Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Carney: How is everyone today?
Welcome to the White House.
Thanks for being here, as ever.
I have no announcements to make at the top,
so I'll go straight to Ben Feller of the Associated Press.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
I had a question that I think carries over from the campaign
to the White House, so I'll give it a try here.
The campaign said today in a call that Governor Romney has
either misrepresented himself on his SEC filings and committed a
felony, or if not, he's not being honest with the American
people about when he left Bain.
And I'm wondering, just as a matter of principle and
character, whether President Obama stands by that position,
that he thinks Governor Romney is dishonest.
Mr. Carney: Well, I would say a couple of things.
One, the campaign I think did address this,
so this is a campaign-specific question and I would direct most
of your inquiries to the campaign.
The President feels very strongly that we need to take
action in Washington to reward companies that insource,
that bring jobs back to the United States,
that build industries here in the United States,
and to eliminate incentives that exist in our tax code that --
incentives to companies to outsource,
to move jobs overseas.
That's his position, and his record, his commitment,
is demonstrated throughout his presidency to this
general principle.
There's been some discussion about the Recovery Act.
The entire purpose of the Recovery Act was to grow the
American economy and grow American jobs here at home,
and that's what it did.
It's widely recognized to have broken the back of the
recession, to have reversed the situation where we were losing
jobs at a rate of 750,000 per month to one where we've created
over 4.2 million private sector jobs.
The Recovery Act alone is viewed by outside economists as having
saved or created over 3 million jobs.
And it was one of the principles -- the Recovery Act had many
components, but one was to provide direct relief to states
to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs in areas like public schools and
police and fire departments.
Another was to give the middle class a tax cut to help it
weather this terrible recession.
And another was to make some long-term investments in
industries that would help the economy grow in the future,
and that includes in the clean energy industry.
And one of the successes of the Recovery Act was getting
companies that had the choice of building facilities in China or
India or Europe or the United States to make the choice to
build in the United States.
And there is example after example of that -- the advanced
battery industry is a good one.
It was virtually nonexistent, when this President took office,
in this country, had about 3 -- U.S. companies,
U.S. facilities had about 3 percent of the market,
and we're well on our way to having a substantial portion
of that market because of the investments in the Recovery Act.
So I can talk about the President's position on
insourcing versus outsourcing, his demand that Congress act to
end incentives that encourage companies to outsource.
But for campaign-related specifics,
I'd refer you to the campaign.
The Press: Okay.
One quick follow on that before going on to another subject.
Again, I think this goes straight to the President,
so I'll try -- when Romney became the presumptive nominee,
the President called him and -- I'm paraphrasing here but
essentially said, congratulations,
and we ought to have a big debate about the future
of the country.
Does the President think that what's happening right now,
this debate about who's telling the truth, who's lying,
is this befitting of a presidential campaign?
Mr. Carney: The President believes that there is a great deal at stake
in this election.
You hear him say often that this election in many ways might be
more consequential than the last one.
What we have now is a situation where there are two starkly
different visions about how we need to move the country
forward economically.
He remarks -- and I think it is remarkable,
as somebody who covered it -- that the President succeeded a
Republican who believed in immigration reform.
He ran against a Republican who believed that climate
change was real.
There has been a -- the differences between the two
parties and their positions and their visions have become more
and more stark in a short period of time.
The matter of tax fairness, the issue of what you would do to
encourage the development of economic -- the development of
industries here in the United States to create jobs for
American workers here in the United States,
and what you would do to prevent or discourage companies from
outsourcing -- those are fundamental matters of debate,
because, as the President said, he could not agree more with the
idea that the economy is the number-one issue in this debate.
And he is very interested in having that discussion.
I mean, if you're referring to the article in the Boston Globe,
that was a piece of reporting by your colleagues that -- it's not
something the campaign produced.
So it's an interesting read, but beyond that,
I would refer you to the campaign.
The Press: The other topic is the Penn State report.
I'm wondering if the President has been made aware of the
findings or -- and if the White House has a reaction.
Mr. Carney: I haven't spoken with him about that today,
but I suspect he is aware.
He addressed this not long ago and I think he made an
observation that I know he feels deeply,
which is that what happened at Penn State is a reminder that
institutions have -- individuals and institutions have grave
responsibilities to make sure that our children are taken care
of and protected.
And it is an indication perhaps that -- well,
it is a clear indication that that responsibility was not
taken with the seriousness that it needs to be taken by
institutions across the country.
So as you know, he's a devoted sports fan so
followed this story.
