I’m busy. We don’t want somebody sitting back saying you’re not holding the mop the right way.

Why don’t you grab a mop? Why don’t you help clean up?

“You’re not mopping fast enough.”

“That’s a socialist mop.”

Grab a mop! Let’s get to work.  ~~President Barak Obama

The American people by a popular majority of more than eight million votes selected as their President a candidate who had been attacked by his Republican foe as a radical who “began his campaign in the liberal left lane of politics and has never left it.”

If only. In truth, Barack Obama was never the Mao in pinstripes that the rightwing attack machine conjured up. His record on Capitol Hill was never “more liberal than a Senator who calls himself a socialist [Vermont's Bernie Sanders],” as John McCain wheezed at the last stops of a dying campaign. And he has never even been in competition for the title bestowed upon him by former Senator Fred Thompson during last summer’s Republican National Convention: “the most liberal . . . nominee to ever run for President.”

Thompson had apparently forgotten not just George McGovern but Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, all of whom sought the Presidency as more left-leaning contenders than did Obama in 2008. And, as McGovern, an able historian, himself reminds us: Franklin Roosevelt put contemporary Democrats to shame when it came to embracing and advancing radical notions.

For we Liberals and Progressives, who find ourselves moving from the easy opposition stance of the Bush-Cheney horror to the more challenging position of dealing with the first Democratic President elected with something akin to a mandate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, it is important to see Barack Obama for who he is and his administration for what it can be. The best way to do this is by hearing the President in his own words.

After he secured the delegates required to claim the Democratic nomination, Obama found himself at a town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta, where he was grilled about whether having run as a primary season Progressive he was now shifting to the center.

The Senator was clearly offended by the suggestion.

“Let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center or that I’m flip-flopping or this or that or the other,” he began. “You know, the people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”

“I am somebody who is no doubt Progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive.”

I believe him. Those were not casually chosen words. Barack Obama knows exactly what it means to say he is a “Progressive,” and he actually understands the subtle nuances of the American left. This is a man who moved to Chicago to be part of the political moment that began with the 1983 election of leftie Congressman Harold Washington as the city’s first African American mayor, who studied the organizing techniques of Saul “Rules for Radicals” Alinsky, who worked with proudly radical labor leaders to defend basic industries and avert layoffs, who used his Harvard-educated legal skills to fight for expanded voting rights, who was mentored by civil libertarian legislator and federal judge Abner Mikva, who discussed the intricacies of Middle East policy with Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, and who learned about single-payer health care from his old friend and neighbor Dr. Quentin Young, the longtime coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. And, famously, Obama did not just make anti-war sounds before Iraq was invaded, he appeared at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago with a “War Is Not an Option” sign waving at his side.

Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate as a candidate endorsed by the New Party, the labor-left movement of the mid-1990s that declared “the social, economic, and political progress of the United States requires a democratic revolution in America-the return of power to the people.” In those days, he was blunt about his desire to move the Democratic Party off the cautious center where Bill Clinton had wedged it. When he positioned himself for a 2004 U.S. Senate run, Obama said that he saw Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold-the lone dissenter against the Patriot Act-as the best role model in the chamber.

I celebrated Obama’s election as a victory for what the late Paul Wellstone described as “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” But knowing the ideals and values of the left is not the same as practicing them. As a Senator, Obama did not take Feingold as a role model. In fact, they differed on essential constitutional, trade, and Presidential accountability issues, with Obama consistently taking more cautiously Centrist positions. One of Obama’s first votes in the Senate was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Dr. Young wrote to his friend. “I told him I was disappointed in him,” the veteran campaigner for peace and social and economic justice recalled. “Rice was the embodiment of everything that was wrong with this Administration. So, he called me back and he said: ‘Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call me? Do you think Bush would ever send to the Senate a nominee for Secretary of State who I could vote for? I said: ‘You are the constitutional lawyer. It’s about advice and consent, right? You should have denied him your consent.’ ”

The lesson that should be taken away from the Rice vote, and from the disappointments that have followed it, ought not be that Obama is a hopeless case. In fact, quite the opposite. In that conversation with Young, Senator Obama outlined the relationship that the left ought to develop with President Obama.

Obama was nominated and elected in 2008 by Independents and by Progressives, both younger tech-savvy activists who made his candidacy an early favorite of the blogosphere and old-school liberal precinct walkers like me. The Senator won the Democratic nomination because he was the only first-tier contender who could say that he had opposed authorizing Bush to take the country to war with Iraq. In the Iowa caucuses that would define the 2008 race, those anti-war credentials, above all other factors, made the young Senator from Illinois a contender.

Similarly, as he campaigned in key states such as Wisconsin, Obama’s call for a new approach to free trade agreements and for massive infrastructure investments allowed him to secure backing from labor and liberal farm activists at critical stages in the process. The Progressives who committed to Obama early on were the essential foot soldiers of his long march through the caucuses, the primaries, and the fall campaign. These activists formed a base within the campaign and the Democratic Party, centered on –but not limited to –the Obama team’s open website and blog, www.MyBarackObama.com, which did not always cheerlead for the candidate. In June, when Obama broke with Feingold and other Senate Progressives to support Bush’s rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Senator felt enough heat from his own and independent netroots sites that he was compelled to explain himself, making what Obama described as a “firm pledge” that he would revisit the issue as President to shore up privacy protections.

What Internet activists such as OpenLeft.com’s Matt Stoller did during the FISA fight was roughly equivalent to what Obama told Dr. Young to do back in 2005: “Pick up the phone and call me.” Netroots activists made themselves heard and earned a response from then-candidate Obama. And they can do much more with respect to President Obama. The netroots can get the public engaged, but instead, they have made the public demoralized. Instead of providing suggestions, they have only complained. They have been reactive and not proactive.

One way to influence Obama and his Administration is to speak– not so much to him– as to America. Progressives need to get out ahead of the President. Highlight the right appointees and the right responses to deal with the challenges that matter most. Advance big ideas and organize on their behalf; identify allies in federal agencies, especially in Congress, and work with them to dial up the pressure for progress. I am not seeing much of that at all—but I am seeing a daily barrage of criticism. I am not seeing any discussion of what has been accomplished or what we specifically want accomplished. Indeed, we could take a lesson from rightwing pressure groups in their dealings with Republican administrations and recognize that it is always better to build the bandwagon than to jump on board one that is crafted with the tools of compromise. Don’t just critique, but rather propose.

Sixty activists from The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, Physicians for a National Health Program, and Progressive Democrats of America and allied groups met one week after Election Day at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington with Michigan Congressman John Conyers, an early Obama backer and the chief House proponent of real reform, to forge a Single-Payer Healthcare Alliance and plot specific strategies for influencing the new Administration and Congress.

The point wasn’t to teach Obama about single-payer. Seven years ago, he told the Illinois AFLCIO: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody . . . a singlepayer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Since then, Democrats have taken back the House, the Senate, and the White House, but perhaps in name only. We have learned since the election that too many who call themselves Democrats are only Democrats on some issues. Single-payer was never on the table, and in retrospect, I can see why not. The President’s statements, his strategies, and his appointments evidence a caution born of the political and structural pressures faced by every President. Whether the previous, more progressive Obama still exists remains to be seen. I still believe it does. But the only way to determine if Obama really is the Progressive he claimed in 2008 to be is to push not just Obama, but the public and the media. I am frustrated every day when I watch the political pundits –and not only those on the Right—claim that the public is opposed to Health Care Reform. Why do they think Obama won? It was the central item of his agenda!

The often quoted example of Franklin Roosevelt is still  good to remember. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”

It is reasonable for Progressives to assume that Barack Obama agrees with them on many fundamental issues. He has said as much. It is equally reasonable for Progressives to assume that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing. But it is necessary for Progressives to understand that, as with Roosevelt, they will have to make Obama do it.

I have never worked so hard as a citizen to get what I voted for. That’s fine; this is the new reality. I can’t say how much difference the involvement of Progressive activists has made, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Where would we be if we’d never emailed and called our representatives? I believe HCR would have died last August. I believe there might not be a second stimulus. I think financial reforms would be forgotten–as well as a host of other mopping chores we still need to accomplish. Congress is cowardly and lazy, and if Progressives don’t push, be certain the Right will win. To paraphrase Roy Scheider’s character in the movie Jaws, “We’re gonna need a bigger mop.”

Watch live and join the live commenting on The Health Care Summit:

The 6 hour gathering is today discussing the future of OUR health and lives.

If you are watching and want to add your thoughts, enter here.

Tonight, Bill Moyers had a marvelous episode which I can’t recommend enough.

