Well, not knowing the particulars of the specific settlement, I’m letting you know that the legislative team is working to get this done as fast as possible.

Q Well, let me ask you this as well — since they have been waiting for 15 years in this Pickford case, the Black Farmers want to know if they can meet with the President, especially after he announced it in his 2011 budget and put out a paper saying he strongly supports it. And they wanted to know if they could sit down and talk to the President to push more so this administration to make it happen, since they’ve waited 15 years.

MR. BURTON: I don’t know if there’s a meeting in the works. I can certainly check on it, but I don’t know if that’s in the works.

Q Is this administration open to meeting with them at least?

MR. BURTON: I haven’t spoken to anybody on that, so I don’t know.

Bill.

Q Bill, you said a couple times already today that the President’s policy is to drill where it’s responsible. So far I’ve only heard about Virginia. Can you give us an idea of other places where the administration believes it’s responsible to drill?

MR. BURTON: Well, some of the other areas that were talked about in the reports today are up on the northern coast of Alaska, down in the Gulf region — areas like that.

Q Are there any plans for drilling off the coast of California?

MR. BURTON: That is not a part of this.

Q Out of consideration?

MR. BURTON: I can’t speak to the entire rest of this administration, but I can tell you that it’s not a part of the President’s energy plan.

Q I’m sorry if this has already been mentioned, but to what extent was this discussed with Democratic leaders on the Hill before it was rolled out today?

MR. BURTON: We speak with Democratic leaders on the Hill every day and –

Q They were well aware this was coming? I mean, have you taken the temperature of Democrats on the Hill?

MR. BURTON: I assume that that has happened. We talk to Democratic leaders every day. It wasn’t a secret that our energy policy was coming out. Folks got a heads-up that it was happening. And obviously the President has a very close relationship with Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid and it’s, of course, one of the things that they do talk about from time to time.

Ann.

Q On the West Coast of Florida, when you’re talking about the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico — he says that he would — if the ban were to be lifted, he’d like to see more exploration there. Will the President ask Congress to lift the ban?

MR. BURTON: Well, everyplace has specific regulations that they have to deal with in order to move leases, to actually put in the rigs. There’s the exploratory phase that they have to go through. So — what’s your specific question about the Eastern Gulf?

Q The statement you all put out says that in the Eastern Gulf, which remains under a congressional moratorium — right? But if it were to be lifted, he thinks there should be more drilling closer to the western coast of Florida.

MR. BURTON: Well, I don’t want to get into water that’s too deep for me when we’re talking about the Gulf of Mexico. (Laughter.) But I would encourage you to ask the folks at Interior.

Q Bill, how about — for years, some of the arguments that opponents of drilling used is that, first of all, as the President said when he was a candidate, it doesn’t come up with a single gallon of gas in the short term, it’s way long off; and, number two, that the — well, answer just that part. When he pounded the lectern back in 2008 and said, I won’t do it because it won’t come up with anything immediate — what flipped him on that?

MR. BURTON: Well, the President’s view — and I was saying this earlier — is that this is not a silver bullet to the answer to the energy question that we have.

Q But what changed?

MR. BURTON: But it’s one part. It’s one part. And this is something that he has said over the course of the campaign. So people who voted for him, people who covered him, people who were watching this election knew that if you pulled the lever for Barack Obama in November of 2008, what you were going to get was a President who, as part of a comprehensive energy strategy, was going to support some drilling where it made sense, was going to promote efficiency, was going to invest in renewables. But he was going to take a comprehensive view, and not just take the short view that drilling was the answer to all of our answers.

Q And the other aspect of that is the complaint against it was that the drilling — there are a lot of leases out there sitting there untouched for years. How many leases, and what kind of exploration could go forward that the private companies just aren’t doing?

MR. BURTON: I actually, Ann, have to say, regret this — I have the specific numbers for you. They’re sitting upstairs on my desk.

Q Well, I’ll be up to see you. (Laughter.)

MR. BURTON: But I will make sure that I get you those numbers — and anybody else who is interested in them.

Glen.

Q Bill, in the run-up to Copenhagen, the administration took its share of criticism from conservative groups who said that you were sort of in the pocket of the environmental community. What do you think this says about the President’s attitude towards environmentalists and his willingness to stand up for them even if they don’t agree with him?

MR. BURTON: Well, I — Glen, I was saying this earlier, but I just — I don’t see it in that political lens necessarily. If the President had done something today that he hadn’t promised that he was going to do, that we hadn’t telegraphed from the campaign through the State of the Union of this year, through all the different things that we’ve said about energy, then I would say that maybe we could have a conversation about what this means for standing up to whomever. But this is something the President said he was going to do, and I think that for the most part, people oughtn’t feel surprised about it.