And again, I haven't spoken with him about it yet today but I'm
sure he's aware of it.
Yes, Jeff.
The Press: Jay, can the President do more to show leadership on being
transparent with regard to documents, records,
his own background?
That's another sort of underlying theme here that the
campaigns are clearly going at.
Mr. Carney: Are you talking about Donald Trump?
(laughter)
The Press: Not talking about Donald Trump.
Mr. Carney: Well, you'd have to ask me a specific question.
I think the President's record of unprecedented levels of
transparency in the White House is well established.
His record as a candidate, both when he ran for the Senate and
when he ran for President in 2008 and now as a candidate
for reelection, in terms of transparency is a solid one and
reflects a long tradition of being an open book,
as I think he described it when he was asked this question not
long ago.
That's part of the process.
It's not always pleasant or comfortable,
but it has become a well-established tradition
in our country to make available information about
one's private dealings.
That just comes with the territory.
So he not only accepts that but practices and believes that it's
the right thing.
The Press: I know this has been asked for years,
but one thing that people -- at least on the -- among his
opponents, continue to bring up is the -- his college records.
Mr. Carney: Right.
This is a Donald Trump question, which I think --
The Press: That's the Donald Trump.
Mr. Carney: -- he's the one who brings it up the most.
The Press: But what's the answer to that particular question?
Mr. Carney: I would refer you to the campaign.
It is preposterous -- this is from the guy who insisted that
he didn't believe the President was born in the United States.
And it is funny, every once in a while when I sit back in my
office and remember all the things that seemed to be the
most important issue of the day, and there were briefings after
briefings where that was the most important issue of the day,
to the point where we had to solicit the long form of the
President's birth certificate.
And again, the President's record on transparency is
extremely sound.
He has provided the kind of documentation that candidates
for President have now, by tradition,
provided for 30 years.
And he believes it's the right thing to do.
The Press: All right, swapping to one -- sorry -- last non-campaign or
transparency-related question.
Yesterday you couldn't confirm that this ambassador
had defected.
Mr. Carney: I can confirm that the Syrian ambassador to Iraq defected.
And I think the Syrian government's response was,
"you can't quit, you're fired" -- which is another sign of the
desperation, I think, that is enveloping the Assad regime.
We are seeing daily now more and more indications that Assad is
losing his grip, that those around him,
both in his inner circle and more broadly in the military and
governmental leadership, are beginning to assess Assad's
chances of remaining in power, and hopefully beginning to
assess Assad's legacy -- his legacy of brutality -- and
making the choice that they will abandon him in favor of
the Syrian people.
So this is another example of that.
Kristen.
The Press: Following up on that, can you confirm the
ambassador's location?
There are reports that he's in Qatar.
Mr. Carney: I cannot confirm that.
I don't know.
The Press: Okay.
And going back to some of the questions yesterday about the
President not speaking to the NAACP -- you referred most of
those questions to the campaign, and yet President Obama
delivered a videotaped message that seemed to have been taped
in the White House.
So why does this fall under the umbrella of the campaign?
Mr. Carney: Well, the campaign is handling a lot of his scheduling for
campaign-related events.
Again, I think the President's opponent appeared, and --
The Press: You think?
Mr. Carney: I'm told.
(laughter)
The President films a lot of videos -- I haven't seen this
one -- but to events that he cannot attend or is not able
to attend for scheduling reasons or whatever reason.
So I'll have to get back to you.
I'm not even sure what room he filmed it in.
The Press: Do you know when he filmed it, and was it because there were a
lot of questions about the fact that he was not going
to be attending --
Mr. Carney: Absolutely not.
I can't remember exactly when he filmed it.
I'm sure it was recently.
He, as you know, films his weekly address and other video
messages every week, and it is absolutely routine when he does
not -- or is not able to attend an event,
but wants to be able to send a message,
that he will videotape that message and provide it to
the convention or conference or gathering in his stead.
The Press: So why not announce yesterday, when you got all of these
questions about it, he would be delivering a videotaped address?
Mr. Carney: I think you're reading something into this that there isn't.
The issue was would he attend and why didn't he attend.
He provides a video as a matter of routine to events
he doesn't attend.
The Press: And just following up also on the discussions about the
sequester -- you said yesterday that the OMB is developing an
analysis in case the sequester should be put in place.
Can you give us a sense of where specifically they are
in that analysis?
And at what point do they begin to contact other departments?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a date-specific for that.
Obviously you know the sequester is written not to take effect
until the beginning of next year, as I understand it.
