Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Gibbs: I just have one quick announcement before we
get started.
In the week ahead on Friday that we e-mailed out we discussed the
news conference on Wednesday starting at 9:00.
That's now been moved to 8 p.m.
The Press: Thank you.
The Press: Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Gibbs: Hell, let's go for seven -- everybody seemed
happy with that.
The Press: Is it going to be rigged?
Mr. Gibbs: Is it going to be?
The Press: Rigged?
(laughter)
The Press: The same 14?
The Press: Are all the reporters going to be told when they're called on?
Mr. Gibbs: They will be given the same instruction that you were for
the very first news conference, which I believe you weren't told, right?
The Press: No.
Mr. Gibbs: Okay.
That's one down and --
The Press: I don't want to be told.
And I don't think you should tell.
Mr. Gibbs: And we don't.
The Press: Thanks, Robert.
Earlier today the President seemed to upping the ante with
his rhetoric on health care, directly engaging Senator DeMint.
Is this a sign that he thinks health care overhaul is in
trouble or that his -- or is he just being confident?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, look, I think what we want people to understand are
a few things.
One, we've been discussing this for decades.
And the familiar mantra of delay has been the message for many of
those years to put off the needed and necessary reforms
that have to take place in our health care system.
You could just as easily have quoted a Republican strategist
today who said to go for the kill and asked opponents to
resist the temptation to be responsible.
You know, I think it's a unique message.
It's one, if that what some opposed to health care reform or
special interests that stand in the way of real reform and
cost-cutting -- if that's the message that they want to have,
that's certainly their business.
But understand that delay means real things.
Delay means more people will lose their health care coverage.
Delay means more people will not get a chance to choose who their
doctor is because that coverage will disappear.
More people will be denied coverage on the basis of a
preexisting condition.
More families will spend more money and get less.
And more businesses will drop their coverage based on the
burden of increasing cost.
That's what delay means in this scenario.
That's why the President is focused on moving the process
forward so that we can see real reform this year.
The Press: But why directly engage with Senator DeMint?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, again, I think it was a -- it's a fairly
breathtaking message.
It is -- we've been asked and we've talked a lot in this room
about bipartisanship, about trying to work with the other
side in a way that's constructive.
There clearly are those that want to oppose this purely to
continue the 40-year-old Washington gamesmanship of
playing politics on health care.
I think there are people in Senator DeMint's home state and
throughout this country that are struggling with the high cost of
health care and they want the people that represent them in
Washington to finally get about doing something about it.
That's what the President was elected to do and that's what
he's working on.
Yes, sir.
The Press: Can I just follow -- not on health care please?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, let's -- I have a feeling that's not only the health care
question today, so you'll get a chance.
The Press: Continuing on the issue of delay,
the President's poll numbers have slipped on the issue of
health care reform, and Senator Snowe has said that there's no
reason to rush through an unfinished package.
So what is the big deal about just taking a few more weeks to
iron things out and get a deal done properly?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I don't think one -- I don't think necessarily doing
something on the timetable that the President has laid out is
doing some improperly.
Again, this is not a debate that started last month or even last year.
Many of the issues that we're talking about are 40 years in
the making -- maybe some longer than that.
I think the President strongly believes that we can continue to
make progress, that it's important to do that,
and that delay is what opponents and special interests want to do
to slow the process down, but American families and small
business can't afford it.
I think we're working through this on an expeditious timetable
that can see reform happen this year.
The Press: Is the President actually ruling out agreeing to any kind of
delay beyond -- that would take us beyond the August recess?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, again, I think that you heard the President say on
Friday here that looking at what had happened over the course of
the week -- nurses supporting health care reform;
doctors supporting health care reform;
for the first time ever three committees introducing the same
bill in the House, two of them getting that bill out of
committee -- that we're continuing to make progress,
and the President hopes that continues.
The Press: But is he ruling out -- agreeing to any delay beyond the
August recess?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, we think we're doing just fine right where we are
making progress.
Yes, sir.
The Press: A couple of questions, Robert.