Q Just to follow up on what Sam was asking about the contact with the Hill. If you sort of look at this map, it is — it appears to be carefully crafted and tailored. You have some drilling on the north short of Alaska; you have more restrictions on the south. You also have the drilling off the coast of Virginia. To what extent did you discuss the creation of this map with Senator Warner in Virginia, Senator Landrieu in Louisiana? Was there a back-and-forth prior to this?

MR. BURTON: On the actual process for figuring out the places where it made most sense to explore new places to drill I would direct you to the Department of Interior.

Peter.

Q Can I ask about — yesterday in the President’s statement on Iran with President Sarkozy, he says weeks, not months, on a sanction resolution. Can you give us any more understanding of why he’s saying that, or what makes him think he can get it on that time frame? What’s happening in terms of the discussions about — with the Chinese at this point or –

MR. BURTON: Well, for starters, as the President expressed yesterday, there’s a real sense of urgency as it relates to working to apply pressure to Iran. And there are some very intense conversations happening at the United Nations right now that we’re able to make some real progress on. And the President feels like we have more support in the international community for sanctions than we’ve ever had before and he feels very confident that this spring we will be able to move forward with an agreement of those nations.

Q How important is it to get a sanctions resolution, even if it doesn’t include everything that he originally might have wanted it to have?

MR. BURTON: Well, the President obviously — the United States is not the only country who is dealing with this issue. And so we have to work with some of our foreign partners to apply as much pressure as we can.

You brought up the Chinese. The Chinese know that it’s not in their interest to have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and we’re confident that we’re going to be able to work with them to move forward on meaningful pressure on Iran.

So I would say that the President takes the long view. He wants to apply as much pressure as we can, and he’s confident we’re going to be able to do that.

Q Thanks, Bill. As you know, gas prices have been on the rise over the past few months. I’ve seen $4 a gallon here in Washington, D.C. To what extent does the White House believe that the proposal the President announced today will bring down the cost of gasoline for motorists across the country?

MR. BURTON: I don’t know about the immediate impact because of course all these different things that we’re doing have to go through different phases, right? You’ve got some places where you can start drilling a lot more soon than in other places. And so the length of time that it takes for the oil to get out of the ground and into the supply is going to take a little while.

So I don’t know that — I’m not a speculator, so I don’t know exactly what’s going to happen on the price of a barrel of oil today. But I can tell you that over the long term this is going to save the American people money, it’s going to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and it’s going to allow them to know that our energy future is secure.

Q So long term then — you say you don’t know about the immediate impact it may have — long term, you think that the price of gasoline for motorists across the country will come down as a result of the proposal the President announced today?

MR. BURTON: I think that as a result of the proposal the President announced today, our country will have a lot more energy security and a lot less dependence on foreign oil. But in terms of the ups and downs of the market, I’m not going to get into that.

Q Did that enter into the calculus of the White House in making this decision, that perhaps this would bring down the cost of gasoline for motorists?

MR. BURTON: Well, obviously as we get into the summer, gas prices go up. And at a time when the economy is not doing very well, that can have a real pinch on families who are unemployed, or families who are underemployed, or families who are feeling the pinch from all sorts of different aspects of the economy — rising tuition costs, rising utility costs, and things like that.
And so the President does want to do things that make energy more affordable for the American people. But I would say that this comprehensive approach is the best way to do that for the long term for — as it relates to energy and as it relates to our economy.

Thank you.

END
1:08 P.M. EDT

What’s so gut-busting laugh-out-loud funny is that conservatives keep trying to portray President Obama as a left-wing weirdo sitting around smoking hash and lathering himself up with patchouli oil. If you look at his policies — yes, even health care reform — it’s pretty clear that Obama is marginally left-of-center.

Take for instance his plan to open up offshore drilling on both coasts and Alaska. Environmentalist heads are exploding. His liberal base is freaking losing it. Well, maybe they aren’t, because they’ve known for a long time that Obama is no beacon of liberal policy.

In the 2008, the real liberal running was Hillary Clinton. Obama was the moderate. He campaigned on offshore drilling and other not-so-liberal policies.

But that hasn’t stopped the GOP and Fox and friends from branding the president with the liberal tag. Watch Fox News for one day and count the number of times someone refers to Obama as the most liberal president, or person, to ever walk the face of the Earth.

