Sunday, December 13, 2009

Michelle Obama's new hairdo or don't?

Don't call it the Rachel, the Farrah or even the Kate (Gosselin). First Lady and fashion plate Michelle Obama showed off a new bob hairstyle that's all her own at a country music celebration at the White House last night. The shorter look is no doubt cooler for summer, but it reads a bit matronly to me. What do you think? Modern or matronly?
-- Booth Moore

Senator Hatch Remonstrates President Obama Regarding Guantanamo

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today took the Obama administration to task for its failure to meet its self-imposed deadline for issuing a report on its detainee policy for Guantanamo.
In his remarks on the Senate floor, the Utah Republican chided the administration for its poor planning on the issue that is vital to national security.
“It is easy to say that Guantanamo can be closed when you are a candidate for president,” Hatch said. “It is even easier to sign an order on your first full day in office as president that says in 12 months Guantanamo will close. What is hard is taking a deliberative methodical approach and then formulating the proper plan to balance the safety of this country with the needs of lawful detention.”
Sen. Hatch’s complete remarks on the Senate floor follow:
Mr. President, today, I rise today to express my concerns about the Administration’s failure to make the deadline of issuing a report on the Guantanamo detainee policy. Today’s deadline, like the January 2010 closure deadline, was self-imposed. It concerns me that the administration maintains that closure will occur even though the execution of this process has been less than stellar.
In January, on his first full day in office, President Obama signed the order to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility in 12 months. The President created separate task forces to examine closure and detainee issues. These task forces were developed and staffed by the Obama administration to achieve successful closure in one year. The product of this review was to include a report on a broader detainee policy.
Today marks the first deadline in this process. It was set to be the date of release and publication of the task force report on a broader detainee policy going forward. The administration’s failure to meet the deadline appears to me to be the “canary in the coal mine” that a January closure of Guantanamo without a detailed plan is an exercise in futility.
Yet the White House downplays the missed deadline and publicly states that the January closure is still on track. Really, is it? Despite not having a plan and missing a deadline for a key integral part of the closure process, the administration claims it can still meet the overall deadline of closure by January. I find that notion suspect at best and completely absurd at worst.
In May, a Gallup poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans oppose the closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. Even so, the administration intends to follow its timeline and close Guantanamo by January 2010. The task force examining the cases of the remaining 229 detainees has only reviewed half of the necessary caseload thus far. The Justice Department hopes to complete its review by an October reporting deadline, but that benchmark is quickly slipping away too. This review process has taken twice the amount of time the administration thought it would take. Yet keeping Guantanamo open beyond January is inexplicably still not an option in the administration’s view.
Recently, media reports are circulating that the administration’s Guantanamo closure plan has been fraught with political miscalculation and internal dissension. Moreover, the complex nature of the issue will undoubtedly force the transfer of detainees inside the United States. Since the announcement of the President’s intention to close Guantanamo, I have joined other Senators in pointing out the lack planning and clear miscalculation of this decision. That pool has grown and a groundswell of bipartisan support is signaling the White House to “pump the brakes.”
In May, the Senate voted 90-6 to strip out funding in the FY2010 War Spending Request that would authorize $80 million for the transfer of detainees to the United States. Now that the failure to meet this deadline has been reported by outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times, the administration still doesn’t get it. Senior administration officials are letting hubris get in the way. This is neither the proper manner nor the right time to close Guantanamo.
There should have been more study of this issue prior to setting us on a course for closure. It is easy to say that Guantanamo can be closed when you are a candidate for President. It is even easier to sign an order on your first full day in office as President that says in 12 months Guantanamo WILL close. What is hard is taking a deliberative methodical approach and then formulating the proper plan to balance the safety of this country with the needs of lawful detention. Had the administration conducted a careful and thorough review of this issue, the conclusion would have been that Guantanamo fulfills both requirements. Instead, the administration has painted itself into a corner.
Clearly, the administration miscalculated and underestimated the depth and breadth of this issue. From the onset, the administration has tried to reverse-engineer the process for closing Guantanamo – starting from the end and working backwards. If changes are not made immediately, administration officials will force this issue on American cities and towns in just 185 days. They will limp across the finish line on January 22, 2010, and herald their accomplishment as a victory despite its ill-conceived planning and “Three Stooges-like” manner of execution.
Guantanamo is still an asset to this country. It complies with international treaties and exceeds the standards of domestic corrections facilities. I don’t see how anyone who is honest about the matter can characterize it any other way, especially when there is not a sufficient replacement located domestically to meet the Justice Department’s needs. It is my fervent hope that the President and the Attorney General will reconsider their ill-considered plan to close Guantanamo and recognize the obvious – that a $200-million-dollar facility that is already operational and in compliance with international treaties should not be shuttered.

Abortion Opponents Criticize Health Reform Bills

President Obama, who has vowed to find common ground on culture-war issues, finds himself in the middle of a classic Washington dispute over abortion that is further undermining support among conservative Democrats for his ambitious health-care reform efforts.
Abortion is not explicitly mentioned in any of the major health-care bills under consideration in Congress. But abortion opponents charge that the legislation would make abortion more widely available and more common by requiring insurance plans to pay for the procedures and providing government funding to subsidize plans that pay for them.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said this week that decisions on specific benefits such as abortion coverage should be "left to medical experts in the field," referring to a proposed advisory board that would recommend minimum levels of coverage for private insurers.
The dispute presents another unwelcome distraction for the White House and a political opportunity for Republicans, who are seizing on the issue as part of a broader attempt to kill health legislation that they believe is too intrusive and too costly.
A group of conservative Democrats led by  Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) has proposed a compromise that would neither require nor forbid private insurers to cover the procedure as long as no federal funding is used; another group of Democrats and Republicans held a news conference Wednesday to call for an explicit ban on funding.
The conflict comes as two House Democrats on either side of the abortion divide prepare to introduce legislation this week aimed at encouraging pregnancy prevention and greater government support for young mothers. The measure from Ryan, who opposes abortion, and  Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who supports abortion rights, has attracted an unusual array of supporters ranging from Planned Parenthood to evangelical leaders such as the Rev. Joel Hunter of Orlando.
The developments underscore the emotional and often intractable nature of the abortion debate, which also flared during the recent confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Obama has repeatedly called for finding common ground by advocating policies to reduce the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies, a message he amplified as part of a widely watched address at Notre Dame University and during a recent visit with Pope Benedict XVI.
But the health-care legislation has reignited allegations from antiabortion groups that such pledges are an attempt by Obama and his allies to paper over their support for abortion rights with policies that will do little to reduce use of the procedure. Abortion opponents are preparing to rally Thursday against the proposed health-care reforms, and the group Americans United for Life has demanded a meeting with Obama to discuss the issue.
"This is a president who says he wants to reduce abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. "But the actual policies that this administration is promoting will result in massive public subsidies for abortion and result in a massive increase in the number of abortions."
Democratic leaders and abortion rights groups say those concerns are exaggerated, and some accuse abortion opponents of attempting to use the health-care debate to further restrict legal access to abortion under private insurance plans. "This is the kind of divisiveness that the public has grown very tired of," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which has endorsed the Ryan-DeLauro bill.
 Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who says the House legislation contains "a hidden abortion mandate," is in talks with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman  Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) about compromise language. "It's been a long-held conviction by many members that taxpayer dollars should not be used for abortion," Stupak said in an interview, referring to restrictions first enacted in 1976 for Medicaid funds.
In their proposal to  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Ryan and four other Democrats say that allowing insurers to chart their own abortion policies as long as taxpayer money isn't used for the procedures represents "a common ground solution" that effectively maintains current law on abortion funding. Their proposal also stipulates that current state restrictions on the procedure would still apply.
The pregnancy prevention bill proposed by Ryan and DeLauro would establish and expand initiatives focused on contraceptives and other prevention measures, including an expansion of Medicaid coverage for family-planning services. The bill, which was drafted by the centrist advocacy group Third Way, also includes policies aimed at helping young mothers, including expanded maternity care and more financial assistance for adoptions.
Backers say the bill has been carefully scrubbed for months to remove policies that might alienate either side, such as financial support for the morning-after pill. Hunter, senior pastor of Orlando's Northland megachurch, said the proposal "isn't going to end the disagreement or the alarm that comes up on both sides. But I think it is the first of its kind to take such an incendiary culture-war issue and really make progress. It's a start."
Rachel Laser, Third Way's culture program director, said that the "approach represents the politics of the future on abortion."
But Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said Wednesday that the bill would effectively subsidize abortion providers by increasing funding for family-planning services and would "further encourage promiscuous sex."
The White House has not endorsed any specific legislation on reducing abortions. But Melody Barnes, Obama's domestic policy adviser, said in an interview that the Ryan-DeLauro proposal represents "a very positive development." She also said the administration, which has been hosting meetings between advocates on both sides of the abortion debate throughout the summer, expects to issue its own package of proposals later in the year.
"The president started this process with the desire to find common ground and to work with people across the political spectrum," Barnes said, adding: "The bottom line is to put concrete ideas on the table."