The first segment was about the SCOTUS decision and the impact on our democracy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch.html

With pro and con voices.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch2.html

The second segment I found the most intriguing, with a doctor who had been working for single payer with Congress…and was ultimately shut down and out by the White House.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch3.html

And a final piece on which corporations finance these Republican and Democrat retreats.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch4.html

I highly recommend watching these segments and the rest of this remarkable episode.

No, it’s not a new sitcom, it’s instead something we can finally call…bipartisanship!

Rahm Emanuel, Pres. Obama’s Chief of Staff, has insulted activist Progressive Dems and the handicapped which spurred Sarah Palin to call for his resignation.

As AP reports:

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Emanuel, exasperated upon learning that liberal special-interest groups were planning to run ads against conservative Democrats not supportive of health care reform, blasted the plan as “f—— retarded” over the summer.

Naturally, some outrage ensued after Emanuel’s words came to light, with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin taking to her Facebook page to call on President Obama to fire him for what she saw as the equivalent of a racial slur.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl1101

To be clear, Pres. Obama’s CoS, betrayed Progressives by selling them out on real HCR, along with the majority of Americans. To literally add insult to injury, Rahm then attacked Progresisve Dems willing to take action against Rahm’s anti-HCR allies with a frat boy mentality and insult that is a slur against the handicapped.

Considering all of this, let’s recap the lowlights of who Rahm is and what kind of a corporate tool and failure he is.

First, from Wikipedia:

Emanuel is known for his “take-no-prisoners style” that has earned him the nickname “Rahmbo.”[21] Emanuel is said to have sent a dead fish in a box to a pollster who was late delivering polling results.[17] On the night after the 1996 election, “Emanuel was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting ‘Dead! … Dead! … Dead!’ and plunging the knife into the table after every name.”[5][7] Before Tony Blair gave a pro-Clinton speech during the impeachment crisis, Emanuel reportedly screamed to Blair’s face “Don’t fuck this up!” while Clinton was present; Blair and Clinton both burst into laughter.

Emanuel was named to the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) by then President Bill Clinton in 2000. His position earned him at least $320,000, including later stock sales.[31][32] He was not assigned to any of the board’s working committees, and the Board met no more than six times per year.[32]

During his time on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities.[32][33] The Obama Administration rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel’s time as a director.[32]

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) later accused the board of having “failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention.” Emanuel resigned from the board in 2001 when he ran for Congress.[34]

Emanuel was elected after the October 2002 joint Congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq War, and thus was not able to vote on it. However, in the lead up to the resolution Emmanuel spoke out strongly in support of the war, urging a United States’ “muscular projection of force” in Iraq. Emanuel has been the focus of anti-war protests for his support of funding bills for the war in Iraq, and his support, during Democratic party primaries, of Democratic party candidates that are more hawkish.

In January, 2003 he was named to the House Financial Services Committee, and sat on the subcommittee that oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee commenced hearings lasting for more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing allegedly for reasons of avoiding any appearance of favoritism, impropriety, or conflict of interest.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

The key reason Rahm was chosen to be CoS was his “tough guy” style and his insight to and ability to get bills through Congress. In light of how HCR has stalled and is only a fraction of what Americans were promised and supported, Rahm is a failure.

As I stated in a previous post:

Rahm is the one who conceived and implementing the wrongheaded policy of working with lobbyists and their corporate clients in the Insurance industry, to have understandings with them on limitations of the scope of HCR in order to get their agreement not to oppose what they would try to pass.

As is quite apparent, the give aways to HC Corps that Rahm championed,  such as greatly increasing the time it will take for a drug to be sold as a cheaper generic, the continued ban against importing cheaper-priced drugs from Canada and other nations, the continued ban against the government being able to negotiate bulk rates for drugs and the lack of commitment to the Public Option and other items that would benefit the public at the expense of corporations…did not result in these slimeball corporations keeping their promises.

Rahm was also behind letting the Congress work everything out without  direction from Pres. Obama which continues to this day, an AP article yesterday stating that Dems are urgently looking to Obama to give them some direction on how to accomplish what he asked for in his SOTU address.

Had the realities of passing HCR been accepted at the outset, that there weren’t 60 votes in the Senate and that no matter what one was promised by the lying weasels at HC Corps, they are lying weasels who would never act ethically if it was against their own interests, HCR could have been strategized to have been passed a long time ago.

Rahm had one raison d’etre, to get bills through Congress. He was the guru, he was the genius, this was what he knew better than anyone.

And he destroyed this current opportunity with his DLC coziness with corporations and his incompetence at not recognizing that unethical HC corporations…are unethical.

Where is the accountability for this debacle? Rahm should be fired for his utter failure.

So, pro-HCR Dems and Sarah Palin Repubs may finally have a bipartisan agreement. Rahm should go.

How do you feel about it? Would you be willing to sign a letter to President Obama, asking him to consider removing Rahm Emanuel as his CoS? Please use the poll below to express yourself:

 Loading ...

I’ve discussed this issue of Dems Against Obama with some who are very sharp and informed Progressives and subscribe to being very vocal critics of his.

I thought it would be constructive to discuss and examine some of the points that are made by those subscribing to this POV. Additionally, I will not be shy about my criticisms of the Obama Admin but I think the approach to dealing with them is critical to keeping Dems in power and helping the Obama Admin make more changes.

Here are some propositions:

1. Pres. Obama’s image as an agent for big change was an effective campaign tool but not reflective of his true sensibilities.

2. He is an incrementalist at heart and deeply believes that the best he can do as president is to tweak the system, not make big changes.

3. He is too much a politician, it is important to him to be a peacemaker, to please everyone around him. In this way, he feels that his primary objective is to bring everyone together in a positive atmosphere, then they will be willing to work together constructively. He will not acknowledge that the GOP is wholly unwilling to cooperate.

4. By bringing on Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, he has simply continued the status quo in Washington and continued many Bush era policies.

5. His decisions on handling the banks and TARP as well as pharma and health insurance companies are a continuation of the policies of accommodating corporations first, instead of the people. He has not come out strong and hard against the corporatism that is dominating our nation.

I think many of us can agree with at least one or more of these arguments.

As for me, I am a huge opponent of Rahm Emanuel. He is the one who conceived and implementing the wrongheaded policy of working with lobbyists and their corporate clients in the Insurance industry, to have understandings with them on limitations of the scope of HCR in order to get their agreement not to oppose what they would try to pass.

As is quite apparent, the give aways to HC Corps that Rahm championed,  such as greatly increasing the time it will take for a drug to be sold as a cheaper generic, the continued ban against importing cheaper-priced drugs from Canada and other nations, the continued ban against the government being able to negotiate bulk rates for drugs and the lack of commitment to the Public Option and other items that would benefit the public at the expense of corporations…did not result in these slimeball corporations keeping their promises.

They took all that Rahm wanted to offer them then like the weasels they are, went behind everyone’s back to finance the CoC’s attack on HCR and many other entities propagandizing against  HCR so they could have their cake, eat it then grab away everyone else’s cake too.

Rahm was also behind letting the Congress work everything out without  direction from Pres. Obama which continues to this day, an AP article yesterday stating that Dems are urgently looking to Obama to give them some direction on how to accomplish what he asked for in his SOTU address.

Rahm had one raison d’etre, to get bills through Congress. He was the guru, he was the genius, this was what he knew better than anyone.

And he destroyed this current opportunity with his DLC coziness with corporations and his incompetence at not recognizing that unethical HC corporations…are unethical. Unethical people don’t keep promises and Rahm, who believes he is the smartest on the hill, wasn’t smart enough to  figure that simple one out. Nor did he add 1 + 1 to figure out that the Senators the Insurance Companies owned, such as Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus, etc. would have their strings pulled too.

Where is the accountability for this debacle? Rahm should be fired for his utter failure. Now some may say, “How is it a failure, we got farther than ever and bills passed in both houses of Congress?” My POV is that we had the strongest fastest horse in the race, being cheered on by most of the crowd and yet, with Rahm at the reins we ended up out of the money.

Had the realities of passing HCR been accepted at the outset, that there weren’t 60 votes in the Senate and that no matter what one was promised by the lying weasels at HC Corps, they are lying weasels who would never act ethically if it was against their own interests, HCR could have been strategized to have been passed a long time ago.

The difference in this attempt at HCR is that the nation was powerfully behind it like never before, it was a mandate in the election. So comparing it to other times in the past is apples and oranges. It took massive incompetence to undercut this attempt which was already so close to the finish line before it began.

All of that said, I am anxious to hear the new strategy from the WH and Congress on getting HCR passed and am hoping that lessons learned will help make it happen.