The President had said a lot of kind words to say about the Mayo
Clinic in Minnesota in their ability to provide quality
health care and reduce costs, but the clinic issued a
statement about the House Democrats bill,
saying the proposed legislation "misses the opportunity to help
create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients.
In fact, it will do the opposite.
In general, the proposals are not --
under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented.
Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever --
a change in Medicare payment policy --
to help drive necessary improvements to American health care."
Does the President have any response to that,
given his respect for the way the Mayo Clinic provides health care?
Mr. Gibbs: I saw that not long before I came out here.
I don't -- I've asked the health policy people to look directly
into that.
I know that we've worked with, as I said,
doctors and nurses and lots of stakeholders on improving
legislation, making sure that we're focused on patient
quality, making sure that we're focused on cost-effective
medicine, and that's what we'll continue to do.
I will work on getting something more specific.
The Press: Okay, and then if I could just ask one other question.
On April 20 -- I know you remember when the President said
-- that he asked all the Cabinet Secretaries to identify at least
$100 million in additional cuts to their administrative
budgets, separate and apart from what Orszag and the rest of the team did.
And they were required to report back with their savings at the
end of 90 days.
So that was 91 days ago, and I'm wondering if you guys have any
list of the spending cuts.
Mr. Gibbs: Those are being reviewed now, and we'll release something in
the coming days.
The Press: Okay, thank you.
The Press: Robert, the President did engage Senator DeMint,
and obviously there are some Republicans who have publicly
suggested they want to block things.
But isn't the hold-up really now Democrats like Max Baucus,
conservative Democrats in the House and Senate --
Mr. Gibbs: No --
The Press: -- who are concerned about taxes going up and other things?
I mean, what is the President doing to engage them to actually
move it forward?
Mr. Gibbs: He speaks with Democrats and Republicans virtually every
day on this.
I think staff spent a decent portion of their weekend working
with Capitol Hill -- again, Democrats and Republicans,
on several committees.
I would not suggest that somebody that's sitting at the
table working constructively to find a solution to these
problems is more of a delay than somebody who goes out clearly to
give a purely political speech about how they're looking at
this issue not through the hearts and minds of millions of
Americans that are sitting at their kitchen table right now
trying to figure out what bills to pay,
what bills they can't afford to pay,
hoping that if they have to change jobs their coverage
doesn't get dropped -- rather looking at this through some
political lens, which clearly that's the only view that some
people have.
The Press: Some of those Democrats have raised concerns about adding
to the debt.
And it seems that today the Office of Management and Budget
is suggesting that they're going to delay the release of their
mid-year review.
And there are suggestions out there,
and the Republicans in particular are suggesting that
you're delaying this beyond July because you don't want more bad
news about the budget to shape the health care debate.
Mr. Gibbs: Look, as happens in virtually every transition year in
government, mid-year reviews tend to get pushed back because
of the transition of moving people in and out of their
former and current jobs.
For instance, the mid-session review under the most previous
administration took place on August 22.
President Clinton's first year in office,
the review was released on September the 1st.
So I think the notion that this is somehow motivated by anything
other than a transition from one administration to the next is a
little on the silly side.
The Press: But you've been trying to change the way business is done just
because Washington has been doing it that way and pushing
the deadline back for years, why not --
Mr. Gibbs: Well, Ed, understand the deadline doesn't get pushed back
because of the way Washington works.
The deadline gets pushed back because a series of people that
have to review the budget and the economic conditions have to
get to their desks, right?
So when it gets pushed back in the first year of the Clinton
administration after 12 years of a Republican administration,
it takes some time to get those people into their desks and turn
their calculators on.
After eight years of a Democratic administration,
there might get a delay pushed back because it takes a whole
group of people time to get in.
We're now on the other side of that eight years,
after the other side of the other eight years,
after the other side of that 12 years.
So I think the notion that somehow this is out of the
ordinary seems somewhat silly.
I think, as we've discussed in here,
the economy is not at a point where anybody would hope
it would be.