Republicans Assail President Obama Meeting with Congressional Budget Office Director As Inappropriate

Republicans on Wednesday criticized as inappropriate a meeting President Obama held Monday with the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf.
Elmendorf, a Democratic appointee, has been a thorn in the side of President Obama and congressional Democrats for the way he has analyzed health care reform legislation. In their view, Elmendorf hasn’t sufficiently given their health care reform proposals enough credit for cutting costs – which has caused them political problems in getting the legislation passed. Last week, frustrated at one analysis by Elmendorf, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., snapped, "what he should do is maybe run for Congress.”
“No one blames Mr. Elmendorf for accepting an invitation from the President of the United States,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.“The issue is whether it was appropriate for the White House to invite him to discuss pending legislation before Congress at all.” 
Said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: "I noticed that the CBO director was sort of called down to the White House yesterday. It strikes me as somewhat akin as the owner of the team asking the umpires to come up to the owner's box."
McConnell said that "if the CBO is to have credibility, they're the umpire. They're not players in this game."
CBO is tasked with providing “objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget.”
The White House flatly rejected the idea that there was anything untoward about the invitation or the meeting, which took place on Monday for just under an hour. In addition to the president and Elmendorf, present in the meeting were White House officials such as Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform Nancy-Ann DeParle, Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag (a former CBO director himself), National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christy Romer, senior adviser David Axelrod, and press secretary Robert Gibbs.
Others were there as well, including Department of Health and Human Services adviser Meena Seshamani, Harvard University economist David Cutler and Alice Rivlin of the Brookings Institute, who was founding director of CBO from 1975-1983.
“The President invited the director to the White House to discuss health care reform and reducing health care costs,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
Gibbs described the meeting as a way to discuss ways to reduce health care costs, with no discussion of the CBO methodologies that have annoyed Democrats in their drive to pass health care reform legislation.
Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican appointee who advised the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that he never had a private meeting at the White House during his time helming CBO, from 2003 to 2005.
“The only appearance could be that they’re leaning on him,” Holtz-Eakin said. “CBO was created for Congress, for independent analysis. The White House did him (Elmendorf) a terrible disservice.”
Writing about the meeting on his blog, Elmendorf said President Obama asked him and other outside experts for their “views about achieving cost savings in health reform.  I presented CBO’s assessment of the challenges of reducing federal health outlays and improving the long-term budget outlook while simultaneously expanding health insurance coverage..”
He said those in the meeting also discussed “various policy options that could produce budgetary savings in the long run.” He described why last week he assessed the health care legislation offered by Senate Democrats as failing in the president’s stated goal of bending the cost curve of health care. “In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Elmendorf testified last week. “And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”
He said it was exciting to meet the president and be in the Oval Office and his children will be jealous “when they get back from summer camp and hear about it. “
“Of course,” Elmendorf wrote, “the setting of the conversation and the nature of the participants do not affect CBO’s analysis of health reform legislation. “
"One of the things that's disappointing about CBO -- and frustrating -- is all the work…done on prevention" that the CBO doesn’t factor in, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., co-author of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee legislation, recently griped.
"You don't get the benefit in CBO of cost-savings with prevention programs,” Dodd said. They'll tell you how much an anti-smoking program may cost. They don't tell you the benefit occurs when a number of people stop smoking."
During the health care town hall meeting, President Obama said, "the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, which sort of polices what all various programs cost, they're not willing to credit us with those savings.  They say, ‘That may be nice, that may save a lot of money, but we can't be certain.’ So we expect that not only are we going to pay for health care reform in a deficit-neutral way, but that's it also going to achieve big savings across the system -- including in the private sector where the Congressional Budget Office never gives us any credit -- but if hospitals and doctors are starting to operate in a smarter way, that's going to help you even if you're not involved in a government system."
Before that, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that "it's always been a source, yes I will say frustration, for many of us in Congress that the CBO will always give you the worst case scenario on one initiative and never ... any credit for anything that happens if you have early intervention, health care. If you have prevention, if you have wellness ... you name any positive investment that we make, that we know reduces cost, brings money to the Treasury in the case of education but never scored positively by the CBO. Yes, it is frustrating."
Pelosi said, "I hope we will see them say, 'This is what we see the cost of something. We have not accounted for the benefits' because they don't and they haven't and it should not be inferred from what they do that they have."
Holtz-Eakin, who said he’s starting a think tank, added that if the White House was interested in Elmendorf’s views or suggestions, they needed to just have “read the CBO studies and left it at that. A wiser White House than this one would have seen that….These guys may have I.Q. points off the scale, but a reverence for institutions and something about a respect for the process is not their strong point.”
-jpt