On another of the propositions, I too was disappointed when Pres. Obama surrounded himself with DLCers, Clinton-related folks and corporate people as decision makers. I am not a fan of HuffPo’s obsession with attacking Geithner but one can fairly say that Geithner’s track record is not a distinguished one in terms of doing what’s best for all, not what’s best for banks. Neither is Summers for that matter.

There was a huge window when Obama was elected, to make sweeping changes to the financial structure in this nation, the majority of Americans were behind him on doing so. Instead he supported the more conservative approach of rebuilding and strengthening of the existing, unjust system. That window has closed now and it’s a terribly disappointing missed opportunity.

And as for this continued bipartisan approach, I am very frustrated. It almost seems like there is a bubble of denial in the WH, they just refuse to accept the actual dynamics of reality. The GOP has one strategy to winning back the Congress and the WH, stop anything good from happening while Obama is president.

Here too, I can only hope that this renewed push for bipartisanship is cover for soon ignoring them but I thought that before, after the Stimulus bill and was disappointed to see it continue through the HCR push.

Now, as to the issue of how Dem party members respond to their disagreements and disappointments with what has transpired under Obama, I agree that we should always be vocal at protesting actions that run counter to our principles however the degree and approach of that protest does make a big difference.

When Bush was president, there was no other choice for dealing with a president who didn’t give a shit what the people had to say, we needed to be loud, aggressive, attacking and unyielding.

I don’t agree with that approach to Pres. Obama because I think it does not take into account the blowback.

The blowback is what happened in MA. Being pounded by attacks on Obama from the Right and a segment of Dems too, Dem voters were discouraged and de-energized and didn’t turn out to vote. And a Teabagger was elected that destroyed passing HCR. How short sighted was that?!

So the net result of aggressively attacking Obama is to give aid, comfort and support to the GOP and Teabaggers.

Those fervent about aggressively attacking Obama and his Admin for issues I see as totally valid, seem not to have learned from the MA election where this path leads.

Yes, those protesting often have valid points but as the saying goes, the operation was a success but the patient died. What’s more important, aggressively expressing oneself on what one sees as wrong or avoiding a worse situation where far more wrongs will occur?

Will having a GOP controlled Congress and a President Palin or President Romney give those aggressively protesting now more of the America they want or less?

Short term vs. long term perspectives.  By not making their criticisms constructively, are such Dems not serving the same end result as the GOP attacks? Damaging Obama and feeding the anti-government/incumbent fervor?

For me, this is the huge difference, this is why I see virulent attacks by Dems on the Dem Party and Obama ultimately self-destructive.

Even if one agrees with every proposition above, even if Obama truly believes in only making incremental change in this nation, in such a scenario the only choices we have are incremental change or a return to Bush era corporatism with no positive change for Americans.

Again, at worst the choices are:

a. Incremental change that helps Americans.

b. Escalation of corporate control and domination over Americans.

What none of the Dems who attack Obama so fiercely have been able to express is that there is any other possible choice than the two above and that their lack of support for a. is in fact a boon for b..

In an unprecedented way President Obama has taken on the GOP face to face. The best part is it was caught on camera. Obama schooled the GOP calling out their nihilist political strategy and ridiculous rhetoric on issues from the stimulus to healthcare reform. So much for the carrots Obama brought out the sticks today.

The GOP fought back with their typical lame ideas of tax cuts for the rich and big business and plans to add line item veto powers to trim the budget.  The obviously forgot that GOP stalwart Rudolph Giuliani was the plaintiff who ended President Clinton’s efforts to add the line item veto which was struck down by the courts.  However, so effective were the president’s arguments that Faux News actually stopped broadcasting the event with 20 minutes remaining.

Excerpt from the AP:

BALTIMORE – In a face-to-face encounter, President Barack Obama chastised Republican lawmakers Friday for opposing him on health care, economic stimulus and other major issues.

Republicans pushed back on taxes and spending, and accused Obama of not taking their ideas seriously.

Obama, attending the House Republicans’ retreat in Baltimore, began with conciliatory remarks but soon became more pointed. He said a GOP-driven “politics of no” was blocking action on bills that could help Americans obtain jobs and health care.

In a sometimes-barbed exchange, he said some in the audience have attended ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects funded by the stimulus package they voted against. Obama also questioned why Republicans have overwhelmingly opposed his tax-cut policies, which he said have benefited 95 percent of American families.

“The notion that this was a radical package is just not true,” Obama said. “I am not an ideologue.”

GOP lawmakers pressed the president to pledge to support a line-item veto for spending bills and across-the-board tax cuts. Obama demurred, saying billionaires don’t need new tax cuts.

In his opening remarks, Obama criticized a Washington culture driven by opinion polls and nonstop political campaigns.

Response to the meeting has been praised by several sources who are pleased Obama is debating the GOP directly.

In a Tweet, Marc Ambinder said ‘they should do this every month’.

Ezra Klein went as far as to Tweet ‘Obama’s Q&A with the House Republicans is the most compelling political television I’ve seen…maybe ever.‘

Obama chastized the sensationalism in media as well in his remarks.

Amazingly even Sam Stein of Huffington post wrote a positive story about the unprecedented televised event.

Seemingly realizing the political damage of the people hearing the truth GOP operatives say the event should not have been televised.

Watch the entire event here on the Planet.

Complete transcript of Obama’s remarks as recorded by the White House:

12:10 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, everybody be seated. Thank you. Thank you, John, for the gracious introduction. To Mike and Eric, thank you for hosting me. Thank you to all of you for receiving me. It is wonderful to be here. I want to also acknowledge Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute. To all the family members who are here and who have to put up with us for an elective office each and every day, thank you, because I know that’s tough. (Applause.)

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

Part of the reason I accepted your invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not just to all of you. So I’m looking forward to taking your questions and having a real conversation in a few moments. And I hope that the conversation we begin here doesn’t end here; that we can continue our dialogue in the days ahead. It’s important to me that we do so. It’s important to you, I think, that we do so. But most importantly, it’s important to the American people that we do so.

I’ve said this before, but I’m a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security — and that’s not something that’s only good for our country, it’s absolutely essential. It’s only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back and forth — that imperfect but well-founded process, messy as it often is — is at the heart of our democracy. That’s what makes us the greatest nation in the world.

So, yes, I want you to challenge my ideas, and I guarantee you that after reading this I may challenge a few of yours. (Laughter.) I want you to stand up for your beliefs, and knowing this caucus, I have no doubt that you will. I want us to have a constructive debate. The only thing I don’t want — and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don’t want either — is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks, when we’re in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That’s their obsession.

And I’m not a pundit. I’m just a President, so take it for what it’s worth. But I don’t believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security. (Applause.) I don’t think they want more gridlock. I don’t think they want more partisanship. I don’t think they want more obstruction. They didn’t send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel-cage match to see who comes out alive. That’s not what they want. They sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they’re grappling with every single day.

And I think your constituents would want to know that despite the fact it doesn’t get a lot of attention, you and I have actually worked together on a number of occasions. There have been times where we’ve acted in a bipartisan fashion. And I want to thank you and your Democratic colleagues for reaching across the aisle. There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda safe haven, to break the Taliban’s momentum, and to train Afghan security forces. There’s been broad support for disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda. And I know that we’re all united in our admiration of our troops. (Applause.)

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

It’s that same spirit of bipartisanship that made it possible for me to sign a defense contracting reform bill that was cosponsored by Senator McCain and members of Congress here today. We’ve stood together on behalf of our nation’s veterans. Together we passed the largest increase in the VA’s budget in more than 30 years and supported essential veterans’ health care reforms to provide better access and medical care for those who serve in uniform.

Some of you also joined Democrats in supporting a Credit Card Bill of Rights and in extending unemployment compensation to Americans who are out of work. Some of you joined us in stopping tobacco companies from targeting kids, expanding opportunities for young people to serve our country, and helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes.

So we have a track record of working together. It is possible. But, as John, you mentioned, on some very big things, we’ve seen party-line votes that, I’m just going to be honest, were disappointing. Let’s start with our efforts to jumpstart the economy last winter, when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large. I didn’t understand then, and I still don’t understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people, or COBRA coverage to help Americans who’ve lost jobs in this recession to keep the health insurance that they desperately needed, or opposition to putting Americans to work laying broadband and rebuilding roads and bridges and breaking ground on new construction projects.

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

Well, that’s what the Recovery Act was. And let’s face it, some of you have been at the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities. Now, I understand some of you had some philosophical differences perhaps on the just the concept of government spending, but, as I recall, opposition was declared before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas. And I saw that as a missed opportunity.

Now, I am happy to report this morning that we saw another sign that our economy is moving in the right direction. The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent — that’s the most since 2003. To put that in perspective, this time last year, we weren’t seeing positive job growth; we were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent.