As we have made clear, should it get to the point where Congress
has failed to do its job, as dictated by Congress,
and the sequester may take effect,
OMB and DOD and the various agencies will be ready.
But we do not believe that should come to pass.
The whole point of the Budget Control Act was to create a
trigger, a forcing mechanism that was so onerous that nobody
wanted it to come to pass.
The defense cuts, the President agrees, are too steep;
the non-defense cuts, the President believes,
are too steep.
That is why Congress needs to come together and make some hard
choices around the kind of balanced proposal that the
President and every other person who has looked at this
seriously, including bipartisan commissions,
agrees must be taken in order to deal with our long-term deficit
and debt challenges.
We've accomplished, in spite of all the rancor and disagreement,
close to $2 trillion -- I think $2 trillion in non-defense
discretionary cuts.
There is more that needs to be done,
and we need to address that through a balanced approach
that Congress needs to take up.
And that's how we avoid the sequester,
which was never meant to be implemented.
Bill.
The Press: Jay, in talking yesterday about tax cuts,
you mentioned that the President was always open to compromise.
So I want to ask you, how locked in is the $250,000 ceiling?
I mean, could it be adjusted to $500,000 or $1 million?
Is there some play?
Mr. Carney: Bill, what I've said -- and I appreciate the question -- the
President's position is what it has always been.
He will not extend tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of the
American people.
He is committed to extending, and believes we should make
permanent, tax cuts for 98 percent of taxpaying Americans
-- a middle-class tax cut for Americans who need it.
And this is because we simply can't afford to spend another
close to a trillion dollars over 10 years on tax cuts for the
wealthiest 2 percent of American earners.
One of the reasons why we have the fiscal situation that led to
the super committee and the Budget Control Act and the
negotiations last year is because those two tax cuts were
promoted by the previous President,
passed through Congress and signed into law,
and were totally unpaid for.
And what we saw, as a result in part of those policies and many
other policies that were implemented,
was the slowest job creation of any expansion in recent memory.
We saw the middle class put under even greater stress and
saw its incomes stagnate and shrink while more affluent
Americans saw their wealth increase.
And if all that weren't bad enough,
we had the great recession, the worst financial and economic
crisis of our lifetimes.
So it's not that hard to deduce that we shouldn't do that again.
What we should do, since we all agree it's the right thing to do
-- Republicans and Democrats alike -- is extend the tax cuts
for 98 percent of the American people.
Pass it now -- the President will sign it right away.
And then we can continue to debate whether or not the right
economic policy, the right policy to improve job creation,
to improve economic growth in our country is to give more tax
cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
And I understand that there are people in Washington who believe
that is the right policy.
There are candidates for office who believe that is the right
policy, that that is the ticket -- that is the key to future
economic growth.
And that is a debate we should have.
But we should not hold 98 percent of American
taxpayers hostage.
We should not say you're not going to get a tax hike unless
the wealthiest 2 percent get a tax cut.
We should all agree on the idea that 98 percent of American
taxpayers should get a tax cut, get that security and certainty,
and then debate the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Press: But as you know, there are supporters of the President,
Democratic leaders who think they can -- who calculated they
could go up to a million dollars and still have sufficient
revenue to --
Mr. Carney: The President firmly believes that we cannot afford to extend
tax cuts over $250,000.
He has made his position clear.
I think you've seen broad support from Democrats for the
President's position.
And we certainly hope to see the Senate given the opportunity to
vote on that proposal in the near future.
Yes, Ann.
The Press: Thanks.
Was the President serious on Monday when he said --
challenged Congress for an immediate vote on this?
Because yesterday in the Senate, twice during floor action,
that was proposed so long as they voted on something else as
well, a different version as well.
And both times it was -- did the President discuss that with the
Democratic leaders?
And did --
Mr. Carney: The President was deadly serious.
And as I said yesterday -- and as I think if you dig into it
will recognize what was proposed in a gimmick by Senator Hatch
was not the President's proposal.
In fact, it left out the extension of the American
Opportunity Tax Credit and other tax provisions that would have
resulted, if that were passed, in a tax hike for 18 or 25
million American families.
So that was a gimmick.
The Senate is in a process of considering very important tax
relief for small businesses that the President has
initiated and supports.
And there will be a vote, we hope,
on the President's proposal, which includes all the
middle-class tax cuts that were part of the President's plan.
And he believes that there will be strong support from the
Democratic Party for that -- and that there should be 100 percent
support in the Senate, because -- I don't know,
go to their websites -- doesn't everybody in the Republican
Party support tax cuts for the middle class?