There’s a reason that so many uneducated and un-curious Americans think Obama is the anti-christ – they watch Fox News. But the reality of Obama’s policies do not reflect this out-of-whack caricature of him.

If Obama was a true liberal, he wouldn’t be proposing domestic offshore oil drilling. According to the New York Times story today, his plan would yield about 3 years worth of oil and 2 years worth of natural gas. That hardly seems worth further alienating your base Mr. President.

No, if Obama were a liberal he’d be pushing full steam ahead with that green economy he campaigned on. He’d be cracking down on US auto manufacturers to get their gas mileage down to something better than what they were doing in 1983, and rolling out electric cars too. He’d be building wind farms, giving tax breaks for solar panel installations and raising taxes on gas guzzlers and polluters.

If he were a liberal, Obama would be implementing an aggressive plan of conservation while moving forward to replace our fossil fuel energy infrastructure with a renewable one. A true liberal would not be proposing offshore drilling.

What’s most shocking about this offshore drilling plan is that the president thinks, according to the New York Times story, that this anti-environment proposal is going to win GOP support. Obama is certainly much smarter than I, but there’s only so many times you can throw your base under the bus for a misguided attempt to gain Republican votes. It isn’t going to happen – move on.

Despite what right-wing fringers like Bill Kristol and Glenn Beck say, the White House hasn’t raised taxes and they even show you have to take advantage of new tax cuts.

From the White House: “Did you know that there are more than a dozen Recovery Act tax cuts working families can take advantage of this tax season? Check out this online tool and find out how much you can save.”

Coming off the heels of major domestic legislative victories, President Obama dropped into Afghanistan to meet with leaders to press them to do more to clamp down on corruption.

The Associated Press’ Jennifer Loven has the story.

KABUL – In a surprise visit, President Barack Obama pressed Afghan leaders on Sunday to do more to rein in rampant corruption and improve their government as he got a firsthand look at the 8-year-old war he inherited and dramatically escalated.

During meetings with President Hamid Karzai and his Cabinet, Obama told them he was pleased with progress made since his last discussion with Karzai, by secure videoconference on March 15. Obama also invited Karzai to visit Washington on May 12.

Read Loven’s story.

Huffington Post’s Paul Abrams is a “professional iconoclast” and co-founder breakupthebigbanks.com and had this to say about this historic week of Democracy in America.

While President Obama and Congress wrestled health care reform to a successful conclusion and tacked on Student Loan Reform, Secretary of State Clinton concluded a deal with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals, and Russia and China signaled frustration with Iran that may result in their joining sanctions. The President, the Vice-President and the Secretary of State practiced ‘tough love’ to Israel, and stood firm when vehemently attacked, a requirement if the US is going to bring this 60-year conflict to the resolution about which everyone knows not only the general contours, but most of the details.

Read Abrams’ complete column on Huffington Post.

The consensus among the talking heads, political wonks, hacks and bloviators is that Democrats will lose big in November’s elections.

The logic is that the party in the White House always gets their ass handed to them in the first election after the president takes office. That’s what happened in 1994 after Clinton beat Bush in 1992. It didn’t happen in 2002 following George W. Bush’s controversial election in 2000.

The mainstream media and pundits are also convinced that voters are going bludgeon Democrats over their passage of health care reform. Following passage of Medicare in 1965, Republicans picked up 47 House seats in the 1966 election. Democrats still held a 247 to 187 majority in the House, but it was a good year for Republicans. Besides Medicare and Civil Rights legislation passage, there was also an unpopular Vietnam war raging and race riots sweeping the nation.

However, just like the prospectus for a mutual fund, past performance is not proof of future performance. And if you think that people paid to blather on MSNBC, Fox News and CNN are speaking the truth, or know what they’re talking about, means you haven’t been paying attention – these fools are wrong more than the weather man. Just remember what Bob Dylan said about the weather man.

As far as health care reform is concerned, it’s hard to see how getting beat by the GOP and failing to pass health care reform legislation would have proved a winner for Democrats in November. One things that is a constant in US history is that Americans like it when things get done and they like to vote for winners and not losers.

But if Democrats want to pull out big wins in November there’s a hanging fastball that they just need to swing at – take on the bankers. It’s a guaranteed home run. Everyone from all walks of life, whether Tea Partiers or left-wing anti-war activists, everyone hates bankers. Many Americans reflexively loath bankers and Wall Street big shots.