President Obama Uses Magnetism, Political Capital to Push Health Care Bill

Swaying public opinion would go a long way toward convincing resistant lawmakers that a massive health care reform bill is vital and needed immediately. The task could be a heavy lift for the president, who so far is getting little love from either voters or Congress.
President Obama is spending his considerable political capital and using his personal magnetism Wednesday in a prime-time appeal to Americans on the virtues of the 10-year, $1 trillion-plus health care reform package big-footing its way through Congress.
Swaying public opinion would go a long way toward convincing resistant lawmakers that a massive health care reform bill is vital and needed immediately. The task could be a heavy lift for the president, who so far is getting little love from either voters or Congress despite talking about the topic 10 times over the past 10 days.
Watch FOX News Channel and FOXNews.com for a live broadcast of President Obama's prime-time press conference at 8 p.m. ET.
Causes for hesitation include, among other issues, the massive price tag, the number of people covered, the elimination of insurance options, the fear of long lines and inability to access physicians, the increase in taxes to pay for it and concern that the 1,000-page bill is not being vetted enough as it is moves quickly through Congress.
The Congressional Budget Office upset Democratic supporters of the plan by last week projecting that the House legislation will cost $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, depending on the plan adopted. The price tag sent shock waves through Washington and beyond.
But the CBO can only project out 10 years by law. Other projections based on CBO's numbers and extending into the future show the bill could explode the deficit once the benefits are fully implemented. One estimate by the Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee estimated the deficit would increase by $759 billion over the first 10 years the benefits are fully in effect, which is in 2015. Another projection of long-range costs done by congressional staff shows deficits in the 2020s of $50 billion to $250 billion per year.
On top of that, while the administration claims the legislation will be "deficit neutral," one senior administration official acknowledged Tuesday that the pledge does not apply to an estimated $245 billion to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients over the next decade.
Trying to rein in Medicare costs is a major challenge. In 1966, the year Medicare law was enacted, the cost was $3 billion and estimated to be $12 billion by 1990. Actual cost in 1990 for Medicare was $107 billion. In 2007, Medicare spent $468 billion on prescription drugs, hospital care and physician services.
The Medicare account is now projected to spend more than it gets in revenues in 2017.
Backers insist that savings will be realized in other areas, for instance, by Americans becoming healthier and spending less on doctors visits and because emergency rooms won't be used for primary care. But an increase in taxes on upper income brackets is expected to accompany the bill.
"There (are) efforts to invest in wellness, to go after fraud and abuse, which we know is a huge
part of the system with people stealing money away from our senior citizens and our most
vulnerable citizens," Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told FOX News.
Adding to the suspicions about the bill are reports of a meeting held at the White House with a group that included CBO Director Dougles Elmendorf. It's very unusual for the CBO director, who is appointed by the majority party to serve as the official numbers cruncher, to go to the White House, and Elmendorf's visit raised questions about whether he was being pressured to revise his dire analysis.
A White House spokesman said that Elmendorf was invited to be one of the participants at the meeting because he, like the president, is serious about bringing down costs.
"If someone thinks it's inappropriate for the president to meet with the CBO director, that's unfortunate," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin told FOX News.
Elmendorf added on his Web log that he offered to the president a personal briefing of the contents of his analysis and the same testimony he gave Congress, but would not be swayed by a personal meeting with Obama.
"People have asked whether it was exciting to meet the president and be in the Oval Office: Yes, and my kids will be jealous when they get back from summer camp and hear about it," Elmendorf wrote.
"Of course, the setting of the conversation and the nature of the participants do not affect CBO's analysis of health reform legislation. We will continue to work with members of Congress and their staffs, on both sides of the aisle, to provide cost estimates and other information as health reform legislation is considered," he added.
Previewing his evening press conference, the president told CBS in an interview that aired Tuesday morning that the country needs a reform bill immediately to stem the rising costs of health care. He defended himself against claims that the bill is being hustled through without proper consideration.
"We've been studying this ad infinitum. Starting in November after my election, a lot of members of Congress, including the chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus, started meeting and working through ideas," Obama said. "So we've actually been working on this for a good solid nine months now."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vowed weeks ago that the House would vote by the end of July on the legislation to meet the goals established by Obama months ago. On Wednesday, Pelosi expressed confidence in the ability of her caucus to pass the legislation though her stance on a timeline was less firm.
She said that the House wanted to wait to see what the Senate would offer in terms of legislation. However, she insisted that "we are going in a forward direction" towards passage.
The pace of movement continues to concern Democrats and Republicans alike.
"No one wants to tell the speaker that she's moving too fast and they damn sure don't want to tell the president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a key committee chairman, told a fellow lawmaker as the two walked into a closed-door meeting on Tuesday. The remark was overheard by reporters.
"If we don't put the brakes on the president, he's going to break our country right now," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., told FOX News. "And the last time we let him ram something through Congress, we ended up with this catastrophic stimulus failure that's hurting our jobs and mortgaging our future. And now he's trying to push this trillion-dollar health care bill through in two weeks, before we go home on the August break. And we've got to slow him down."
Sebelius said the differences that divide lawmakers and competing legislation are not as big as they seem. Among the five bills being ushered through the House and Senate, all share "common ground that everyone would be covered, that we would provide a new marketplace for those that don't have coverage or coverage they can't afford to have some choices and have some cost competition."
"No one is going to be forced to lose their private coverage. That's just an incorrect assertion and assumption," Sebelius added.
But still bothering GOP lawmakers are measures to include 5.6 million illegal aliens among those covered as well as the refusal to cap medical malpractice awards.
"Taxpaying families, already weighed down by bailouts and massive spending bills, cannot afford to pay for health insurance for millions of illegal aliens," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. "It is wrong to reward law breakers. The American people are speaking loud and clear and saying, 'No health care for illegal aliens.'"
"There is something fundamentally wrong with America when it is easier to sue a doctor than see a doctor," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.
Each year, $30 billion is awarded to victims of medical malpractice. Obama has said he does not support caps on awards.
"There are bad doctors out there, but the answer is not frivolous lawsuits, and it's not these incredible liability costs imposed on all of us, it's take their licenses away. That's what you do with bad doctors," Hensarling said, noting that many doctors order a battery of unnecessary tests to protect themselves from a lawsuit, further driving up the prices of health care.

Obama Defends Vacationing in Down Economy

(CBS)  After a wide-ranging interview of President Obama, "CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric strolled along with him outside the White House and asked him a question suggested to her by someone on Twitter -- on whether he feels "guilty going on vacation when so many families are struggling."

Mr. Obama and his family plan to take a break in Martha's Vineyard next month.

"If the question is, 'Do I think every single day about the hardships that people are going through'? Absolutely," the president responded. "Do I think the American people think that because of those hardships I shouldn't spend some quality time with my daughters? I don't think that's what the American people think about it."

Couric then observed, "You're so confident, Mr. President. And so focused. Is your confidence ever shaken, do you ever wake up and say, 'Damn, this is hard! Damn, I'm not going to get the things done that I want to get done,' and it's just too politicized to get anything done?"

Mr. Obama's response? "Are there days where I say, 'This is a big dose'? Absolutely. Are there days where, you know, I think we've suffered setbacks and I've got to continually question and reexamine how I'm approaching problems, all the time. You know, there's a constant process of reevaluation in it, and self reflection that the job forces on you. But this country just makes me confident. I have faith that in the end we will do what's right for the next generation."

Couric's interview covered the battle over healthcare reform, the economy, joblessness, abortion funding and other key issues.

Clinton Discusses Relationship With Obama

PHUKET, Thailand, July 22 -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that President Obama agreed to give her "an enormous amount of authority . . . really everything I asked for" before she agreed to take the job of chief U.S. diplomat.
Clinton made the remarks during an expansive one-hour interview with Thai television in Bangkok before she flew to this resort island for a regional security forum. The interview with two energetic questioners took place before a live audience in a former king's palace built in 1909.
Clinton said she was "very surprised" when her former rival for the Democratic nomination asked her to become secretary of state. "He said, 'Look, I really need you and I believe that we can have a great relationship.' And we do. It's been everything I could have hoped for," Clinton said.
She added that her first response when Obama called her was to give him a list of names of people she thought "would be so much better. . . . But as you have seen watching on TV, he is very persuasive."
Speculation has risen in official Washington that Clinton has lost some of her luster and the State Department has been sidelined, with much of the foreign-policy power residing in the White House. But Clinton dismissed that, saying the rumors were the result of her reduced travel schedule after she broke her elbow in June.
"What happened is I broke my elbow. Very sad. I tripped and fell, but luckily I didn't hit my head. I hit my elbow and it broke in two," Clinton said. She then had to cancel plans to do a solo European trip and to join the president on another trip to Russia.
"I'm not with the president on the trip and all of sudden everyone said 'Ooooh . . . she's disappeared.' I'm thinking, gosh, I'm here, actually here."
Clinton said that from her own experience living in the White House as first lady, she understands that the president is always going to be the top policy-maker. "The president is the president. You know, I tried to be the president but I was not successful," she said to loud applause. "But I know -- the president is the president."
The questioners pressed Clinton on her run for the presidency and whether she still entertained the notion of running again.
"That's not anything I'm at all thinking about," she replied.
She was asked if she had ever given up hope, and she said: "I don't know, but I doubt very much that anything like that will ever be part of my life."
Is it wait and see? "No, no, no, no."
Finally, one questioner pressed, "Never say never," and Clinton seemed to shut the door.
"Well, I am saying no because I have a very committed attitude to the job I have and so that's not at all on my radar screen."

The Early Word: Prime-Time Night

Two days past the six-month mark of his administration, President Obama steps before reporters and the American people on Wednesday night for a news conference.
According to The Times’s Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, says the news conference will be a sort of “six-month report card” used to discuss the economy. But of course, health care reform will almost certainly be a major topic. And Ms. Stolberg reports that even members of the president’s own Democratic party are concerned about the next big item on the agenda: remaking the health care system.
“As for Democrats, Mr. Obama faces a balance-of-power conundrum. He has said all along that he will set out broad principles for a bill and leave the details to Congress. But now House Democrats in the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, including seven who hold decisive votes on the Energy and Commerce Committee, say they will not support the House bill without big changes.
One question for Mr. Obama is whether to try to strong-arm them, and face a rebellion from some of the very same conservative Democrats who helped put him in office. If he forces them to vote for a bill their constituents do not like, on a timetable that feels too rushed for them, it could hurt them at home. That could mean a bigger political problem for the White House: a resulting loss of Democratic seats in the 2010 midterm elections.”
The Times’s Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn examine the concerns of the seven Blue Dogs on the energy committee that have led the panel’s chairman, Representative Henry Waxman, to cancel committee sessions scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday. That delay makes it less likely that the House will be able to vote on a health care package before it recesses in early August. On the Senate side, Senator Max Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman, said on Tuesday that progress was being made on that panel’s bipartisan bill.

Elsewhere in health care reporting, The Washington Post’s Ceci Connolly says that if a health care bill is signed, one thing is “virtually certain: For the first time ever, every American would be required to carry health insurance.” And Politico’s Ben Smith looks at how anti-abortion groups are planning to push back against proposed reforms.
Iraq: Before his news conference, Mr. Obama meets with — and then meets the media with — Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the pair’s first White House meeting since the president was inaugurated.
The Wall Street Journal’s Gina Chon profiles the Iraqi leader, finding he has gained “widening popularity among Iraqis, grudging respect of some political foes and a more even footing with his U.S. hosts.”
F-22 Fight: The White House appears to have won the staring contest over the F-22s with the Senate, who voted on Tuesday to remove funds for the fighter jets from a defense authorization bill after Mr. Obama threatened to veto the legislation. (The Times’s Christopher Drew reports that the administration has been looking to “shift more of the Pentagon’s resources away from conventional warfare projects, like the F-22, to provide more money for fighting insurgencies.”)
Unlike most other contentious votes in the Senate this year, which broke largely on party lines, the vote over the F-22 was more parochial, with lawmakers looking to protect jobs back home. (For example, the Democratic senators from California and the Republican senators from Texas all voted to keep the $1.75 billion, which would have financed seven more jets.)
On Wednesday, another controversial portion of the budget bill could hit the floor: an amendment that would allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry guns across state lines.
Country: The Times’s Jon Pareles files this report on the White House’s country music celebration from Tuesday night, featuring Brad Paisley, Charley Pride and Alison Krauss and Union Station.
Quotable Biden: Touring Ukraine with its president, Viktor A. Yushchenko, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. waxed philosophic on the beauty of Ukrainian women: “I cannot believe that a Frenchman visiting Kiev went back home and told his colleagues he discovered something and didn’t say he discovered the most beautiful women in the world; that’s my observation,” the vice president said.
According to the Wall Street Journal’s Peter Spiegel, a Russian journalist believes the Frenchman referred to by Mr. Biden might have been the author Alexandre Dumas.
On Wednesday, Mr. Biden departs Ukraine and heads for its former Soviet counterpart, Georgia.
Clinton Warnings: Having shifted even further east, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke in Thailand on Tuesday about potential military cooperation between North Korea and Myanmar, a Southeast Asian country that has had some sort of military rule for more than 45 years. As The Times’s Mark Landler reports, North Korea is already believed to be giving Myanmar small arms and may even be helping the country work toward a nuclear program. Last month, a North Korean ship headed toward Myanmar turned back after being tracked by the U.S. Navy, which suspected the freighter might be carrying weapons.
With worries mounting that the two countries are cooperating, Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference that an alliance between the two reclusive countries would “pose a direct threat” to neighbors of Myanmar, such as Thailand. She added that she was “deeply concerned by the reports of continuing human rights abuses within Burma.”
C.I.A. Inquiries: Back in Washington, The Times’s David Johnston looks at the conundrum facing Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.: whether to investigate how terrorist suspects were interrogated post-9/11. In a decision that would display the Justice Department’s independence from the White House, Mr. Holder is apparently considering launching an investigation — albeit a narrow one.
Mr. Johnston reports that even a narrow inquest, focused on C.I.A. investigators and contractors, could backfire in at least two ways: “One is the political fallout if only a handful of low-level agents are prosecuted for what many critics see as a pattern of excess condoned at the top of the government. The other is that an aggressive prosecutor would not stop at the bottom, but would work up the chain of command, and end up with a full-blown criminal inquiry into the intelligence agencies — just the kind of broad, open-ended criminal investigation the Obama administration says it wants to avoid.”
Palin Problems: Sarah Palin, now in her last week as Alaska governor, could find herself under investigation over whether she used her office to solicit funds to pay her legal debts, The Times‘s Katharine Q. Seelye reports. Ms. Palin cited $500,000 in legal debts in her resignation speech a few weeks ago.
Birthers: The the group who keep insisting that Obama was born not in Hawaii, but Kenya, and is thus ineligible to be president — were a consistent side plot to the 2008 election. But even with Mr. Obama firmly ensconced in the Oval Office — and even with copies of Mr. Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate in circulation — the birthers’ passion does not seem to be fading away. Just ask Delaware Representative Mike Castle, a moderate Republican who faced an angry town hall meeting full of people who insisted Mr. Obama was Kenyan-born. MSNBC posted the video on its “Hardball” program.
Legislation has already been introduced in the House that would compel presidential candidates to prove their American citizenship; Chris Matthews recently interviewed Representative John Campbell, one of the legislation’s sponsors. (For his part, Mr. Campbell said that the bill was not about Mr. Obama, and pressed by Mr. Matthews, said he believed the president was a U.S. citizen.)
Now, Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh are getting behind the birthers. The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder takes a look at the Republican party’s choices when it comes to the group: “If they give credence to the birthers, they’re (not only advancing ignorance but also) betraying the narrowness of their base. If they dismiss this growing movement, they might drive birthers to find more extreme candidates, which will fragment a Republican political coalition.”
Sotomayor Votes: Senator Susan Collins of Maine became the fourth Republican senator to publicly back Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, offering even more proof that the judge will easily be confirmed once her nomination hits the Senate floor. But perhaps the biggest Tuesday announcement from a Republican with regards to Judge Sotomayor came from someone not even in Congress. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running for Senate in 2010, revealed that he was not supporting the judge, citing concerns for her stance on the Second Amendment. That position puts Mr. Crist in line with his primary opponent – Marco Rubio, the Cuban-American former speaker of the Florida House – as both men prepare to run in a state with a large concentration of Hispanic voters. (For the record, the man Mr. Crist and Mr. Rubio are trying to replace, Republican Senator Mel Martinez, has announced he will vote for Judge Sotomayor.)
The Judiciary Committee, by the way, officially set next Tuesday as the date for its vote.
Giuliani in Washington: Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now thinking about a run for New York governor in 2010, speaks about free markets at the American Enterprise Institute.
Bernanke/Orszag: Fed chairman Ben Bernanke heads back to Capitol Hill for a second consecutive day, this time testifying before the Senate Banking committee. (He appeared before the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday.)
Elsewhere on Wednesday, Peter Orszag, the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget, delivers a speech on the economy at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Hot Dog: The annual Capitol Hill Hot Dog Lunch, sponsored by the American Meat Institute, goes down in the courtyard of the Rayburn House Office Building on Wednesday. (It was just last Wednesday, for those of you that remember, that a Playboy playmate covered in lettuce leaves handed out veggie dogs on Capitol Hill to mark National Veggie Dog Day.)