So you’ve seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year. This turnaround is the biggest in nearly three decades — and it didn’t happen by accident. It happened — as economists, conservative and liberal, will attest — because of some of the steps that we took.

And by the way, you mentioned a Web site out here, John — if you want to look at what’s going on, on the Recovery Act, you can look on recovery.gov — a Web site, by the way, that was Eric Cantor’s idea.

Now, here’s the point. These are serious times, and what’s required by all of us — Democrats and Republicans — is to do what’s right for our country, even if it’s not always what’s best for our politics. I know it may be heresy to say this, but there are things more important than good poll numbers. And on this no one can accuse me of not living by my principles. (Laughter.) A middle class that’s back on its feet, an economy that lifts everybody up, an America that’s ascendant in the world — that’s more important than winning an election. Our future shouldn’t be shaped by what’s best for our politics; our politics should be shaped by what’s best for our future.

But no matter what’s happened in the past, the important thing for all of us is to move forward together. We have some issues right in front of us on which I believe we should agree, because as successful as we’ve been in spurring new economic growth, everybody understands that job growth has been lagging. Some of that’s predictable. Every economist will say jobs are a lagging indicator, but that’s no consolation for the folks who are out there suffering right now. And since 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in this recession, we’ve got to do everything we can to accelerate it.

So, today, in line with what I stated at the State of the Union, I’ve proposed a new jobs tax credit for small business. And here’s how it would work. Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010. They’d get a tax break for increases in wages, as well. So, if you raise wages for employees making under $100,000, we’d refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation. It’s a simple concept. It’s easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses.

So I hope you join me. Let’s get this done. I want to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business investment, and take some of the bailout money the Wall Street banks have returned and use it to help community banks start lending to small businesses again. So join me. I am confident that we can do this together for the American people. And there’s nothing in that proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predispositions of this caucus. The question is: What’s going to keep us from getting this done?

I’ve proposed a modest fee on the nation’s largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover for taxpayers’ money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. And it’s designed to discourage them from taking reckless risks in the future. If you listen to the American people, John, they’ll tell you they want their money back. Let’s do this together, Republicans and Democrats.

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

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

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

But the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long term died in the Senate the other day. So I’m going to establish such a commission by executive order and I hope that you participate, fully and genuinely, in that effort, because if we’re going to actually deal with our deficit and debt, everybody here knows that we’re going to have to do it together, Republican and Democrat. No single party is going to make the tough choices involved on its own. It’s going to require all of us doing what’s right for the American people.

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

I know how bitter and contentious the issue of health insurance reform has become. And I will eagerly look at the ideas and better solutions on the health care front. If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, I respect your right to say so, but I just don’t agree. And neither would millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who can’t get coverage today or find out that they lose their insurance just as they’re getting seriously ill. That’s exactly when you need insurance. And for too many people, they’re not getting it. I don’t think a system is working when small businesses are gouged and 15,000 Americans are losing coverage every single day; when premiums have doubled and out-of-pocket costs have exploded and they’re poised to do so again.

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

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

Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions, that wasn’t my idea, it was Senator McCain’s. And I supported it, and it got incorporated into our approach. Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers — that’s an idea that some of you I suspect included in this better solutions; that’s an idea that was incorporated into our package. And I support it, provided that we do it hand in hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.

A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents’ insurance until they’re 25 or 26. I supported that. That’s part of our package. I supported a number of other ideas, from incentivizing wellness to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance option for young people that came from Republicans like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and I’m sure from some of you as well. So when you say I ought to be willing to accept Republican ideas on health care, let’s be clear: I have.

Bipartisanship — not for its own sake but to solve problems — that’s what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now. All of us then have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we’re going to be politicians first or partners for progress; whether we’re going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America. Just think about it for a while. We don’t have to put it up for a vote today.

Let me close by saying this. I was not elected by Democrats or Republicans, but by the American people. That’s especially true because the fastest growing group of Americans are independents. That should tell us both something. I’m ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in a spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can’t break free from partisan gridlock, if we can’t move past a politics of “no,” if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as President. I’ve got to act for the greater good — because that, too, is a commitment that I have made. And that’s — that, too, is what the American people sent me to Washington to do.

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

So thank you very much. Thank you, John. (Applause.) Now I’d like to open it up for questions.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: The President has agreed to take questions and members would be encouraged to raise your hand while you remain in your seat. (Laughter.) The chair will take the prerogative to make the first remarks.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

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

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: [off microphone] Number two, our pledge to you, Mr. President, was that door is always open. And we hope the (inaudible) of our invitation that we (inaudible).

Mr. President, several of us in this conference yesterday on the way into Baltimore stopped by the Salvation Army homeless facility here in Baltimore. I met a little boy, an African American boy, in the 8th grade, named David Carter, Jr. When he heard that I would be seeing you today his eyes lit up like I had never seen. And I told him that if he wrote you a letter I’d give it to you, and I have.

But I had a conversation with little David, Jr. and David, Sr. His family has been struggling with the economy.

[On microphone.] His dad said words to me, Mr. President, that I’ll never forget. About my age and he said — he said, Congressman, it’s not like it was when we were coming up. He said, there’s just no jobs.

Now, last year about the time you met with us, unemployment was 7.5 percent in this country. Your administration, and your party in Congress, told us that we’d have to borrow more than $700 billion to pay for a so-called stimulus bill. It was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts, all of which was — we were told — had to be passed or unemployment would go to 8 percent, as your administration said. Well, unemployment is 10 percent now, as you well know, Mr. President; here in Baltimore it’s considerably higher.

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

Now we know you’ve come to Baltimore today and you’ve raised this tax credit, which was last promoted by President Jimmy Carter. But the first question I would pose to you, very respectfully, Mr. President, is would you be willing to consider embracing — in the name of little David Carter, Jr. and his dad, in the name of every struggling family in this country — the kind of across-the-board tax relief that Republicans have advocated, that President Kennedy advocated, that President Reagan advocated and that has always been the means of stimulating broad-based economic growth?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there was a lot packed into that question. (Laughter.) First of all, let me say I already promised that I’ll be writing back to that young man and his family, and I appreciate you passing on the letter.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: But let’s talk about just the jobs environment generally. You’re absolutely right that when I was sworn in the hope was that unemployment would remain around 8 [percent], or in the 8 percent range. That was just based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists, because at that point not all the data had trickled in.

We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I’m assuming you’re not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I’m assuming it wasn’t my administration’s policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone into effect. So I’m assuming that wasn’t as a consequence of our policies; that doesn’t reflect the failure of the Recovery Act. The point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession proved to be much more severe — in the first quarter of last year going into the second quarter of last year — than anybody anticipated.

So I mean, I think we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be. But those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken into effect. Now, that’s just the fact, Mike, and I don’t think anybody would dispute that. You could not find an economist who would dispute that.

Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists — Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative — would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse. Now, they didn’t fill a 7 million hole in the number of people who were unemployed. They probably account for about 2 million, which means we still have 5 million folks in there that we’ve still got to deal with. That’s a lot of people.

The package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is, should have reflected — and I believe reflected what most of you would say are common sense things. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts, and they weren’t — when you say they were “boutique” tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts, small businesses got tax cuts, large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules. I mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts. A third of it was stabilizing state budgets.

There is not a single person in here who, had it not been for what was in the stimulus package, wouldn’t be going home to more teachers laid off, more firefighters laid off, more cops laid off. A big chunk of it was unemployment insurance and COBRA, just making sure that people had some floor beneath them, and, by the way, making sure that there was enough money in their pockets that businesses had some customers.

You take those two things out, that accounts for the majority of the stimulus package. Are there people in this room who think that was a bad idea? A portion of it was dealing with the AMT, the alternative minimum tax — not a proposal of mine; that’s not a consequence of my policies that we have a tax system where we keep on putting off a potential tax hike that is embedded in the budget that we have to fix each year. That cost about $70 billion.

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

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

And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs — why would I resist that? I wouldn’t. I mean, that’s my point, is that — I am not an ideologue. I’m not. It doesn’t make sense if somebody could tell me you could do this cheaper and get increased results that I wouldn’t say, great. The problem is, I couldn’t find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.

Now, we can — here’s what I know going forward, though. I mean, we’re talking — we were talking about the past. We can talk about this going forward. I have looked at every idea out there in terms of accelerating job growth to match the economic growth that’s already taken place. The jobs credit that I’m discussing right now is one that a lot of people think would be the most cost-effective way for encouraging people to pick up their hiring.

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

But the question I think we’re going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what’s good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November we’re able to say, “The other party, it’s their fault.” If we take the latter approach then we’re probably not going to get much agreement. If we take the former, I suspect there’s going to be a lot of overlap. All right?