And if so, they should vote for it.
The Press: On the NAACP speech, the Vice President's office says that
that was a political appearance of his today.
And I assume that the President's video was a
political one --
Mr. Carney: I have to -- the problem is I haven't seen it as I was just
asked about this.
The Press: It looked like a radio -- a weekend address.
Mr. Carney: But I think we were referring to the campaign on this because
this is a question.
The Press: My question is this.
The Vice President used the official presidential seal on
his podium, as the President did on Friday at Carnegie Mellon,
using the presidential seal, at what was clearly announced
as a campaign.
Is he changing the policy now?
Is he going to start using the presidential seal --
Mr. Carney: You've covered a number of Presidents, Ann,
and you will find that many Presidents running for
reelection have, when they stand in front of that particular
podium, used the presidential seal.
It's government -- that podium is government property.
We don't hang campaign signs on it.
We use the presidential seal.
The Press: And in almost every one of President Obama's campaign
appearances during this cycle, he has not.
Mr. Carney: I think if you look at -- again, we can have this discussion in
more detail, but if you pay close attention to it and you
look at the podium, you'll recognize that when that
podium is used that we use the presidential seal.
Margaret.
The Press: I'm going to ask another question since Bill Press
took mine.
Mr. Carney: I'll give you a little time while --
(laughter)
The Press: No, that's okay. I got it. I got it.
So, number one, should we expect some of the Iran
sanctions to be coming today?
And since we're here now and they haven't yet,
can you tell us, if so, what they are?
And also, can you talk to us a little bit about tomorrow's trip
and any travel next week in terms of what he wants to
accomplish from a policy perspective,
as well as the politics of the travel?
Mr. Carney: I have no announcements to make on sanctions.
I can tell you that we have seen that the actions taken by this
administration and with a great deal of unanimity around the
world in isolating and pressuring Iran have had an
impact, an economic impact on the regime in Tehran,
which the leaders there have themselves acknowledged and
spoken about.
And we will continue to put pressure,
working unilaterally and with our partners,
on the Iranian regime until they make the right choice,
which is to abide by their obligations to the United
Nations, to the international community,
with regards to their nuclear ambitions.
I believe that the upcoming travel that you're referring
to is campaign travel.
But I think the point you make is a good one,
which is that the President has been and will continue to talk
about -- as well as his broader message that the campaign can
discuss with you in more detail -- some very specific things
that have to do with what Congress can do now,
what we can do now to help the American economy grow
and create jobs.
And that I think begins with what we've been discussing
already today, which is the need to have Congress extend
the middle-class tax cuts.
I think I mentioned yesterday -- people --
"oh, isn't that just a political issue,
because the Republicans aren't going to go along with it?
Republicans are complaining that you're trying to beat them over
the head with this by supporting middle class tax cuts."
And my answer to that is if that is what you fear,
then take the opportunity away from him by extending
the middle-class tax cuts.
That's what he wants.
He thinks it's right for the economy,
he thinks it's right for the middle class,
and would not be happier to sign that thing -- that bill right
away if the opportunity presented itself.
The Press: And just a quick follow-up -- since it's turning into that
season where so many days now he'll be on the road,
and many of these days will be almost entirely campaign days
for schedule purposes, how is he -- how have you guys broken out
how he manages the time that he needs for policy stuff?
I mean, obviously you can do all that stuff.
There's communication on the plane.
But if a foreign leader calls, the briefing is on actual issues
and what's going on -- how do you schedule time into those
days for him to do that?
Mr. Carney: Well, that's a good question and it's obviously one that every
incumbent President must confront if he or she is
running for reelection, as the President is.
We, as previous Presidents have, benefited from the
sophistication of the operations here in the White House that
provides the kinds of communication capabilities that
a President requires when he or she travels and that allows for
the kind of instantaneous communications needs that a
President has on the road.
But he gets, as you know -- I think you and I talked about
this a little either earlier this week or last week -- a
President of the United States, even when he or she is running
for reelection, is President of the United States 24 hours a day
and seven days a week.
And, therefore, the presidency travels with him or her wherever
he goes.
And that requires a national security staff and obviously --
Secret Service and other staff -- but other White House staff
that travel with him, in addition to campaign staff who
are helping him manage the events that he is engaged in.
So it's no different from President George W.
Bush when he ran for reelection or President Bill Clinton when
he ran, and I'm sure Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
before them.
But I remember some stories a few months ago that talked about
how we were not ramping up quick enough.
And the President is committed to -- when I say "we",
I mean that the campaign was not ramping up quick enough.