Source

President Obama Talks to Katie Couric

Katie Couric: Mr. President, I know you met with House Democrats earlier this afternoon who were opposed to the House bill on health care, because of concerns about the deficit, taxing the wealthy, controlling long term spending. In fact, 40 House Democrats opposed the bill as it's currently written. Did you make any progress?

President Obama: We did. And they acknowledged that we made progress. You know, my working principle has been, number one, let's make sure that this package provides more choices to the American people, gives them more security, if they've got a preexisting condition, or they lose their job, or they're changing jobs.

It's got to be deficit neutral. It can't add to our deficits. And it's got to bring long term costs down. And I think, rightly, a number of these so called Blue Dog Democrats - more conservative Democrats - were concerned that not enough had been done on reducing costs.

It's the same concern that I shared. And we talked today with Henry Waxman, the chairman of the committee that was relevant. And I think that we're moving in the direction where, at the end of the day, by the time we have a bill on the floor, we will be able to say, unequivocally, that this is going to bend to the cost curve so that health care inflation is reduced. That's going to be good for American families. That's going to reduce their costs and make the system work better for everybody.

Katie Couric: But it's not going to add to the deficit?

President Obama: It will not add to the deficit. I will not sign a bill that adds to the deficit. Period.

Katie Couric: What about the nonpartisan Congressional office figures. As you know, you've heard that, that the House plan, as it stands, would add $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years.

President Obama: I mean, part of what you know, I haven't been in Washington as long as some of these folks, but you find out that you go forward in fits and starts. And I think that what is fair to say is that the Congressional Budget Office did not see enough of the cost savings to offset the increases for expanding coverage for all people.

And that's what we talked about today. That we've got to make sure that the cost savings are there, because there's so much waste in the system, Katie, that we know can be reallocated to reduce cost for families, make sure they've got health insurance, if they can't currently afford it.

The problem is grabbing onto those costs. Making sure that if we're subsidizing insurance companies that are already profitable, to the tune of $177 billion, let's take that money out. Let's make sure that that's going to families that could use some help to get health care.

Katie Couric: But aren't a lot of these cost savings, Mr. President, theoretical? I know you've said that the CEO and some leading economists say this plan has a good chance of working. But there are no guarantees these projected savings will really happen.

President Obama: Well here's what we know. Here is a guarantee: If we do nothing then health care inflation is going to keep on going up at eight percent, nine percent, 10 percent a year. It means that family premiums are going double over the next ten years at least.

It'll go up three times faster than wages go up. People's out of pocket costs are going to be higher. So we know that standing still means that more and more people are going to lose their health care or it's going to be less and less affordable. That's if we do nothing.

If we take these actions, we are confident that we can actually see some serious reductions in health care inflation. And, in fact, there have been times, for example, in the 1990s, where you actually saw health care inflation drop down to zero. But then it started jumping back up again. And so what we have to do is have to have a sustained effort. And all the ideas that have been put forward by health economists and the congressional budget office are ideas that, I think, we're going to try to make sure are incorporated into this bill.

Katie Couric: One of the sticking points in the House bill is a tax on people who make $280,000, or over that amount. Nancy Pelosi is reportedly saying, "Hey, let's raise taxes on people who make $500,000 a year, and on joint filers for those who make a million dollars. So it could be a millionaire's tax." It might be more politically palatable. What do you think of that?

President Obama: Well, here's what I think. Nobody wants to pay more taxes. I don't want to pay more taxes. You don't want to pay more taxes. On the other hand, I think we all recognize that, in a country like ours, we shouldn't have 46 million people without health insurance, and we shouldn't have a whole lot of other people who have health insurance, but the deductibles are so high, or the premiums are so high, that they can barely afford it. And so if we've rung out all the waste and inefficiency in the system, if we've reallocated, as I've proposed, that money that is being wasted that is already in the system, taxpayers are already paying for this. For example, on these subsidies to insurance companies.

We've taken that money and we've reallocated it so it's being spent well. And there's a little bit left that we've got to cover. Then I would rather have somebody like myself pay for it, who can afford to pay a little bit more, than I would to see middle class families burdened with higher and higher health care cost. So you know, I think that the proposal that Nancy Pelosi put forward is one way of doing it. The Senate Finance Committee is exploring a whole range of other options.

And I'm confident, that at the end of the day, that we will have found a way to pay for this that meets my earlier pledge that we're not going to see taxes increase for anybody making less than $250,000 a year. And we're going to do it in a deficit neutral way so that this thing is actually paid for.

Katie Couric: So you are not opposed to a tax hike for some of the wealthiest Americans. Either for those who make over $280,00 a year, or those who make over $500,000 a year.

President Obama: I am not opposed to people, like myself, who are at the, you know, top of the income bracket, paying a little bit more, if …

Katie Couric: You can't come up with another way to pay for it.

President Obama: If, as a consequence, middle class families are seeing their cost reduced, and if we've taken all of the waste out of the system that we can, and put that into the kitty. Because I don't think what's fair for people is to feel like we're not doing anything about the waste and we're going to tax folks. I think that's the kind of thing that the American people would be opposed to, and I would be, too.

Katie Couric: You said that if Congress doesn't have a deadline things don't get done in this town. But Democrats, like, Kent Conrad, are also saying, quote, "Sometimes, when you move too quickly, you make mistakes." So is this really something you want to dig in your heels on? I mean, is there any flexibility on this August deadline?

President Obama: Well, I want to keep the pressure on. Because we're making steady progress. People are working hard. I just met with these House Democrats. And they were in there for three hours. I could only join them for an hour. I understand that the Senate Finance Committee is meeting three times today.

That kind of work is going to produce good results. And it means that people are really digging in and getting to know how can we make sure that we're preserving people's choice of plan and option? If they already have health insurance, how can we reduce cost?

How can we make sure that preexisting conditions don't bar people from getting health insurance? If we figure out all those things over the next several weeks, then I think the American people are going to be happy with the end product. Here's what I won't do. I won't, as I said before, I won't sign a bill that I think does not reduce costs - does not keep deficit neutral. And does not benefit middle class families in America. So I want to put the pressure on. But, ultimately, the test is: Is this a bill that I think is going to be better for the American people or not? And, if it's not, then, you know, we'll keep at it.

Katie Couric: So, if it's not, you'll have some flexibility on this deadline.