We've seen over the course of the first six to seven months of
this year a fairly rapid deterioration in the very
beginning of this year on the economy,
and I expect that the budget situation is going to be even
more challenging.
I don't think that's surprising.
And the notion of somehow hiding the ball when you're
congressionally required to come up with a mid-year review seems
not to make a whole lot of sense either.
The Press: But I want to go back to this -- why did you lead us to believe
that it was coming in July, then?
Because you guys did -- all throughout the last three or
four months, every time we would ask, because of the economic --
this has a constant question about the wrong economic
forecasts at the beginning.
And you said, by mid-summer, by July, and I said --
we said, what's mid-summer?
I think in here we said it was July.
So when was the decision made to delay this?
Mr. Gibbs: I don't know when the decision was made --
based on getting personnel in to make the review.
The Press: Then why did you guys, knowing the history of this,
why did you guys promise July?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, again, it's a congressionally required thing,
Chuck, and as -- we're producing it as soon as the guys can
produce the forecast.
The Press: So if it's congressionally required, then you --
you know when you made the decision to delay this,
when was that decision made?
Mr. Gibbs: I don't know the answer from the question you asked a good 37
seconds ago, so let me -- I appreciate the --
if you asked it maybe three or four more times, I can --
The Press: Well -- and then on health care, the President today did not use
the word "August" for perhaps the first time --
talk about the August recess, at least in the way he said --
should we read anything into that?
Mr. Gibbs: I think Peter was pretty clear on this over the weekend.
The Press: No, actually -- wait a minute --
(laughter)
Mr. Gibbs: Well, he said -- I think he said --
The Press: This was a goal.
The Press: That's what he said, it was a goal, not a --
Mr. Gibbs: But he said August, so, I mean, I appreciate your --
the attention with which you're paying the President's
words these days.
The Press: Well, but, no, you just said Peter was clear.
That actually -- the whole -- so all of the stories that are
interpreting Peter's words as saying, "Oh, there seems to be
some flexibility here with the idea of August" --
is that fair or unfair?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, look, again, the President says we're making good progress
and the President believes we can get this done by August.
Yes, sir.
The Press: Back on health care and DeMint --
Mr. Gibbs: We didn't leave health care.
(laughter)
The Press: We took a slight detour for a moment.
He said -- just a little more context --
he said, "If we're able to stop Obama on this,
it will be his Waterloo.
It will break him.
And it will show that we can, along with the American people,
begin to push those freedom solutions that work in every
area of our society."
That's not pure politics, is it?
I mean, he's saying that we disagree with the President on
policy on a whole range of issues where the administration
favors government-oriented solutions and they favor free
market solutions.
Mr. Gibbs: What's his bill?
The Press: I don't know, but certainly want free market solutions
to these things.
Mr. Gibbs: I'll get Chuck's answer when you --
The Press: So any time the President just makes a statement on philosophy,
that's pure politics?
I mean, they're talking about their philosophy.
That's policy.
This isn't political games if -- I mean,
why should you be surprised that he would like to break the
President politically and move in a direction that's friendlier
with his policies?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I think maybe you and I have a difference,
as the President does, on the interpretation of what he said.
Again, not -- you not being able to enunciate for me exactly what
it is that Mr. DeMint is proposing in such --
as he termed it, freedom-loving solutions --
I think denotes that the grasp of what he was saying was a lot
less on what he was proposing in lieu of what the President was
proposing, and much more focused on the pure and overt politics of this.
Just as I, you know -- let me quote somebody else.
This is Bill Kristol: "There will be temptation for opponents
to let up on their criticism or try to appear constructive or at
least responsible" -- the temptation to appear responsible.
We've been asked a lot in this room about what the President
and others are doing in order to work in a bipartisan basis,
right -- when the President calls Senator Grassley to talk
about health care reform, when the staff goes to meet with
Democrats and Republicans.
The President and his team are working constructively and responsibly.
Bipartisanship is not a one-way street.
It has to be a two-way, two-lane street.
We want to work with people that want to work with us to find
solutions for the problems that the American people have faced
for years and years.