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

THE PRESIDENT: Here’s what I’m going to do, Mike. What I’m going to do is I’m going to take a look at what you guys are proposing. And the reason I say this, before you say, “Okay,” I think is important to know — what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffet. You may be calling for an across-the-board tax cut for the banking industry right now. I may not agree to that.

So I think that we’ve got to look at what specific proposals you’re putting forward, and — this is the last point I’ll make — if you’re calling for just across-the-board tax cuts, and then on the other hand saying that we’re somehow going to balance our budget, I’m going to want to take a look at your math and see how that works, because the issue of deficit and debt is another area where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements. How’s that? All right?

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Thank you. Mr. President, first off, thanks for agreeing to accept our invitation here. It is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today.

THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you. Is this your crew right here, by the way?

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: It is. This is my daughter Liza, my son Charlie and Sam, and this is my wife Janna.

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, guys.

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Say hi, everybody. (Laughter.) I serve as a ranking member of the budget committee, so I’m going to talk a little budget if you don’t mind. The spending bills that you’ve signed into law, the domestic discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 3/100ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now.

You’ve also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel. I have a proposal with my home state senator, Russ Feingold, bipartisan proposal, to create a constitutional version of the line-item veto. (Applause.) Problem is, we can’t even get a vote on the proposal.

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

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

Now, look, I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspected I’d be hearing this — I’d be hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is, is that most of the increases in this year’s budget, this past year’s budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession.

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

Now, the reason that I’m not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year — we prepared a budget for 2010, it’s now going forward — is, again, I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. And what they will say is that if you either increase taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a destimulative effect and potentially you’d see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off. That’s why I’ve proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. So that’s point number two.

With respect to the line-item veto, I actually — I think there’s not a President out there that wouldn’t love to have it. And I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. I know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and Russ Feingold. I don’t like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful but I’ve got to sign because it’s a defense authorization bill and I’ve got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need.

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

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

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I’d like to walk you through that, because we have a version we think is constitutional.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me take a look at it.

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. The discretionary spending, the bills that Congress signs that you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent.

THE PRESIDENT: We’ll have a longer debate on the budget numbers, all right?

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia.

CONGRESSWOMAN CAPITO: Thank you, Mr. President, for joining us here today. As you said in the State of the Union address on Wednesday, jobs and the economy are number one. And I think everyone in this room, certainly I, agree with you on that.

I represent the state of West Virginia. We’re resource-rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas. But our — my miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies in these areas: cap and trade, an aggressive EPA, and the looming prospect of higher taxes. In our minds, these are job-killing policies. So I’m asking you if you would be willing to re-look at some of these policies, with a high unemployment and the unsure economy that we have now, to assure West Virginians that you’re listening.

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I listen all the time, including to your governor, who’s somebody who I enjoyed working with a lot before the campaign and now that I’m President. And I know that West Virginia struggles with unemployment, and I know how important coal is to West Virginia and a lot of the natural resources there. That’s part of the reason why I’ve said that we need a comprehensive energy policy that sets us up for a long-term future.

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

I’ve said that I’m a promoter of nuclear energy, something that I think over the last three decades has been subject to a lot of partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling. I don’t think it makes sense. I think that that has to be part of our energy mix. I’ve said that I am supportive — and I said this two nights ago at the State of the Union — that I am in favor of increased production.

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

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

And the future is that clean energy — cleaner forms of energy are going to be increasingly important, because even if folks are still skeptical in some cases about climate change in our politics and in Congress, the world is not skeptical about it. If we’re going to be after some of these big markets, they’re going to be looking to see, is the United States the one that’s developing clean coal technology? Is the United States developing our natural gas resources in the most effective way? Is the United States the one that is going to lead in electric cars? Because if we’re not leading, those other countries are going to be leading.

So what I want to do is work with West Virginia to figure out how we can seize that future. But to do that, that means there’s going to have to be some transition. We can’t operate the coal industry in the United States as if we’re still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We’ve got to be thinking what does that industry look like in the next hundred years. And it’s going to be different. And that means there’s going to be some transition. And that’s where I think a well-thought-through policy of incentivizing the new while recognizing that there’s going to be a transition process — and we’re not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away — that has to be something that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to embrace.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Jason Chaffetz, Utah.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Great to be here.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: And I appreciate you being here.

I’m one of 22 House freshmen. We didn’t create this mess, but we are here to help clean it up. You talked a lot about this deficit of trust. There’s some things that have happened that I would appreciate your perspective on, because I can look you in the eye and tell you we have not been obstructionists. Democrats have the House and Senate and the presidency. And when you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn’t. And I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.

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

You said you’d go line by line through the health care debate — or through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said, “We would like to take you up on the offer; we’d like to come.” We never heard a letter, we never got a call. We were never involved in any of those discussions.

And when you said in the House of Representatives that you were going to tackle earmarks — in fact, you didn’t want to have any earmarks in any of your bills — I jumped up out of my seat and applauded you. But it didn’t happen.

More importantly, I want to talk about moving forward, but if we could address –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, how about –

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: — I would certainly appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: That was a long list, so — (laughter) — let me respond.

Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process — just over the course of the year — overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which you guys were participating. I mean, how many committees were there that helped to shape this bill? Countless hearings took place.

Now, I kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting with many of you, including your key leadership. What is true, there’s no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the Capitol trying to figure out how to get the thing together — that was a messy process. And I take responsibility for not having structured it in a way where it was all taking place in one place that could be filmed. How to do that logistically would not have been as easy as it sounds, because you’re shuttling back and forth between the House, the Senate, different offices, et cetera, different legislators. But I think it’s a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility.

With respect to earmarks, we didn’t have earmarks in the Recovery Act. We didn’t get a lot of credit for it, but there were no earmarks in that. I was confronted at the beginning of my term with an omnibus package that did have a lot of earmarks from Republicans and Democrats, and a lot of people in this chamber. And the question was whether I was going to have a big budget fight, at a time when I was still trying to figure out whether or not the financial system was melting down and we had to make a whole bunch of emergency decisions about the economy. So what I said was let’s keep them to a minimum, but I couldn’t excise them all.

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

When we talk about earmarks, I think all of us are willing to acknowledge that some of them are perfectly defensible, good projects; it’s just they haven’t gone through the regular appropriations process in the full light of day. So one place to start is to make sure that they are at least transparent, that everybody knows what’s there before we move forward.

In terms of lobbyists, I can stand here unequivocally and say that there has not been an administration who was tougher on making sure that lobbyists weren’t participating in the administration than any administration that’s come before us.

Now, what we did was, if there were lobbyists who were on boards and commissions that were carryovers and their term hadn’t been completed, we didn’t kick them off. We simply said that moving forward any time a new slot opens, they’re being replaced.

So we’ve actually been very consistent in making sure that we are eliminating the impact of lobbyists, day in, day out, on how this administration operates. There have been a handful of waivers where somebody is highly skilled — for example, a doctor who ran Tobacco-Free Kids technically is a registered lobbyist; on the other end, has more experience than anybody in figuring out how kids don’t get hooked on cigarettes.

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

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee.

CONGRESSMAN BLACKBURN: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for acknowledging that we have ideas on health care because, indeed, we do have ideas, we have plans, we have over 50 bills, we have lots of amendments that would bring health care ideas to the forefront. We would — we’ve got plans to lower cost, to change purchasing models, address medical liability, insurance accountability, chronic and preexisting conditions, and access to affordable care for those with those conditions, insurance portability, expanded access — but not doing it with creating more government, more bureaucracy, and more cost for the American taxpayer.

And we look forward to sharing those ideas with you. We want to work with you on health reform and making certain that we do it in an affordable, cost-effective way that is going to reduce bureaucracy, reduce government interference, and reduce costs to individuals and to taxpayers. And if those good ideas aren’t making it to you, maybe it’s the House Democrat leadership that is an impediment instead of a conduit.

But we’re concerned also that there are some lessons learned from public option health care plans that maybe are not being heeded. And certainly in my state of Tennessee, we were the test case for public option health care in 1994, and our Democrat government has even cautioned that maybe our experiences there would provide some lessons learned that should be heeded, and would provide guidance for us to go forward. And as you said, what we should be doing is tossing old ideas out, bad ideas out, and moving forward in refining good ideas. And certainly we would welcome that opportunity.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I’ve gotten many of your ideas. I’ve taken a look at them, even before I was handed this. Some of the ideas we have embraced in our package. Some of them are embraced with caveats. So let me give you an example.