And the President's first commitment is to his
responsibilities in office.
And that is just a reality that you have to accept if you're
President, that there are going to be times when the campaign
has to wait because he has to make important decisions,
have important conversations with foreign leaders,
or meetings with staff and others -- members of Congress --
to get the work done that needs to be done.
Yes, give me one second.
Go ahead.
The Press: Did the President discuss --
Mr. Carney: You have to tell me who you are first.
The Press: Yes. I'm Tamara Keith, from NPR.
Mr. Carney: Oh, yes.
Sorry, somebody emailed me about that and then I blew it -- nice
to see you.
Thank you for being here.
The Press: It's nice to see you.
Did the President, when meeting with the congressional leaders
yesterday, discuss any sort of a timeline for a vote on the
middle-class tax cut proposal?
Mr. Carney: Well, I think we provided a readout.
I don't have a date specific for you.
They discussed a number of issues,
including the middle-class tax cut,
other items on the congressional agenda,
actions that Congress can take to help small businesses,
actions that Congress can take to put construction workers and
teachers back to work.
But I don't have a specific date for you.
I tend to leave Senate scheduling up to the
Majority Leader.
The Press: Absolutely.
The criticism is that there isn't even language yet.
And I don't know --
Mr. Carney: I don't think it's that complicated.
The President wants to extend the so-called Bush tax cuts as
well as the other middle-class tax cuts the President put into
place for a year.
And these tax cuts go to 98 percent of American taxpayers.
He does not support and does not believe we can afford extending
tax cuts for the top 2 percent in this country.
And that is his position.
There will be an opportunity for the Senate to vote on that,
as Majority Leader Reid has said,
but I will leave it to him to announce when
that's going to happen.
Laura.
The Press: Just following up on Margaret's line of questioning,
I have no doubt that when there are urgent priorities that in
his job as President he makes the time to make that happen.
But when it gets to the point where he's campaigning almost
every day on the road, what goes?
I mean, there's only so many hours in the day and he does
still have to sleep, so where -- what is it that he has been
doing all along that he won't have time for when he's in
intensive campaign mode?
Mr. Carney: Well, I think as you might expect,
and you have seen in previous administrations,
that there is less foreign travel in a
campaign reelection year.
Foreign travel tends to take up a great deal of time;
it's very important.
This President has traveled widely in pursuit of American
interests around the globe.
But it is certainly the case that there will, I'm sure,
be fewer days out of the country this year for the President than
in previous years.
I think that's a result of the reality of the campaign year.
But other than that, I think that there really is the
opportunity between the days he's here and his capabilities
when he's traveling, the opportunity to get the briefings
he needs, have the interactions with foreign leaders that he
needs, and congressional leaders that he needs.
And as I mentioned before, there will be times, I'm sure,
when a planned stop on a campaign -- for a campaign event
has to be delayed or postponed or cancelled because of some
pressing business of the presidency.
And that's just how it is.
But it's nothing to complain about, right?
I mean, he's running for reelection and that's part
of the process.
Mark.
The Press: Jay, on the seal, can you say why there was a change of policy
in using the seal on lecterns at political events?
Your predecessor made it clear during the midterms
that President Obama would not use the seal at purely
political events.
Mr. Carney: Mark, I would just refer you to past practice of
previous Presidents.
When this President is at campaign events that involve
raising funds for the campaign, he uses campaign -- depending
on the event, whether there's a podium or not.
In this case, as has been the practice of his predecessors
running for reelection, there are times when it's entirely --
it is certainly in keeping with past precedent and appropriate
to have the presidential seal on the podium behind which he
is standing because he is actually the President of
the United States.
The Press: Well, I'm not saying he shouldn't use it.
I'm just saying that two years ago you said one thing and now
you're saying another.
Mr. Carney: Well, I don't know that comment specifically,
but I can tell you that this is in keeping with past precedent.
And I would point you to photographs of previous
Presidents running for reelection --
The Press: Oh, yes.
Mr. Carney: You understand that, right?
You seem doubtful, but I can find photos for you.
The Press: It's a change for you now.
This is the first -- as far as we know,
the first campaign event President Obama has done
all year, at Carnegie Mellon he used the seal on a podium
he uses all the time.
Mr. Carney: I think I've addressed this in detail.
Let me get to Brianna.
The Press: Did the President watch Vice President Biden's
address to the NAACP?
Mr. Carney: I think he was in meetings.
He doesn't have a TV in the Oval.
The Press: And was it the CBS interview, is that why he couldn't go --
the scheduling conflict?