Senate Democrats and House members need to go back to the drawing board and produce some tough new regulations on bankers and Wall Street fatcats. There needs to be a campaign to rid the nation of banks “too big too fail” and to set up a strong consumer protection agency that’s not part of the Federal Reserve. Democrats need to beef up the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory agencies either with new legislation or with the power of the Executive.

Let the GOP campaign supporting of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and Wall Street hucksters.

This the issue an overwhelming majority of Americans care about, and if the Democrats hit it hard – they not only won’t lose in November, they could even have greater majorities in both houses.

I know many Americans hate progress, change, liberals, equality and workers, but it still surprises me when I see so many regular folks fight so hard to protect wealthy executives and corporations.

I wonder if CEOs for big pharma and health insurance companies sit around drinking scotch and laughing their asses off watching YouTube videos of all the boobs rallying to protect their positions of power.

I mean think about it, the Tea Partiers fought tooth and nail to protect health insurance companies so they can deny them – the protesters – health care, to take away their health care when they need it and to bankrupt them when they get sick.

It makes no sense.

And who do we have to thank for this mind-boggling insanity? President Ronald Reagan. It wasn’t so much the man as it was the time. Reagan, like all presidents, don’t create movements but they ride them.

The 1980s was the “Me Decade.” It was a time when the Baby Boomers were coming of age and they wanted, not just their slice, but the entire American pie. It was a decade plagued with un-checked greed and individualism. Either you were a Gordon Gekko, you wanted to be him or at the very least respected his tenacity and ruthlessness.

The last thing we needed was government intervention and taxes to slow down our quest for all of the money in the world.

There’s no doubt that this anti-government sentiment was rooted in the 1960s and 1970s when the government was doing some pretty horrible things. We had the Vietnam war and we lost. We had Watergate and we lost again. We did get civil rights legislation and Medicare, but the GOP successfully leveraged that as part of its “southern strategy.”

Animosity towards the government was strong on both sides of our political spectrum, and so when Reagan came in saying that it’s “morning in America,” people liked it.

Taxes for the wealthy were slashed and slashed and slashed again. Banking regulation was relegated to the garbage heap. We didn’t want to pay taxes, we wanted voodoo economics.

The idea behind voodoo economics was that by reducing government spending (that didn’t happen), reducing taxes (that did happen), reducing regulation (that happened) and controlling inflation (see Federal Reserve) the wealthy would get so rich some of that money would trickle down to the workers.

That’s called a top-down approach to economics – make the rich really rich and we all benefit. The problem is that it didn’t work.

What happened is that income inequality skyrocketed. While the rich were paying less in taxes, government spending wasn’t reduced and therefore deficits went up and the burden was placed squarely on the shoulders of the middle class. The money did trickle down. It trickled a little here and a little there, but unfortunately, trickle-down economics is just that – a trickle.

And so for the last 30 years, the rich got really rich and the rest of Americans were left with bailing out the Saving and Loans institutions that failed in the ’80s, the hedge fund debacle in the ’90s and the most recent Wall Street bankers who ushered in the Great Recession.

History should be our guide to economic and tax policy. When the rich don’t pay their fair share, like they didn’t in the “Roaring Twenties” which lead to the Great Depression. While we were under the spell of voodoo economics, we all suffered the consequences with the Great Recession. We can’t have an economic system that encourages economic inequality.

You see, one of the fundamental components of a tax system is to distribute the wealth. Either wealth goes up to the rich or down to the masses. Under Reaganomics it went up. Wealth redistribution is not socialism. It’s not communism. It’s how taxation works. And as a society we have to decide who should get the money – the wealthy or the rest of us.

A progressive taxation system is a bottom-up approach. It’s a belief that the real economic engine of this country isn’t the 1 percent of us who are wealthy, but the 99 percent who aren’t. If we have money, we buy a new car every couple of years. We buy new clothes. We go out to dinner. We go on a vacation with our family. The richest among us already do those things regardless of their tax burden, but the rest of us don’t.

It’s the workers of this nation that make this economy strong. When we have money, we spend it.

But the tide is changing. Americans have realized that slashing taxes on the wealthy doesn’t lead to economic prosperity but just the opposite. And when President Obama signed health care reform into law yesterday, he was saying that he supports the workers – the middle class. He said it’s time for the wealthy to start paying their fair share.

Now Obama needs to repeal the Bush tax cuts and then some. What America needs is a return to a progressive tax system and an end to laissez-faire government regulation of our financial system. Obama has a lot of work to do, because Americans don’t want voodoo economics anymore, but those who control the wealth and the GOP surely do, and they’ll stop at nothing to keep things as unfair as possible.

–
In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality