Washington, DC—(ENEWSPF)—March 11 , 2013 – 12:25 P.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Happy Monday. Good afternoon. Thanks for being here for your White House briefing. Spring is here early.
Q Can we do a briefing outside?
MR. CARNEY: We’ll see. I like the idea in theory, anyway.
I have no announcements to make. You obviously know much of what’s on the President’s schedule this week, including his visits to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to meet with Senate Democrats on Tuesday, House Republicans on Wednesday, Senate Republicans on Thursday and House Democrats also on Thursday.
While he’s there he will want to discuss a range of priorities including, of course, conversations he’s been having on budget-related issues, the need to reduce our deficit in a balanced way, but also immigration reform and the progress that’s being made on that subject in a bipartisan way, efforts to move forward on actions to reduce gun violence — also efforts that involve both Democrats and Republicans. Other items that are on his list of priorities include increasing our energy independence, the need to do something about the pace of nominations being confirmed and considered in the Senate — judicial nominations, in particular — as well as the need for Congress to take action on cybersecurity.
With that, I’ll go to Jim.
Q Thanks, Jay. So since we are on week two of the charm blitz — (laughter) — on Wednesday, as you mentioned, the President is going to the Hill, but he’s also speaking to Organizing for Action, which is the group that grew out of his campaign reelection. And I’m wondering whether there’s potentially a mixed message there. Because last week OFA sent out an email saying that — calling Republicans obstructionists, blaming them for the sequester, saying if only they had voted for closing tax loopholes the public wouldn’t be in this jam. So is there a mixed message there from the President, on the one hand appealing to and speaking to Republicans on the issues you just mentioned, and then going to OFA, potentially a partisan — a more partisan address?
MR. CARNEY: Organizing for Action, as you know, Jim, was established to promote the President’s public policy agenda. It is certainly the President’s position that sequester has been implemented because Republicans made a choice. Rather than go along with a balanced approach to deficit reduction, rather than go along with either a buy-down or the deal that has been on the table since the President tried to negotiate it with Speaker Boehner last year, they said, no way, no how, and the choice they made was to allow sequester to be implemented. Let’s be clear about that. And that is not a position that we’ll take a different view on.
It is also the case that sequester is here; it’s being implemented as a result of the choice made on Capitol Hill by Republicans. And it is another reason why we should engage with and move forward — engage with Republicans and Democrats on the Hill and move forward with at least the potential for bipartisan, balanced deficit reduction that deals with the sequester and the larger goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade.
That’s the nature of the conversations the President has been having with Republican lawmakers, including in his dinner with Senate Republicans last week, including in his lunch with Chairman Ryan and Congressman Van Hollen. And I’m sure it will be one of the topics that he raises in his meetings on the Hill this week.
So I think that as the President said in his inaugural address, we should not believe that we need to resolve all of our differences before we can move forward on common — working together, taking action together to achieve results for the American people; meeting on common ground, putting forward solutions that represent compromise, much as the President has put forward solutions that represent compromise, whether it’s on immigration reform or legislation that deals with gun violence or balancing — getting our fiscal house in order in a way that’s balanced so that the burden is not borne solely by seniors and middle-class families.
I think there’s a great deal of consistency in what the President has proposed and what he’s been saying for many, many months now.
Q Washington is a place of optics, too, and is it diplomatic to be thinking of — be speaking to a partisan group on the same day that he’s speaking to —
MR. CARNEY: First of all, I think you’re misrepresenting the group. As I understand it, as I’ve read about it, it will not take a position in elections; it’s focused on policy issues. And the President’s policy agenda, which Organizing for Action has been designed to promote, consists of item after item that have had bipartisan support in the past, that should have bipartisan support in the future.
I mean, there’s nothing partisan about deficit reduction. In fact, you might even say it’s more of a priority for Republicans than Democrats. And yet the President is pushing for a balanced package that would achieve the goal of over $4 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade. And that includes a proposal that produces significant savings from entitlement reform as well as savings from tax reform.
There’s nothing partisan about comprehensive immigration reform. There’s a bipartisan effort underway in the Senate right now — Democrats and Republicans pushing forward an effort to produce legislation that would achieve that bipartisan goal.