I think one of the proposals that has been focused on by the Republicans as a way to reduce costs is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. We actually include that as part of our approach. But the caveat is, we’ve got to do so with some minimum standards, because otherwise what happens is that you could have insurance companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations about basic benefits or what have you, making sure that a woman is able to get mammograms as part of preventive care, for example. Part of what could happen is insurance companies could go into states and cherry-pick and just get those who are healthiest and leave behind those who are least healthy, which would raise everybody’s premiums who weren’t healthy, right?

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

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

The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

And so we were in the process of scrubbing this and making sure that it’s tight. But at its core, if you look at the basic proposal that we’ve put forward: it has an exchange so that businesses and the self-employed can buy into a pool and can get bargaining power the same way big companies do; the insurance reforms that I’ve already discussed, making sure that there’s choice and competition for those who don’t have health insurance. The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.

Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker, and, certainly you don’t agree with Tom Daschle on much, but that’s not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that’s how you guys — (applause) — that’s how you guys presented it.

And so I’m thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist — no, look, I mean, I’m just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans — is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

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

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

And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It’s not just on your side, by the way — it’s on our side, as well. This is part of what’s happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.

Mike.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Dr. Tom Price from Georgia, and then we’ll have one more after that if your time permits, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I’m having fun. (Laughter.)

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: This is great. (Applause.)

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: So are we.

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Mr. President, thank you. I want to stick on the general topic of health care, but ask a very specific question. You have repeatedly said, most recently at the State of the Union, that Republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions. In spite of the fact –

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think I said that. What I said was, within the context of health care — I remember that speech pretty well, it was only two days ago — (laughter) — I said I welcome ideas that you might provide. I didn’t say that you haven’t provided ideas. I said I welcome those ideas that you’ll provide.

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Mr. President, multiple times, from your administration, there have come statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions. In spite of the fact that we’ve offered, as demonstrated today, positive solutions to all of the challenges we face, including energy and the economy and health care, specifically in the area of health care — this bill, H.R.3400, that has more co-sponsors than any health care bill in the House, is a bill that would provide health coverage for all Americans; would correct the significant insurance challenges of affordability and preexisting; would solve the lawsuit abuse issue, which isn’t addressed significantly in the other proposals that went through the House and the Senate; would write into law that medical decisions are made between patients and families and doctors; and does all of that without raising taxes by a penny.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Tom, look, I have to say that on the — let’s just take the health care debate. And it’s probably not constructive for us to try to debate a particular bill — this isn’t the venue to do it. But if you say, “We can offer coverage for all Americans, and it won’t cost a penny,” that’s just not true. You can’t structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage, and it costs nothing. If –

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Mr. President, can I — and I understand that we’re not interested in debating this bill, but what should we tell our constituents who know that we’ve offered these solutions and yet hear from the administration that we have offered nothing.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me — I’m using this as a specific example, so let me answer your question. You asked a question; I want to answer it.

It’s not enough if you say, for example, that we’ve offered a health care plan and I look up — this is just under the section that you’ve just provided me, or the book that you just provided me — summary of GOP health care reform bill: The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing America’s number-one priority for health reform. I mean, that’s an idea that we all embrace. But specifically it’s got to work. I mean, there’s got to be a mechanism in these plans that I can go to an independent health care expert and say, is this something that will actually work, or is it boilerplate?

If I’m told, for example, that the solution to dealing with health care costs is tort reform, something that I’ve said I am willing to work with you on, but the CBO or other experts say to me, at best, this could reduce health care costs relative to where they’re growing by a couple of percentage points, or save $5 billion a year, that’s what we can score it at, and it will not bend the cost curve long term or reduce premiums significantly — then you can’t make the claim that that’s the only thing that we have to do. If we’re going to do multi-state insurance so that people can go across state lines, I’ve got to be able to go to an independent health care expert, Republican or Democrat, who can tell me that this won’t result in cherry-picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off.

So I am absolutely committed to working with you on these issues, but it can’t just be political assertions that aren’t substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy. Because otherwise, we’re going to be selling the American people a bill of goods. I mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that what you’re going to get is guaranteed health insurance, lower your costs, all the insurance reforms; we’re going to lower the costs of Medicare and Medicaid and it won’t cost anybody anything. That’s great politics, it’s just not true.

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

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Mr. President, a point of clarification, what’s in the Better Solutions book are all the legislative proposals that were offered –

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that. I’ve actually read your bills.

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: — throughout 2009.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mike — well, hold on, hold on a second. No, no, no, no. Hold on a second, guys. (Applause.)

You know, Mike, I’ve read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff — and the good ideas we take. But here’s — here’s the thing — here’s the thing that I guess all of us have to be mindful of, it can’t be all or nothing, one way or the other. And what I mean by that is this: If we put together a stimulus package in which a third of it are tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for states and the unemployed, and helping people stay on COBRA that your governors certainly would support — Democrat or a Republican; and then you’ve got some infrastructure, and maybe there’s some things in there that you don’t like in terms of infrastructure, or you think the bill should have been $500 billion instead of $700 billion or there’s this provision or that provision that you don’t like. If there’s uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn’t get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it’s going to be hard to get a deal done. That’s because that’s not how democracy works.

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

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

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Thank you, Mr. President. Peter Roskam from the great state of Illinois.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Peter is an old friend of mine.

CONGRESSMAN ROSKAM: Hey, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Peter and I have had many debates.

CONGRESMAN ROSKAM: Well, this won’t be one. Mr. President, I heard echoes today of the state senator that I served with in Springfield and there was an attribute and a characteristic that you had that I think served you well there. You took on some very controversial subjects — death penalty reform — you and I –

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. We worked on it together.

CONGRESSMAN ROSKAM: — negotiated on. You took on ethics reform. You took on some big things. One of the keys was you rolled your sleeves up, you worked with the other party, and ultimately you were able to make the deal. Now, here’s an observation.

Over the past year, in my view, that attribute hasn’t been in full bloom. And by that I mean, you’ve gotten this subtext of House Republicans that sincerely want to come and be a part of this national conversation toward solutions, but they’ve really been stiff-armed by Speaker Pelosi. Now, I know you’re not in charge of that chamber, but there really is this dynamic of, frankly, being shut out. When John Boehner and Eric Cantor presented last February to you some substantive job creation, our stimulus alternative, the attack machine began to marginalize Eric — and we can all look at the articles — as “Mr. No,” and there was this pretty dark story, ultimately, that wasn’t productive and wasn’t within this sort of framework that you’re articulating today.

So here’s the question. Moving forward, I think all of us want to hit the reset button on 2009. How do we move forward? And on the job creation piece in particular, you mentioned Colombia, you mentioned Panama, you mentioned South Korea. Are you willing to work with us, for example, to make sure those FTAs get called, that’s no-cost job creation? And ultimately, as you’re interacting with world leaders, that’s got to put more arrows in your quiver, and that’s a very, very powerful tool for us. But the obstacle is, frankly, the politics within the Democratic caucus?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, Peter and I did work together effectively on a whole host of issues. One of our former colleagues is right now running for governor, on the Republican side, in Illinois. In the Republican primary, of course, they’re running ads of him saying nice things about me. Poor guy. (Laughter.)

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

So just a tone of civility instead of slash and burn would be helpful. The problem we have sometimes is a media that responds only to slash-and-burn-style politics. You don’t get a lot of credit if I say, “You know, I think Paul Ryan is a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family.” Nobody is going to run that in the newspapers.

Q (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: And by the way, in case he’s going to get a Republican challenge, I didn’t mean it. (Laughter.) Don’t want to hurt you, man. (Laughter.)

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

On the specific issue of trade, you’re right, there are conflicts within and fissures within the Democratic Party. I suspect there are probably going to be some fissures within the Republican Party, as well. I mean, you know, if you went to some of your constituencies, they’d be pretty suspicious about it, new trade agreements, because the suspicion is somehow they’re all one way.

So part of what we’ve been trying to do is to make sure that we’re getting the enforcement side of this tight, make sure that if we’ve got a trade agreement with China or other countries, that they are abiding with it — they’re not stealing our intellectual property or making sure that their non-tariff barriers are lowered even as ours are opened up. And my hope is, is that we can move forward with some of these trade agreements having built some confidence — not just among particular constituency groups, but among the American people — that trade is going to be reciprocal; that it’s not just going to be a one-way street.

You are absolutely right though, Peter, when you say, for example, South Korea is a great ally of ours. I mean, when I visited there, there is no country that is more committed to friendship on a whole range of fronts than South Korea. What is also true is that the European Union is about to sign a trade agreement with South Korea, which means right at the moment when they start opening up their markets, the Europeans might get in there before we do.

So we’ve got to make sure that we seize these opportunities. I will be talking more about trade this year. It’s going to have to be trade that combines opening their markets with an enforcement mechanism, as well as just opening up our markets. I think that’s something that all of us would agree on. Let’s see if we can execute it over the next several years. All right, is that it?