Mr. Carney: It hasn't happened yet.
The Press: But I mean preparation for it or something -- is that --
Mr. Carney: That hasn't happened either.
The Press: Did that -- somehow did that figure into it?
So I mean, what was it?
What was the scheduling --
Mr. Carney: There are meetings all the time.
I don't know who he's meeting -- he has the presidential daily
briefing; he has -- as much as he would like to,
he doesn't get to watch often me at the podium or -- maybe
he wouldn't like that -- or members of his administration,
Cabinet members speak.
So I can't guarantee you he didn't watch it because I wasn't
in whatever meeting he was in, but I'm pretty
confident he didn't.
The Press: And on the tax cuts, the President has said that
he would veto an across-the-board extension.
Would he veto anything over the $250,000 threshold?
Mr. Carney: This is the reincarnation of you from yesterday and
Bill from today.
He does not believe and it is not his position that we should
extend tax cuts beyond the 98 percent who fall
under the $250,000.
The Press: He will veto --
Mr. Carney: He will veto, as I've said and he has said,
any extension of the high-end Bush tax cuts.
The Press: -- across the board.
Mr. Carney: Again, it is -- there are no proposals for that.
Because then we could go, well, what about $251,000?
Or $332,000? Or $723,000?
His position is -- look, and there's a reason for it, right?
I mean, I think that's generous in terms of the definition of
middle class, right?
It's certainly -- $250,000, it's only --
The Press: It just makes --
Mr. Carney: -- hold on -- there's only 2 percent of American earners who
make more than that, first of all.
That 2 percent accounts for -- in the Bush tax cuts -- nearly a
trillion dollars over 10 years, a trillion dollars that we
cannot afford as we try to get our fiscal house in order.
Two, it is important because sometimes when the questions are
asked and this policy is explained,
it is important to remember that everybody under this proposal
gets a tax cut on their first $250,000 in earnings.
So maybe some TV folks here -- I don't know -- who make more than
that, you'll get -- if you make $500,000,
you get a tax cut --
(laughter)
-- on your first $250,000 of income.
It's not that if you're one of the wealthiest Americans
you don't get any tax cut.
The Press: I'm not asking about that.
Mr. Carney: No, I know, but I wanted to take this opportunity to explain that
everyone -- every taxpaying American gets a benefit from
this extension.
The Press: But when he laid down the gauntlet on the
across-the-board, and then you won't say veto -- you just say
that's his position, you're not saying veto, it's just --
Mr. Carney: I said veto.
The Press: Above the $250,000 threshold.
Mr. Carney: I'm not aware of any proposals -- I can't --
The Press: Anything between -- somewhere between -- it makes it seem like
you're aware that you're asking for something you're
not going to get.
Mr. Carney: Where is there some bill that you were talking about before
that's being written perhaps as we speak that has it at $250,000
and 50 cents -- then I said he would veto
it if it's over that.
He will not support legislation that extends tax cuts for the
wealthiest 2 percent.
The 2 percent threshold is a $250,000 threshold.
Alexis.
The Press: Jay, I want to take you to an obscure topic but it's
an important one.
I'm not sure it's actually been discussed in the
briefing room -- Libor.
So my question to you is what lessons is the President taking
from the trail that the Libor manipulation is leaving us with
the CFTC's investigation of this bank and other banks
that may be implicated?
What lesson is he taking?
I know we talked about --
Mr. Carney: I'm trying to -- London -- I was trying to pass
that test this morning.
I would refer you and your questions to the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York.
I have not had this conversation with the President,
so I cannot address that.
I can tell you that, as I understand it,
they issued a statement the other day noting that after
they received reports of problems with Libor,
they shared suggestions with Libor -- this goes to the
New York Fed part of this.
But in terms of the broader implications,
I haven't had that conversation with him.
But I think, broadly speaking, this President took up the issue
of Wall Street reform and is committed to its implementation
because it's important that everybody play by the same set
of rules and that -- not just because that's how it should be,
but because it's important for our economy and it's important
for the global economy.
So that's a broad statement about his position on things.
I don't want to get too involved in Libor because I know it's
under investigation.
Yes, and then Mark.
Well, I'm sorry. I called on this gentleman here who
wants to say --
The Press: This week you have criticized, and at times,
kind of gently mocked Republicans' definition
in some cases of small businesses as including
some hedge fund managers and lawyers and so forth.
Republicans, in turn, criticize the President's plan that his
tax cut plan would benefit 97 percent of small businesses.