I would suggest that the comments that were made by the
senator and by this particular Republican political strategist
are not designed to come up or foment an alternative policy
solution, but instead to perpetuate the same old
Washington games that have --
The Press: Well, by your bringing them up you're playing them --
I mean, you're using them for political purposes.
You're not --
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I'm reading what they said, Chip.
The Press: Yes, but you know that -- you know that they're vulnerable if
they look like they're being political, so you do the
***-for-tat on politics.
What's the difference?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, they seem to help a little bit by, say,
overtly looking political.
I think if I were to call something your "waterloo," Chip,
would that -- I don't think you would interpret that as an
effort to do anything other than deride the ability of the end of
whatever we were talking about.
It's not an uplifting message.
I don't think people --
The Press: Only in France.
Mr. Gibbs: Well, there you go.
(laughter)
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
The Press: One other topic.
On Thursday there's a town hall.
Is this going to be a real town hall,
or one of those invitation only things?
Mr. Gibbs: If you haven't been invited, I guess it's an invitation only.
The Press: Is it really invitation-only?
Mr. Gibbs: I appreciate your question.
The Press: No, I'm serious.
It's a serious question.
Helen will probably chime in.
Mr. Gibbs: You're hoping for a little help now from Helen, aren't you?
I don't know the procedures by which tickets are distributed.
I'm happy to look into it, and --
The Press: Well, Robert, it is a fair question.
In the beginning, the first town halls you guys held were always
-- you guys -- you bragged about how --
The Press: You could line up and go in --
The Press: -- you bragged about how this --
The Press: Is this one different?
Mr. Gibbs: Chuck, I appreciate most of all your penchant for asking me
follow-up questions about something I said I would look into.
In the intervening 17 seconds, I haven't figured out the answer
to Chip's question.
The Press: But that implies that there is a policy change if it's
not the same.
The Press: Well, they already it changed it a week ago.
Mr. Gibbs: Let me figure out what the distribution policy is before
you go off and get half-cocked and excited.
The Press: Oooh!
The Press: Okay, hi.
(laughter)
Mr. Gibbs: You want to follow up on Chuck's question?
The Press: I'll start with something new -- but it is still on health care.
Mr. Gibbs: I'm not surprised.
Go ahead.
The Press: This White House is filled with veterans of Congress who
understand how congressional timetables work.
Could you explain how it's even at this point possible to get a
bill through the Senate before the August recess,
given that there are three weeks remaining, including today,
that we don't even have an agreement,
and now it's much less actual legislative language,
much less a mark-up, which would then have to be merged with the
HELP bill, which would have to be scored, go to the floor,
and we have a whole week of Sotomayor hearings?
Mr. Gibbs: Right, but let's -- not to get in the way of your timeline
there, we do have a piece of legislation that has gotten
through extensive committee discussions,
had 160 Republican amendments added to it,
passed through the committee on something that does incorporate
a good chunk of what has to happen on health care reform.
Look, we're, like you, working with and watching the Finance
Committee to see what progress can be made.
Again, as I know, the administration worked with them
throughout the weekend to go through issues that they've raised.
We're making progress on the House side, as well.
And they're in a little bit longer than the House is, so --
The Press: But that wasn't my question.
My question was, given that, yes,
HELP has acted but everybody knows Finance needs to act,
as well, is there enough time remaining to do that?
Mr. Gibbs: The President believes so and we're going to continue to work
with the committees in order to make that progress.
The Press: Can you outline that realistic scenario?
Mr. Gibbs: Yes -- if the Finance Committee were to come up with something
relatively soon, have a mark-up early next week, giving us,
what, a little bit more than a week and a half to get through the floor.
Sure.
The Press: And a moment ago you said, and the President often invokes,
that special interests will be geared up to try to stop this bill.
What specific special interests are you referring to?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I think there's been a number of different entities
that have come out and been specifically critical of the legislation.
I think the interest group that's run --
repeatedly run commercials, which, as I understand it,
was where Mr. DeMint gave his motivational speech,
according to Chip, on freedom-loving health care solutions.