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Jeb Hensarling, Texas. And that will be it, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Jim [sic] is going to wrap things up?

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: Jeb, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: How are you?

CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: I’m doing well. Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small children.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: And I left that conversation really feeling your sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation’s children, do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know that under current law, that government — the cost of government is due to grow from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy, right about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job.

Mr. President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law, and unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored. And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent.

Now, Mr. President, I know you believe — and I understand the argument, and I respect the view that the spending is necessary due to the recession; many of us believe, frankly, it’s part of the problem, not part of the solution. But I understand and I respect your view. But this is what I don’t understand, Mr. President. After that discussion, your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years — surely you don’t believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this recession — and propose new entitlement spending and move the cost of government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy.

Now, very soon, Mr. President, you’re due to submit a new budget. And my question is –

THE PRESIDENT: Jeb, I know there’s a question in there somewhere, because you’re making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with, and I’m having to sit here listening to them. At some point I know you’re going to let me answer. All right.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Jeb, with all due respect, I’ve just got to take this last question as an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.

Now, look, let’s talk about the budget once again, because I’ll go through it with you line by line. The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. — $1.3 [trillion.] So when you say that suddenly I’ve got a monthly budget that is higher than the — a monthly deficit that’s higher than the annual deficit left by the Republicans, that’s factually just not true, and you know it’s not true.

And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade — had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000 when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren’t paid for.

You had a prescription drug plan — the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades — that was passed without it being paid for. You had two wars that were done through supplementals. And then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession. That’s $8 trillion.

Now, we increased it by a trillion dollars because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus. I am happy to have any independent fact-checker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said.

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

The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close. Social Security we could probably fix the same way Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan sat down together and they could figure something out. That is manageable. Medicare and Medicaid — massive problem down the road. That’s where — that’s going to be what our children have to worry about.

Now, Paul’s approach — and I want to be careful not simplifying this, because I know you’ve got a lot of detail in your plan — but if I understand it correctly, would say we’re going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level –

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: No.

THE PRESIDENT: No?

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: People 55 and above –

THE PRESIDENT: Fifty-five and — well, no, I understand. I mean, there’s a grandfathering in, but just for future beneficiaries, right? That’s why I said I didn’t want to — I want to make sure that I’m not being unfair to your proposal, but I just want to point out that I’ve read it. And the basic idea would be that at some point we hold Medicare cost per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn’t go way out of whack, and I’m sure there are some details that –

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: We drew it as a blend of inflation and health inflation, the point of our plan is — because Medicare, as you know, is a $38 trillion unfunded liability — it has to be reform for younger generations because it won’t exist because it’s going bankrupt. And the premise of our idea is, look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? That’s the kind of reform we’re proposing for Medicare. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: No, I understand. Right, right. Well, look, as I said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. The problem is twofold: One is that depending on how it’s structured, if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has their reimbursement rates going like this, but health care costs are still going up like that, then over time the way we’re saving money is essentially by capping what they’re getting relative to their costs.

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

No, no, but here’s my point. If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted, factually, from the perspective of those who disagree with it, as cutting benefits over the long term. Paul, I don’t think you disagree with that, that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that’s probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul’s plan.

And I raise that not because we shouldn’t have a series discussion about it. I raise that because we’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized, whatever proposals are put out there, as, well, you know, that’s — the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens; that the other party is doing X, Y, Z.

That’s why I say if we’re going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can’t start off by figuring out, A, who’s to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately, that’s how our politics works right now. And that’s how a lot of our discussion works. That’s how we start off — every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they stand up and all the talking points — I see Frank Luntz up here sitting in the front. He’s already polled it, and he said, you know, the way you’re really going to — I’ve done a focus group and the way we’re going to really box in Obama on this one or make Pelosi look bad on that one — I know, I like Frank, we’ve had conversations between Frank and I. But that’s how we operate. It’s all tactics, and it’s not solving problems.

And so the question is, at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious question about — a serious conversation about Social Security, or a serious conversation about budget and debt in which we’re not simply trying to position ourselves politically. That’s what I’m committed to doing. We won’t agree all the time in getting it done, but I’m committed to doing it.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Take one more?

I have a suggestion for President Obama. Times are hard. We’re winding down one war and ratcheting up another. Terrorist cells may be closeted on the domestic front as well. Everyone knows that corporations and insurance companies are that unsayable word in the woodpile and need extermination forthwith.

Let’s back up on that one … corporations. Just exactly which of all the dire and disastrous corporations whose tentacles are inching ever more rapidly along the hallowed halls and portals of Congress and our democracy is the worst?

Short answer? The media. The media is the biggest collective whorehouse corporation of them all, because not only does the media control the government, it also controls us. It forms our opinions and cleverly seduces us into thinking we believe something that we really know is a crock of it, but we believe it because … because it’s the fashion, innit (as they say in Britain)?

I mean, everyone else believes it, so we should too … or do they? And should we?

Around this time last year, Rush Limbaugh was asked by a media group to record his one wish for our then-new President Obama. Rush used his daily broadcast as a platform to utter the infamous line, ‘I hope he fails.’

That’s become the singular wish for this Presidency, and – like a cancer – it’s spread to encompass the Progressive base as well. David Sirota snarks about this man all the time. Mayhill Fowler, a parvenu elevated to the pseudo-sophisticated title of ‘editor’ based on the publication of an off-the-record remark spews hate-filled and poorly written rhetoric. Naomi Klein, who – as a Canadian – has no business weighing in on American politics – is another shill. Ed Schultz and Cenk Uygur weigh in all the time – Schultz even bragging in public how he schooled Robert Gibbs, the Press Secretary, telling him he was ‘full of shit.’ Nice one, Ed. Classy. Keith Olbermann regularly bashes the President. Dylan Ratigan shouts down anyone even giving marginal support.

Bill Maher refers to Obama as ‘Barry’ and is making a staple part of his latest stand-up tour an eternal wail about Obama being worse than Cheney.

Who ARE these people?

Have we regressed to the point that, like spoiled adolescents who haven’t received instant gratification, we follow the fashionable lead of people who work for a corporation, who’s sole ethos is ego- and ratings-driven?

The most laughable of all is the Queen Mother, herself, Arianna Huffington – former ueber Rightwing neocon and anti-immigration supporter (rich, that one), Damascenely and serenely converted to the Progressive cause … for a quick buck and a flash on the screen. She’s the self-appointed voice of the suffering middle-class. Isn’t that kinda like Hitler making himself a spokesman for Israel?

A few months back, prior to the President making a decision on Afghanistan, Huffington jumped the gun and demanded that Joe Biden resign to lead a grassroots revolt against Obama’s policies and wrest the White House from him in 2012.

She’s at it again, with one of her bloggers:-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bower/an-open-letter-to-secreta_b_432274.html

Our second President, John Adams, suffered a great deal at the hands of an irresponsible press, goaded from behind by no less than his own Vice-President, Thomas Jefferson. (OK, Jefferson was one of my heroes and the founder of my alma mater, but that doesn’t mean he was above a bit of political skullduggery, himself – he WAS a politician, after all.

In response to all these shenanigans, Adams passed The Alien and Sedition Act, which, effectively, amounted to a curtailment of that most precious of amendments, the First one. Freedom of Speech.

So shamed was he at having to do so, Adams never enforced this act and, to this day, it hasn’t been enforced.

What Huffington is doing and what she’s promoting, more and more, on that site and beyond, is pure sedition – openly undermining the workings of a Presidential Administration with a view to bringing it down and causing chaos.

It’s still a federal offense.

I say, it’s time for a test case.

It’s a fantasy, but I’d pay money I didn’t have to see her served with a sentence, stripped of her naturalised citizenship and her feta cheesed ass thrown on a non-stop flight back to Athens, with her papers stamped: Seditionist/Deported.

A girl can dream, can’t she?

Please join us here tonight for live blogging during President Obama’s State of the Union address.

Until then, please feel free to have an open discussion on Pres. Obama, the upcoming speech and what you think will happen in the upcoming year

Here is how AP previews the speech:

The president will devote about two-thirds of the 9 p.m. EST speech to the economy, emphasizing his ideas, some new but mostly old and explained anew, for restoring job growth, taming budget deficits and changing Washington’s ways.

To address economic fears, Obama will prod Congress to enact a second stimulus package and to provide new financial relief for the middle class. To acknowledge frustration at the government’s habit of spending more than it has, he will seek a three-year freeze on some domestic spending (while proposing a 6.2 percent, or $4 billion, increase in the popular arena of education and supporting the debt-financed jobs bill) and announce he’s creating a bipartisan deficit-reduction task force. To tackle the capital’s polarized atmosphere, he will call on Republicans and Democrats to redouble efforts at cooperation.