In the wake of Newtown, I would argue that there’s nothing partisan about common-sense solutions to reduce gun violence in America. The victims of gun violence aren’t Democrats or Republicans, especially when they’re children. And there ought to be — and there is — a path forward to reduce gun violence in America, much as the President laid out, that respects our Second Amendment rights. As you know, nothing the President has proposed, whether it’s executive action or legislative action, would take a single firearm away from a single law-abiding citizen.
Q North Korean state media says today that Pyongyang has carried through with its threat to cancel the 60-year-old armistice. This seems to go beyond the typical saber-rattling from North Korea. Is the President alarmed by this development?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we are certainly concerned by North Korea’s bellicose rhetoric. And the threats that they have been making follow a pattern designed to raise tension and intimidate others. The DPRK will achieve nothing by threats or provocations, which will only further isolate North Korea and undermine international efforts to ensure peace and stability in Northeast Asia. We continue to urge the North Korean leadership to heed President Obama’s call to choose the path of peace and come into compliance with its international obligations.
We have worked in a concerted way with our international partners to put pressure on and isolate North Korea because of its failure to live up to its obligations. As you know, the Security Council passed a resolution with unanimous support just last week in reaction to actions by North Korea. And we will continue that effort.
Q Jay, as you pointed out, it’s a big week. The President is going to the Hill. The Senate and the House are also expected to produce their own budgets. Is there some sense that the sequester ship has left the station, left the harbor —
MR. CARNEY: The sequester ship? Okay.
Q Yes — and that these cuts will go into effect no matter what? Or is there still an effort to mitigate the effect of the cuts somehow?
MR. CARNEY: Well, it’s still the President’s position, and I believe the position of Democrats on Capitol Hill, that a better alternative would have been and continues to be a piece of legislation that would postpone or push back implementation of the sequester. But that choice was made by Republicans not to embrace that alternative, an alternative that they had embraced at the end of 2012.
So our focus now, as the President has said, is on working with Congress in regular order on the budget process, and through that process hopefully produce a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction — balanced deficit reduction that couples entitlement reform with tax reform, that achieves the deficit reduction in both ways — which I would argue, when we talk about using proceeds from tax reform, closing loopholes and ending exemptions for the well-off and well-connected, we should use those proceeds towards the goal of reducing our deficit, not towards funneling them into tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
That’s the President’s position. That’s embodied in his proposal, and that’s the approach that he’ll take as we move forward in these conversations. And hopefully we can do that.
And the broader deficit reduction achieved — if it’s achieved — would eliminate the sequester and then some, and that would be obviously good for the entire country.
Q When does the President plan to propose his own budget? And how does he see that fitting in with the budgets that are being proposed by the Senate and the House?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have a date certain for you on the President’s budget. It’s being worked on. We are obviously watching Congress for budget proposals that will be put forward in both houses, and we will work with Congress in these conversations, as well as through our budget proposal to try to achieve the very kind of common-sense, mainstream, bipartisan, balanced package of deficit reduction that could do a lot of good for our economy and for the middle class at a time when, as we’ve seen, there’s every reason to believe that the economy is poised to do well in 2013, to grow and to create more jobs, to build on the 6.35 million jobs that have been created in the private sector over the past three years. And it is incumbent upon leaders in Washington to pursue that path of bipartisan, balanced deficit reduction, rather than sort of a partisan path that results in Washington inflicting wounds on the economy, instead of taking action to help the economy and help the middle class.
Jim.
Q Over the weekend, the Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said that raising the eligibility age for Medicare does not save money and it’s not a solution. We know that there’s been a charm offensive aimed at Republicans in recent weeks. Is there one needed for fellow Democrats?
MR. CARNEY: The President’s position is one that raising the eligibility age on Medicare is not good policy. It does not save money significantly, especially in the first 10 years, and it would result primarily in cost-shifting to seniors who are very vulnerable at age 65 and 66. That’s the President’s position. We’ve talked about that in recent weeks and months.
But it is also his position that we can take other measures within the framework of entitlement reform, measures that are represented in his proposal to the Speaker of the House, measures that are tough choices for Democrats to go along with, tough choices for the President, but he believes they are better policy. They are more effective in the stated goal, which is to reduce the cost of health care, and by reducing the cost of health care, reducing the burden on our long-term fiscal situation.
So I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent with what Leader Pelosi said and what the President’s position is.