So here's my question --
Mr. Carney: Let me just be clear -- it's not a claim.
It's been established by the Joint Tax Center;
it's been well documented by outside -- in fact,
we're being kind in our definition of it because I
believe the JTC said it was only 2.7 percent.
So it's really 97.3 percent of small businesses would fall
under the -- even under the definition that the Republicans
put forward do not have more than $250,000 in revenue.
So, to your question.
The Press: Thank you.
Mr. Carney: It's not just our claim.
I mean, we are citing -- I think Ann asked me where did that come
from, and we provided that information -- we even put
it on the briefing.
The Press: For a couple decades, under various presidential
administrations, the Small Business Administration has
been at times criticized by journalists for giving money to
companies that are really not small businesses -- they're
larger than small businesses.
This is an ongoing kind of dispute.
What is the President's definition of a small business?
Is it based on the number of employees?
Is it based on the annual revenue?
What is it based -- does he have a definition?
Mr. Carney: Well, I haven't had a -- I'm not sure that he has his own
personal definition.
I'm sure that he looks to the SBA and the SBA Administrator
for that.
But the fact of the matter is, and I think the point that we
are making here when we talk about this debate with
Republicans who sort of ignore the fact that -- or try to
ignore the fact that included in their definition of small
businesses are hedge fund managers and law partners and
others -- is that 97.3 percent of small businesses benefit from
the extension of the tax cut who file in this way -- S corps who
file in this way benefit from the extension of the
middle-class tax cuts.
It is simply not a viable claim to say that this is going after
small businesses -- unless you want to argue that Warren
Buffett and other folks, and hedge fund managers
are small businesses.
Did you know that by the Republican definition of small
business, half of the Forbes 400 wealthiest individuals are
small businesses?
I don't think that's what most Americans have in mind when they
think about -- when they hear politicians talk about -- and
politicians of both parties talk about this that small business
is the economic engine of economic growth.
They think of small businesses that hire a handful of employees
-- or perhaps scores of employees -- but they don't
think hedge funds, and they don't think of law firms.
They think of the kinds of small businesses that they see when
they walk through their towns, and maybe the kinds of small
businesses that they themselves own.
So this is the debate we're happy to have
because we're right.
The Press: Jay, can I follow?
Mr. Carney: Yes. Sorry.
The Press: The SBA's definition of small businesses,
depending upon what it's doing, from a manufacturing concern,
have 1,500 workers.
And the criticism of the impact of the tax cuts is they would
impact while only 2-and-change percent of the small businesses,
nearly half the small business income -- and that's where the
jobs are being created.
Mr. Carney: But again, that is, again, with a measure of -- do you know why
there's a lot of income in that?
Because there's hedge fund managers and law partners who
are making millions -- right?
And again, if you're a small business and you file under the
personal income tax code, if you're an S corps,
and you make $275,000, you get a tax cut on $250,000.
And you benefit from every other tax cuts for small businesses
that this President has passed and signed into law.
And if you're a small business that's willing to make the
investment in hiring a new worker or expanding your wage
base, you'll benefit from the tax cut that the President is
pushing Congress to pass this week.
The Press: I think the argument, though, is the tiny small businesses
are not hiring.
What we don't really want to think of is a small business
concern with a thousand workers -- they are.
Mr. Carney: I'm not sure what the point of your question is.
Again, 97.3 percent, 97 percent of small businesses unaffected.
By the Republican definition of a small business,
the hedge fund managers would get a big tax cut,
law partners would get a big tax cut.
The Press: But also a concern, a manufacturing --
Mr. Carney: You would have to cite me real examples,
instead of hypothetical ones, and perhaps there are.
But those businesses would benefit not just from,
if they file this way, from a tax cut for the first $250,000,
but from every other tax cut that the President has passed
into law -- 18 and counting -- and from a tax -- and when you
talk about hiring, that's why Congress ought to pass the
provision the President supports -- actually initiated -- that
would reward small businesses if they hire more.
The Press: A company with a thousand workers,
$250,000 tax cut means nothing to them.
Mr. Carney: Wendell, you're talking about a hypothetical that I don't even
know if it exists.
If you want to come to me with -- or come to our economists
with an example of a company with a thousand workers that
files on personal income tax -- files under the personal income,
is an S corps -- because we're talking -- I think you may be
confused here with the corporate tax rate here and the individual
tax rate.
The Press: I'm talking about the SBA's definition of a small business,
which for --
Mr. Carney: Wendell, the issue is how do they file their taxes.
So we're talking about personal income tax rates.