President Obama: If I'm not happy with the end product, I will not sign a bill.

Katie Couric: Because, surely, you don't want to ram something through. After LBJ took a year and a half to get Medicare passed. As I know Senator Olympia Snow reminded you recently.

President Obama: She did. And I think that's fair. Look, part of what's going on, though, is remember we've been talking about this for four years. We've been studying this at infinitum. Starting in November, after my election, a lot of members of Congress, including the chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus, started-- meeting and working through ideas.

So we've actually been working on this for a good solid nine months now. And I think that if we keep working, that I'm confident that we can get this done. ButI want the American people to understand I have no interest in creating a bad bill. That doesn't serve me. And it certainly doesn't serve the American people. Well, if we've got a bill that doesn't work.

Katie Couric: You are really putting yourself out there, front and center, on this issue. Which may be risky. Are you concerned at all that if health care reform fails it will be a huge and devastating setback to your presidency? And may put some of the rest of your agenda in peril?

President Obama: I think that the easiest way to keep your poll numbers up, and to garner good press, is to do not that much here in this town, and not to cause a lot of controversy. And there's some people who would probably advise that that's the approach you should take.

You know, take it slow. Don't make too many sudden moves. But that's not why the American people sent me here. They sent me here to solve problems. And my attitude is that I would rather work as hard as I can on the things that matter most to the American people, bringing down their health care costs, getting control of our energy agenda, improving our education system, regulating our financial system so that we don't have another crisis again.

Those things need to be done. Sometimes, in Washington, inaction is sort of the preferred way of doing business. I want to make sure that during the time that I'm here, that we're as productive as possible. And so far, at least I think if you look back, over the last six months, we have done an extraordinary amount of good even though my staff reminds me that they're not getting enough sleep.

Katie Couric: There's a lot of talk about momentum right now. And, of course, in the first month of the presidency, that's when the political wind is with you. Are you worried, if you can't get something passed soon, health care reform will be DOA?

President Obama: There have been so many times, during my political career, certainly, during the presidential race and even over the the last six months, where people have said, "Boy, this is make or break for Obama." That was true when I was in Iowa.

And people were sure that we weren't going to win. That was true, you know, during periods in the general election. When the stock market went down everybody was saying, "This is a disaster." And what I found is that as long as we are making good decisions, thinking always what's going to be best for the American people, that eventually, as long as we're persistent, and we're listening to the American people, that things get done.

So I think that we have a lot of work to do before we finally sign a health care bill. I think that the American people, understandably, are wary of changes such a big part of our lives as health care. And they want to make sure they understand it.

I've got to make sure I'm doing a good job explaining it. I think congress has to work with our administration to meet the demands of deficit neutrality and serious cost savings. But you know, we really don't have a choice. If we don't do this then Medicare and Medicaid costs are going to keep on spiraling.

The deficit will become out of control. We'll have a situation in which family premiums are going to keep on going up. And, you know, the worst thing that I could do is to not take the steps that are necessary, and then look back, four years or five years from now, and realize that more families don't have health insurance, and costs have been going up, and the deficit has gone up even higher.Katie Couric: What about the Mayo Clinic? It criticized the House bill yesterday. Saying, quote, "The legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality more affordable health care for patients. And, in fact, it would do the opposite."

President Obama: Well, as you know, I've consistently cited the Mayo Clinic as an example of …

Katie Couric: I know you have. So this must have been particularly painful to hear.

President Obama: No, look Katie, I think that this is a very tough process. Because there's so many moving parts to it. And when I said that we can achieve serious cost savings, and improve delivery systems so that people are getting better value for the health care dollars that they're spending, Mayo Clinic's a good example of it.

And figuring out how we encourage other health systems to adopt the same kinds of approaches that Mayo adopts, that's a tricky process. Because it means we've got to change how doctors are reimbursed, and how hospitals are reimbursed. That's part of what we meant to discuss today with the House Democrats. And I think that by the time we actually have a bill completed, what you're going to see is encouraging precisely the kinds of things that the Mayo Clinic is doing. That, I think, will be proof that we've made real progress.

Katie Couric: A very big concern for a lot of people is keeping their health care policy in place. But if you create a public insurance plan, what's to keep an employer from telling his or her employees, "You know what? We're not going to provide health insurance. Get the government plan"?

President Obama: Well, first of all, I understand that about 14,000 people every day are losing their health insurance because employers just can't afford it anymore. And they're starting to drop plans. Or they're putting a huge amount of cost onto the employee.

And the employee decides I just can't afford this. So that's already happening. And that will continue to accelerate if we do nothing. What we've said is let's set up a public option that people can choose. Although we'll have some rules and regulations around it so that, if you're already getting health insurance from your employer, your employer can't just dump you into the public plan. But ..

Katie Couric: What will happen if, say, my employer tried to do that?

President Obama: Well, essentially, the employer would be informed that certain people would not be eligible for this public option if they've already got health insurance through their employer. Or the employer would have to pay the equivalent of the insurance that he was already providing.

So there is going to be mechanisms that prevent people from just dumping folks into the public option. Where the public option becomes important is to make sure that the small business person, who just can't afford health care at all, when they go to what we call an exchange, a marketplace that has private insurers out there, but also a public option, he or she can choose which option works best for them.

And, by having that public option, we're putting pressure on the insurance companies to make sure that they are keeping costs as low as possible, and they're giving the highest quality for the best price. What's always interesting to me is folks say that government can't run things.

And I actually agree that the private sector does a whole lot of things better than government can. Well, if that's the case, then insurance companies should be able to compete effectively with a public option. As long as it's not being subsidized by the government. And I've already said I wouldn't support a public option if it was simply just a way to have taxpayers subsidize folks heavily.

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.

Katie Couric: Do you think any illegal immigrant should be eligible for health care under the new plan?

President Obama: No.

Katie Couric: No. Why not?

President Obama: First of all, I'd like to create a situation where we're dealing with illegal immigration so that we don't have illegal immigrants. And we've got legal residents or citizens who are eligible for the plan. And I want a comprehensive immigration plan that creates a pathway to achieve that.

The one exception that I think has to be discussed is how are we treating children? Partly because, if you've got children, who may be here illegally, but are still in playgrounds, and at schools and potentially are passing on illnesses, and communicable diseases, that's not …

Katie Couric: Aren't getting vaccinated.

President Obama: That aren't getting vaccinated. That's, I think, a situation in where you may have to make an exception.

Katie Couric: Mr. President, if the stimulus plan isn't really working, at least for now, why should Americans sign off on spending billions of dollars on health care reform?

President Obama: I disagree that the stimulus plan is not working. Think about where we've been. I think people maybe have a selective memory here. It was only four or five months ago that people thought we might go into a Great Depression. We have gone through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And, since that time, we have stabilized the financial markets. We have created the ability of businesses to borrow again. We have prevented thousands of layoffs in states all across the country. We have made sure that people have extended unemployment insurance.

And that, if they lose their job, they can keep their health care. We've given a tax cut to 95 percent of working families. So are we where we need to be? Absolutely not. Would things be much worse if we had not put the recovery package in place? Absolutely.

Do we have a lot more work to do? We do. And, fortunately, we've still got a whole range of infrastructure projects, building roads and bridges, and laying broadband lines, that are going to put people back to work and lay the foundation for long term economic growth.

Katie Couric: But what's taking so long? Only about $60 billion of the nearly $500 billion of stimulus money has been dispersed. And a lot of people are saying, "What's taking so long?"