Q So no wooing of Democrats will be necessary?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not sure what that means. The President has worked with Democrats, and I think I just made the point that his proposal consists of very tough choices for Democrats. If we take as both fact and conventional wisdom that in Washington it’s a more difficult choice for Republicans to go along with revenue, and Democrats to go along with entitlement savings, the President has put forward proposals with Democratic support that include significant entitlement savings — building on the entitlement savings he’s already signed into law.
Republicans, we’re hoping, will also make tough choices on their parts, and that would include allowing tax reform to produce revenue towards deficit reduction. If we do that, together, we can really do something good for the economy and something good for the American middle class.
Q And getting back to OFA, why not do more to decouple the President from this new organization? Some of the people who represent that organization still have email addresses that end with barackobama.com. And what about the appearance that the President will be, at times, meeting behind closed doors with donors? They may not get individual meetings with the President, but they will be getting —
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not sure about that. The organization was established specifically to promote President Obama’s policy agenda, so I don’t think there’s any question about the link between the President’s policy proposals on the economy and the middle class and education, on climate change and immigration reform, and this organization. But it is a separate organization. It is voluntarily — as I understand it, reading the news reports — disclosing its donors in an effort to be transparent. And as the President does with numerous organizations that support his policy agenda or the political agenda of the Democratic Party, which is not the goal of this specific organization, he will meet periodically with OFA.
Q But isn’t that kind of squishy? The organization is him.
MR. CARNEY: No, the organization — look, there are organizations all over Washington and around the country that support policy agendas and policy areas. That’s what this organization does. And I would refer you to them for more details on their efforts. They are not, as I understand it, again, based on news reports, engaged in political campaigning — winning elections or helping candidates win elections. They’re focused on the policy proposals.
The President speaks to the DCCC and the DNC and the DSCC. He’ll speak to other outside organizations that have policy agendas. And that’s entirely appropriate. And the President is pursuing a policy agenda, as I noted earlier, that is inherently bipartisan, that is embraced by a majority of the American people both in general, as we saw in the election, and in the specifics. And the President obviously believes that engaging the American people in our policy debates is very important. That’s what the election was all about. And he believes that when the American people are engaged in these debates, the outcomes of the debates are better for the American economy and for the middle class.
Mary.
Q Jay, over the weekend, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the U.S. is encouraging violence in conjunction with the Taliban to prolong the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. He said the Taliban were killing Afghan civilians “in service to America.” What was the President’s reaction to hearing this?
MR. CARNEY: I think Secretary Hagel and General Dunford spoke to this yesterday and made clear that any suggestion the United States is colluding with the Taliban is categorically false. Secretary Hagel addressed these questions directly with President Karzai in their meeting. The United States has spent enormous blood and treasure for the past 12 years supporting the Afghan people and ensuring — in the effort to ensure stability and security in that country. The last thing we would do is support any kind of violence, particularly involving innocent civilians.
Q Do Karzai’s comments and this kind of mounting tension harm or impact U.S. plans to withdraw?
MR. CARNEY: The President has a policy that has been embraced by NATO, by our allies in the coalition, and we are pursuing that policy. That includes we’ve drawn down the surge forces and we’re winding down our troop presence in Afghanistan as we build up Afghan security forces and turn over security lead to Afghan security forces. And that progress continues.
There is no question that there have been a number of difficult security incidents, and there have been comments by President Karzai with which we’ve disagreed. But our policy has not changed.
And what’s important to remember is we went into Afghanistan because we were attacked from Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan — and the President made sure that we refocused on this goal when he reviewed Afghan policy upon becoming President — in order to go after those who attacked the United States, go after those who killed Americans, to go after al Qaeda central, which had taken haven in Afghanistan. And that remains the principal objective of our mission in Afghanistan: to defeat — to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda in the Afghanistan region; to, in service of that goal, build up — train and build up Afghan security forces so they can take over security for their country; and to provide the space necessary for the Afghan government to increase stability in that country and to allow us to continue to go after al Qaeda, which is, again, our primary objective.
Q Can we follow up on that?
MR. CARNEY: Let me get through the first row here.
John.
Q A couple of things. I was just taken aback by your answer to the question about Organizing for Action. You’re saying —
MR. CARNEY: You were taken aback?
Q — it’s no different than — that the President sees this group as no different than the DSCC or any other group you speak to?
MR. CARNEY: I said it’s —
Q I mean, this is a group —
MR. CARNEY: I didn’t say that. I said it’s similar.
Q — that’s planning on coordinating with the White House, is it not?
MR. CARNEY: Well, OFA, again —