Mr. President, I support you. Always have. Always will.

I know there are some Obama supporters who are disappointed in you first year. Sir, I am not one of them. Perhaps the difference is that I REMEMBER the promises of CANDIDATE Obama & the promises he made. You never said it would be easy; you never said it would happen at once and you ALWAYS said you could NOT do it alone.

I think it is a miracle you have managed to accomplish as much as you have in one year, more than any President since Franklin Roosevelt given The Situation (and I ain’t talking about the Jersey Shore!). The Rethugs have fought you every step of the way; they’ve made no secret that they hope you will fail & that they will do their part to ensure it (I’m talking to YOU, DeMint!). Remember the Town Halls, sir? It started then.  The false cries of “Get the Government out of my life” (then stay out of my uterus!) or “I’m scared. I want my country back” (it’s a new day; lose the sheet, bro!). I call BS on them. How can you take a party that calls themselves Tea Baggers seriously? I mean REALLY!

And let’s be real: there are SOME people, more than we might care to admit, who are simply ticked off that a Black man is president. Period. That is all they need to fuel their “voter outrage” & it’s the last I will say on THAT subject.

Sir, some of your supporters claim you ran on CHANGE but have yet to deliver it. I would argue that you HAVE: there has been a CHANGE in tone, approach, doctrine, even enunciation; stance and swagger (from cruel to cool). That is change I can believe in.

So sir, I support you today as much as I did on that first day in October 2007. I will continue to work on your behalf. I am prepared for the fight ahead. I will not wavier, I will not let you down. I know I can count on you to do the same.

May your heart be light, your spirit strong, your soul nourished and our glorious First Family healthy & happy…today…and forever.

Good luck with your speech tonight!

Love,

Lulu

I thought it might be fun to talk about our wish list for Mr. Obama’s State of the Union Address tomorrow.

(1) What would you Mr. Obama to talk about?

(2) What’s your dream phrase you’d like to hear the president say?

(3) What do you EXPECT to hear?

(4) Do you think you’ll be encouraged or disappointed?

For me:

1. I want to hear him talk about jobs, gay rights, health care, energy
2. My dream phrase — “We’re going to do away with the filibuster and overturn the recent Supreme Court decision in congress.”
3. I expect a lot of talk about the economy and some encouraging words about health care.
4. I’m expecting to feel, overall, disappointed — but I’m hopeful!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/state-of-the-union-is-oba_b_436045.html

It seems Whoreanna has become the self-appointed spokesperson on the plight of the middle class in our country. As if. She’s an ueber-right idealogue, who married a fortune and sucked up a mega divorce deal (along with a lot of other things along the way) and suddenly converted from slightly Right of the Teabag Party to saintly Progressive overnight in November 2004 … for a price. (No surprise there).

She’s second-guessing and threatening this President again. No doubt tomorrow she’ll be all over MSNBC, causing Ed’s blood pressure to rise, eliciting more syllable-strangling mixed metaphors from Keith, or else she’ll be over on The Situation Room, causing Wolf Blitzer to cream his knickers.

She is a corporate whore doing the job of the corporations and people are stupid enough to drink her toxic koolaid. And for someone who’s championing freedom of speech, she sure as hell doesn’t practice it.

I would love to issue her the challenge of living for a MONTH on an average middle class salary and living in an average middle class home, juggling bills, mortgage payments, car expenses etc. She simply couldn’t do it. She’d be out of that house so fast, the front door wouldn’t hit her feta-cheesed ass. I don’t know what makes me angrier – idiots like Huffington getting kudos and credits for being clever or the dumbasses who follow her religiously.

Right … I’m going to the dark room now.

We just had a 1-2-3-4 combination of punches and we’re reeling.

1. The election of Brown and the loss of a Dem 60 vote majority in The Senate.

2. The concession that HCR will not be passed.

3. Pres. Obama’s choosing “bipartisanship” over fighting for Progressive values.

4. The Supreme Court nakedly handing our political system to corporations.

It’s overwhelming, a bit much to deal with in the span of a couple of days. But as usual, once I have the chance to fully process everything, I want to turn my outrage into action.

From the beginning, PlanetPOV was intended to become a citizen’s think tank, a blog for substantive discussions  and a place to organize initiatives.

That is, a place for talk and action.

We have begun our first comprehensive project, ProjectPOV, under Nellie’s fine leadership. If you haven’t already, may I suggest clicking over to it to check it out. Also, I’d suggest that all members wishing to participate leave a brief comment and check the box to receive email notifications on new comments so you can stay updated.

With the events that have recently unfolded, I would like to propose adding one more activist project to our plate (which will dovetail with ProjectPOV).

Consider the four setbacks listed above and let’s discuss here what action, if any, a majority here would be interested in pursuing.

Some suggestions to start the ball rolling:

1. Should PlanetPOV join petition drives with other, bigger organizations for Congressional action on reversing the SC decision?

2. Should we draft a letter that can be co-signed by members and sent to The White House and Dem Congresspeople demanding bold action, commitment and/or exercising the Nuclear Option to accomplish true HCR and other items on the Progressive Agenda or else be seen as failures and unworthy of enthusiastic support?

3. Should we draft a petition calling on Pres. Obama to abandon this quest for bipartisanship in favor of being a bold, tough leader fighting for Progressive values with no holds barred?

4.  Should we research the logistics of getting Propositions on state ballots that could reign in corporations, later seeking collaborations with other entities on moving such propositions forward if viable?

5. Should we draft Letters to Editors for members to send to their local papers, co-signed by all members in agreement?

What else could or should we do to step up to these challenges to our nation’s future?

Please add your suggestions and do mention which others you may support. I will then create a poll that lists them for members to vote on and thus chart our course of action.

I can’t stand sitting around and feeling screwed, it’s time for action.

According to AP “Obama Steps Up His Campaign Against Wall Street Banks”.

It seems like the first part of President Obama retooling his efforts is to reach out to the people and reign in the institutions people are rightfully directing their anger towards.

President Barack Obama stepped up his campaign against Wall Street on Thursday with a far-reaching proposal for tougher regulation of the biggest banks.

“We have to get this done,” Obama said at the White House. “If these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have.”

It was a stern, populist lecture from the president to Wall Street for what he perceives as its abandonment of Main Street. Obama said the government should have the power to limit the size and complexity of large financial institutions as well as their ability to make high-risk trades.

He said it wasn’t appropriate that banks have been able to run these trading operations with the protections afforded to regular banking services.

“We have to enact commonsense reforms that will protect American taxpayers and the American economy from future crises,” Obama said. “For, while the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it’s still operating under the same rules that led to its near-collapse.”

I understand people’s anger but it’s all reaction from people that want pay back and only care about punishment.  These changes will be cheered on by the Huffy crowd and many progressives but it never really was my issue.  I think allot of it is grandstanding and there will be little change in the long run that positively affects people’s lives.   I would much rather have HCR which looks like it’s not happening.  Sorry but the system rarely repeats the exact same mistakes again the underlying reason for the banking crisis has been corrected by the banks themselves last year when they stopped making loans to people that could not pay them back.  Sure there were contributing mitigating factors that made the collapse worse like derivatives trading and a bloated housing market but even if the trading was based on predominantly safe loans and the unsustainable loans were not granted to artificially increase real estate values the financial crisis would have been much less intense.

I also do not see how this is going to help out main street save for making some people feel better.  The economy is out of governments control in most aspects.  No matter what FDR did it took WWII to really end the Great Depression.   Sure we can have another stimulus like the last 2 stimulus’s we had the previous two years but if big business keeps on laying off people it really does not matter.  People need to wake up and understand that big business is in the final phase of creating the kind of work environment that only favors them.  They have Americans so afraid of being fired, especially when they are going to lose benefits like healthcare insurance, that they will work harder for less.  Conservatives in big business will continue to reap more profits but they will not be hiring until at least after the midterms so they can help their party get back into power again.  That’s the real conspiracy American workers should know.

Sure it’s good political move for our short term thinking country but it could be another set up for failure with the bought and paid for Congress anyway who will take the teeth out of any legislation he proposes.  Obama be should responding to the people more but in a way to show how the future needs long term fixes like healthcare reform.   These short term populist efforts will do little to make the future better so the reactionaries win out again in round one.

UPDATE Wall Street does not seem to like this new populist president.

The Dow Jones industrial average tumbled 210 points after dropping 122 on Wednesday. The index has seen four straight triple-digit moves and the latest slide erased the Dow’s gains for 2010. Bond prices rose as the stock market became more volatile.

Yeah again it will make people feel better but I still don’t see how this helps main street.