President Obama: Well, that's actually not entirely accurate. What you have is, first of all, the states have already received $144 billion of money, in terms of unemployment insurance, in terms of-- stabilization funds, so they don't have to lay off teachers, and firefighters and so forth.

Tax cuts have already been allocated. They went out back in April. So, in fact, about $500 billion of the total $800 billion recovery package was money that everybody agreed made sense. For tax cuts and to help states and to help individual families.

The money that's taken a while to get out is actually the money for infrastructure projects, but that's always the case. Because you can't start building a road or a bridge without making sure that the studies have been done. The engineering reports are there. And we don't want to waste this money.

And, by the way, this was always intended to be a two year project. Not a month to month project. But here's the larger point, Katie. Nobody thought that, given the severity of this economic crisis, that there was going to be any magic wand.

The recovery package was one part of a broader set of efforts to make sure that the financial system stabilized. We've got hundreds of thousands of people who are being helped by loan modifications through the homeowners project that we've put forward. We've got SBA loans that are going to small businesses all across the country.

And if we do continue to take all these various steps, in combination with reforming our health care system, setting up an energy plan that finally ends our dependence on foreign oil, and has serious financial regulatory reforms, so that we don't see banks doing the same things that they've been doing in the past, that's what's going to lay the foundation for long term economic growth. But this is not going to be easy. And I don't think anybody ever thought it would be.

Katie Couric: A recent online poll out today shows the number of Americans who trust you to find the right solutions to problems has fallen from 66 to 54 percent. And those who mistrust you have increased from 31 to 42 percent. Do you feel like the honeymoon's over?

President Obama: I never understood this concept of honeymoon. I think that, as soon as I took the job, on January 20, I think I was responsible. And that's what people expect from their presidents. That I take responsibility for the economy.

The economy is going through a rough period. And so, you know, nobody's more critical than I am of the need for us to create more jobs, to improve our health care system, to deal with our energy problems, and to make sure that our financial system works for families as opposed to just for fat cats on Wall Street.

We are moving, I believe, strongly in the right direction. But there are going to be ups and downs. And I think that, until people are confident that recovery has happened that's going to end up influencing people's broader opinions about whether we're moving in the right direction.

Katie Couric: President Obama, there was a stinging column in the New York Times today written by David Brooks. He says Democrats are losing touch with America because, quote, "The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes." He goes on to say that you have, basically, been co-opted by Nancy Pelosi. And you've differed to the, what he calls, old bulls on Capitol Hill.

President Obama: This was a really aggressive-[laughter]

Katie Couric: On issue after issue. [laughter] There was a pretty…

President Obama: Are we going to read the whole column here? [laughter]

Katie Couric: No, I'm not going to read - I'm not going to put you through that. But it was it was a tough column. And I'm just curious, A, have you read it? And, B, what's your response?

President Obama: I, you know, I don't spend a lot of time reading columns, Katie. The fact is that I am confident in the work that we're doing. And if you look at the steps we've taken on the recovery package, the steps that we've taken to reform things like the credit card industry, the legislation that we've been able to pass to prohibit tobacco companies to market to kids - each of these things, which had been sitting on the shelf for years, that we've been able to get done in the first six months, I think, is a testimony to the fact that we're moving America in the right direction.

But as long as the economy is still shedding jobs, and people don't feel confident about a recovery, then I think there's going to continue to be frustration. And rightfully so. I think people have to have high standards for, not only my performance as president, but the performance of government generally.

Reforming this town, and working through these problems that have been unattended to for decades - that's not an overnight process. It certainly doesn't get completed in six months. But ultimately, the report card that I'll be interested in is after we've seen the work of this year, and into next year, and we start seeing some of these plans bear fruit. I feel pretty confident that people are going to say we're finally moving beyond some of the gridlock in this town, and we're actually getting things done.

Obama Defends His Dad Jeans


Those jeans are comfortable. And for those of you who want your president to look great in his tight jeans, I'm sorry. I'm not the guy."
-- President Obama on the snark over the suburban-dad jeans he wore throwing out the first pitch at last week's All-Star Game. "Michelle -- she looks fabulous," he told NBC, but "I'm a little frumpy."

President Obama Delivers Remarks on Health-Care Reform

Before I talk about the progress we're making on health insurance reform, I want to say a few words about a very important vote that just took place in Congress. Long before I took this office, I argued that meeting our greatest challenges would require not only changing policies in Washington, but changing the way we do business in Washington. I also promised that part of that change would be eliminating waste and inefficiency in our defense projects, reform that will better protect our nation, better protect our troops, and save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
As commander-in-chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend the American people, which is why we've increased our funding for our military and why we will always give our men and women in uniform the equipment and support that they need to get the job done.
But I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure. That's why I've taken steps to greatly reduce no- bid defense contracts. That's why I've signed overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation to limit cost overruns on weapons systems before they spiral out of control.
And that's why I'm grateful that the Senate just voted against an additional $1.75 billion to buy F-22 fighter jets that military experts and members of both parties say we do not need.
At a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money. Every dollar of waste in our defense budget is a dollar we can't spend to support our troops or prepare for future threats or protect the American people.
Our budget is a zero-sum game. And if more money goes to F-22s, it is our troops and our citizens who lose. So I want to thank Secretary Gates for his outspoken leadership on this issue. I want to thank every member of Congress who put politics aside to do what's right for the American military and the American taxpayers. And I particularly want to thank Senators Levin and McCain for helping to make this happen.
Now, I've also said that health care costs are the biggest drivers of our deficit. Nobody disputes that. So I'm looking forward to meeting with several members of Congress who are working to pass health insurance reform that will bring down long-term costs, expand coverage, and provide more choice.
I know that there are those in this town who openly declare their intention to block reform. It's a familiar Washington script that we've seen many times before.
These opponents of reform would rather score political points than offer relief to Americans who've seen premiums double and costs grow three times faster than wages. They would maintain a system that works for the insurance and the drug companies, while becoming increasingly unaffordable for families and for businesses.
But there are many others who are working hard to address this growing crisis. I know that there is a tendency in Washington to accentuate the differences instead of underscoring common ground.
But make no mistake: We are closer than ever before to the reform that the American people need, and we're going to get the job done.
OBAMA: I have urged Congress to act, and the health care reform bills making their way through the respective committees in the House and the Senate reflect a hard-earned consensus about how to move forward.
So let me just lay out the substantial common ground in the current bills. We've agreed that our health reform bill will extend coverage and include unprecedented insurance protections for the American people.
Under each of these bills, you won't be denied coverage if you've got a pre-existing medical condition. You won't lose your health care if you change jobs or if you lose your job or if you start a business. And you won't lose your insurance if you get sick.
We've agreed that our health reform bill will promote choice. America -- Americans will be able to compare the price and quality of different plans and pick the plan that they want.
If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it. And each bill provides for a public option that will keep insurance companies honest, ensuring the competition necessary to make coverage affordable.
We've agreed that our health reform bill will emphasize prevention and wellness by investing in programs that help Americans live healthier lives. We will save money, prevent illness, and increase the competitiveness of our country.
We've agreed that our health reform bill will protect American families from financial catastrophe if they get sick. That's why each of these bills has out-of-pocket limits that will help ensure that families don't go bankrupt because of illness.
And we have agreed that our health reform bill will include dramatic measures to cut costs while improving quality.
Each of these bills improves oversight while cracking down on waste. Each will help reduce unwarranted giveaways to insurance companies in Medicare. And each of these bills will provide incentives so that patients get the best care, not just the most expensive care.
The consensus that we've forged is not limited to Congress. Indeed, we've forged a level of consensus on health care that has never been reached in the history of this country.
Health care providers have agreed to do their part to reduce the rate of growth in health care spending. The pharmaceutical industry has agreed to spend -- to spending reductions that will make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. Hospitals have agreed to bring down costs.
The American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association, who represent millions of nurses and doctors, who know our health care system best, have announced their support for reform.
We have traveled long and hard to reach this point. I know that we have further to go. But I have to say that the American people are absolutely clear that this won't be easy, but that the road that we have traveled doesn't just stretch back through the six months of my administration. It stretches back year after year, decade after decade, through all the times that Washington has failed to tackle this problem.
Time and again, we've heard excuses to delay and defeat reform. Time and again, the American people have suffered because people in Washington played the politics of the moment instead of putting the interests of the American people first.
That's how we ended up with premiums rising three times faster than wages. That's how we ended up with businesses choosing between shedding benefits and shutting their doors. That's how we've been burdened with runaway costs and huge gaps in coverage. That's the status quo, that's what we have right now, and the American people understand that the status quo is unacceptable.
They don't care who's up or who's down politically in Washington. They care about what's going on in their own lives. They don't care about the latest line of political attack. They care about whether their families will be crushed by rising premiums, whether the businesses they work for will have to cut jobs, or whether their children are going to be saddled with debt.
So I understand that some will try to delay action until the special interests can kill it while others will simply focus on scoring political points. We've done that before. And we can choose to follow that playbook again, and then we'll never get over the goal line and will face an even greater crisis in the years to come.
That's one path we can travel. Or we can come together and insist that this time it will be different. We can choose action over inaction. We can choose progress over the politics of the moment. We can build on the extraordinary common ground that's been forged. And we can do the hard work needed to finally pass the health insurance reform that the American people deserve.
And I can guarantee you that, when we do pass this bill, history won't record the demands for endless delay or endless debates in the news cycle. It will record the hard work done by the members of Congress to pass the bill and the fact that the people who sent us here to Washington insisted upon change. That's the work that we've come here to do, and I look forward to working with Congress in the days ahead to getting the job done.