We're talking about extending tax cuts for 98 percent of
Americans, individuals, and how they file.
The issue -- the canard the Republicans put out there is
that a lot of small businesses file as S corps,
I believe it's called, and under the individual income tax code,
97 percent of them would not be affected by this.
Mark Landler of The New York Times.
The Press: Thank you, Jay.
You addressed the issue of sequesters earlier,
but I wanted to put it in a different context.
Tomorrow the President is going to Virginia,
a state that's economically dependent on military contracts.
What should or will the President say to people
in Hampton Roads and that area who don't understand the ins and
outs and mysteries of sequesters;
all they know is what they're hearing,
which is that next year they could face these devastating
cuts in military contracts -- what message would the President
have for those people?
Mr. Carney: Well, I think you would make clear that what he supports,
what he signed into law, what bipartisan majorities of both
parties passed last year, was a legislative commitment by
Congress to take action to avoid the sequester.
The Secretary of Defense, the President and others have made
clear they do not support cuts in defense spending that would
be called for in the sequester, as well as the President made
clear cuts in non-defense in spending that's called for in
the sequester.
The cuts were -- the across-the-board cuts were
objectionable and onerous to both sides for a reason.
That's why Congress has to act.
And I think for defense industries and others,
that there is -- for everybody who cares about this issue,
and everybody should, it's a reminder of why we need to --
we, the American people, need to remind Congress that it's
important to compromise and take a balanced approach here;
that it is not the right policy to balance our -- or get our
fiscal house in order and deal with our deficits and debt by
asking only senior citizens, only the middle class,
only parents with children with disabilities to bear the burden.
And that's what the bottom line is.
I mean, that has been the stoppage, the stalemate,
that's been created by the Republican insistence that
there be no revenues as part of a balanced approach.
And that's unsustainable.
And in the end, the President believes,
we will get that balanced approach because it is what the
American people support and it's the right thing for our economy.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
Mr. Carney: All right. Yes, sorry.
The Press: Can I ask one --
Mr. Carney: I thought there might be one.
The Press: Yes.
I mean, the President's message for the last two or three trips
outside of Washington has been, let's give the middle class some
certainty, let's give them a tax cut.
So the certainty in a time of economic uneasiness is a key
part of his message.
Now he's going to Virginia and saying, on the one hand,
I want to give you certainty, but on the other hand,
I can give you no certainty on a key component of your local
economy, which is the military contracting business.
Doesn't that sort of complicate his message?
Mr. Carney: Well, I'm not -- he can't give -- I mean, here's the thing.
Congress passed a law.
The point he's making with extending the middle-class tax
cuts is that here is something, amidst all this stalemate,
that Democrats and Republicans all agree we should do,
which is extend tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people
-- American taxpayers.
So amidst -- this is the little diamond in the sand, right,
that let's do that, we all agree on it, let's do that.
And let's create -- and that does create an important amount
of economic certainty not just for the recipients of that tax
cut but for the broader economy.
It addresses a portion of the so-called fiscal cliff.
Let's do it now.
Let's continue to debate the issues where we -- where there
is contention and disagreement.
But it is not the answer to simply say,
we didn't mean it -- we, Congress -- when we signed
this into law.
We didn't -- I mean, the point is Congress needs to make some
tough choices and deal with our deficit and
debt in a balanced way.
And if the answer is, well, we don't really want to do that
after all, then that takes away the very purpose of the
sequester, which was to force Congress to make
some tough calls.
The Press: But he's not saying with the same urgency,
let's deal with the sequester issue now,
let's get this settled now before we get to January,
that he's saying the tax cuts, which -- so are you at all
worried that --
Mr. Carney: Well, first of all, you're saying "this week."
I mean, the President has been talking about the urgency to
deal with our deficit and debt in a balanced way all year.
And last fall -- it is embodied in his several budget proposals,
and embodied -- he talked about it in the State of the Union,
he talked about it in his budget proposal,
he talked about it all spring -- winter and spring.
And you'll continue to hear him talk about it.
It was disappointing that the super committee didn't get its
act together, that Congress didn't do the right thing.
It was disappointing that an unelected person who passes out
petitions seems to have more power and authority in Congress
with the Republican Party than its leaders.
But we need to break that logjam so that that balanced approach
is adopted to create the kind of foundation for future economic
growth that the President believes we need to do.
Thanks, all.
The Press: Jay, week ahead?
Mr. Carney: Sorry -- it's Thursday, isn't it?
(laughter)
The Press: Yes.
Mr. Carney: So I don't have a week ahead. Okay.