President Obama Heralds Killing Off of F-22 Rapt

Lambasting defense “waste,” President Obama came to the Rose Garden this afternoon to take a little victory lap, his first veto threat – against a defense bill that until minutes ago contained $1.75 billion in funding for the F-22 “Raptor” fighter jet – having worked.
“I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense products to keep this nation secure,” the president declared, saying he was “grateful” the Senate voted to kill the F-22 fighter jets “that military experts and members of both parties say we do not need.”
Budgeting, the president said, “is a zero-sum game,” with “every dollar of waste…a dollar we can't spend to support our troops or prepare for future threats or protect the American people.”
“If more money goes to F-22s, it is our troops and our citizens who lose,” the president said, calling further funding of the F-22, targeted for elimination by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, “an inexcusable waste of money.”
The president singled out the chair and ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and former election opponent John McCain, R-Ariz., for leading the charge against the F-22. He also thanked Gates and “every member of Congress who put politics aside to do what is right.”

Byrd's back, votes opposite Obama

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The longest-serving U.S. senator in history, 91-year-old Robert Byrd

, of West Virginia, cast his first vote today after a long absence due to illness.

Byrd spent more than six weeks in the hospital and returned to the Hill for the first time today.

Byrd voted against President Obama today on the F-22.  Byrd voted to continue production of the F-22 fighter jet.

Health Care for Dummies

"We need to bring new language to this debate," Republican message man Alex Castellanos wrote in a memo to fellow GOP strategists this month. "If we paint the house the same color, no one will notice anything has changed: We will still be the same, outdated Republicans who have no new ideas and oppose everything."
Castellanos, a consultant to the Republican National Committee, offered poll-tested language that the party could use to kill President Obama's health-care legislation in Congress. "If we slow this sausage-making process down, we can defeat it," he reasoned.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele must have liked what he read. When he gave a speech at the National Press Club on Monday, he all but read aloud from Castellanos's memo.
"Slow down, Mr. President: We can't afford to get health care wrong," said the memo.
"Slow down, Mr. President: We can't afford to get health care wrong," said the chairman.
Memo: "The old, top-down Washington-centered system the Democrats propose will empower Washington to restrict the cures and treatments your doctor can prescribe for you."
Steele: "The old top-down Washington-centered system the Democrats propose is designed to grow Washington's power to restrict the cures and treatments your doctor can prescribe for you."
Memo: "President Obama is experimenting with America, too much, too soon, and too fast."
Steele: "The Barack Obama experiment with America is a risk our country can't afford -- it's too much, too fast, too soon."
In the back of the room sat the ventriloquist, admiring his work. Castellanos used the word "experiment" six times to criticize Obama's plan; Steele, the eager pupil, used it 30. Only one thing would have made the performance more impressive: if Castellanos had been able to drink a glass of water while Steele was talking.
Alas for the party boss, the memo did not prepare him for the question-and-answer period.
Does Steele favor requiring everybody to have health coverage? "I don't do policy," he replied.
Why didn't Republicans deal with health-care reform when they were in charge? "There has been just a general lack of focus on this issue," he said.
Led by Steele, the Republicans are making no secret of their aims: kill health reform this year, leaving the millions of uninsured to wait for another day and another proposal. And one way to do that is to make it appear that the Democrats are heedlessly hurrying. "The president is rushing this experiment through Congress so fast, so soon," Steele reasoned, revisiting his "too much, too fast, too soon" formulation four times in his speech.
On its face, the accusation that the Democrats are moving too quickly seems difficult to maintain. For 16 years they've been laboring to expand health insurance, and proposals have been grinding their way through five congressional committees. Then there's the small detail that Obama and the Democrats made health-care reform a central component of last year's election, which they won resoundingly. "Yes, we lost the last election, so that means we shut up?" Steele said with a laugh when the question was put to him Monday.
The audience was sparse -- about 20 of 100 seats full for his morning speech -- but Steele paid no mind to this slight and stared straight into the cameras. He cut an elegant figure: three of four buttons buttoned on his suit coat, a perfect half-inch of white handkerchief peeking out of his breast pocket, a blue shirt with a white collar and big gold cufflinks on his monogrammed cuffs.
The chairman referred carefully to his text as he delivered his broadsides: "big government wish list . . . urge to splurge . . . shove this bill through . . . Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Waxman cabal . . . reckless . . . unprecedented intrusion." After more than 20 minutes of this, Steele devoted a few minutes to a Republican alternative: online posting of prices and outcomes for tests and procedures; a single, simplified billing form; paperless health-care systems; preventive care; portability of health coverage between jobs. He neglected to mention the awkward detail that all of these are included, in some form, in the Democrats' health-care legislation -- which he labeled socialist.
The chairman did better sticking to the words of Castellanos, who modestly described his role as that of a horse driven by Steele.
"We are excited to join the growing number of Americans supporting the patient-centered health-care reform movement," said the memo, "with patients and doctors in control."
"Republicans stand with the growing number of Americans supporting the patient-centered health-care reform movement," said the chairman, "with patients and doctors in control."
"This is 20 percent of our economy," said the memo. "This is one-sixth of our economy," said the chairman.
"If we screw this up, it could last for generations," said the memo. "If we screw this up, it could last a generation," said the chairman.
"This should scare the living daylights out of all of us," said the memo. "All of us should be scared to death," said the chairman.
As a voice-throwing act, Castellanos and Steele were quite a duo. But if Castellanos is the ventriloquist, what does that make Steele?