The Press: By the way, I was just informed that he does have a
comprehensive health care bill and I'd be happy to read it to you.
Mr. Gibbs: Well, how about you read that and we'll discuss this a little
bit later.
We can get you up to speed first.
The Press: So what is the special -- could you just name a few of the
special interests you're referring to?
Mr. Gibbs: Yes, I -- what's the the name of the group that ran the --
The Press: The Conservative for Patients' Rights.
Mr. Gibbs: The Conservatives for Patients' Rights.
The Press: Well, that's -- right, that's one guy's money and a
philosophical group.
Is there a special interest group, a lobby group,
in Washington that you're talking about?
Mr. Gibbs: I think there's no doubt that some of the insurance companies
have been opposed to comprehensive health care reform.
I think there's obviously --
The Press: But out --
The Press: Which ones?
The Press: Yes, they're out with an ad today promoting it.
Mr. Gibbs: There are some.
There are -- I think we've seen some business groups.
I remember how savagely did Wal-Mart get attacked when they
put out a letter denoting that they thought that continuing to
incur rising cost after rising cost, year after year,
was a bad deal.
They were savaged by many of their friends.
So there are plenty of people that are --
there are plenty of people whose strategy is delay,
there's no question about it.
The Press: Robert, does the President's strategy on health care reflect
expanded concern on his part that the Republicans or those he
calls the nay-sayers are gaining ground and traction with their
arguments against his plan?
Mr. Gibbs: No, I think the President's -- particularly the President's
schedule, the President's focus on this issue denotes the
seriousness with which he comes at this,
and his strong desire to see something finally get through
Congress rather than debating this year after year.
The Press: But we'll hear from him every day on this, right?
Mr. Gibbs: Many, many days, yes.
I think obviously this is a -- this is a crucial time for
health care reform.
You've got upwards of five committees in Congress working
on legislative solutions.
And I think the President's time and public schedule will be --
will reflect that priority.
Yes, sir.
The Press: Robert, is there any consequence if the House or Senate or both
don't get a bill out by August 7?
Mr. Gibbs: Any -- I'm sorry -- consequence?
The Press: Consequence.
Mr. Gibbs: Well, again, I don't -- I hate to do ultimatums at this point.
I think the President believes that we're making constructive
progress, and I think we can continue to see it.
The Press: But other than hold their feet under the fire to keep them on
schedule, there really isn't any consequence beyond that, is there?
Mr. Gibbs: I don't know what you're --
The Press: There isn't any consequence if they fail to meet the deadline.
Mr. Gibbs: Well, delayed reform year after year.
But --
The Press: There was talk of keeping the House and Senate through the
August recess.
Mr. Gibbs: Well, you know, again, we'll see what the leaders decide,
based on, as we get closer to those calendars.
Yes, sir.
The Press: The RNC appears to have seized on a Washington Post/ABC poll
that shows support for the President's handling of health
care reform slipping to, in Michael Steele's words,
emphasize the risk -- risky in terms of its costs,
risky in terms of availability of health care, to people who
already have it.
How does the President sell it?
How does he argue against a Robert Steele to --
Mr. Gibbs: Michael Steele.
The Press: Michael Steele, I'm sorry, people who already have health
insurance -- I apologize --
(laughter)
-- given he's got to sell the reforms to people who by and
large have health insurance already and are worried about
keeping it, worried about it becoming more expensive?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, look, the President -- look, understanding that --
I forget the exact percentage, but by and large the vast
majority of people in this country have access to
affordable health insurance.
But we talked about this a few weeks ago.
As the cost rises, businesses are going to have to make a
decision to whether or not they're going to keep that
health insurance.
People that are coming in to the health insurance market --
or if you're thrown off of your insurance because a business
drops it, you're then at the whim of the private market, right?
The private market right now can preclude you from purchasing
insurance if you've got a preexisting condition.
So I think there are a number of different ways that the
President can continue to discuss with the American people
the strong benefits of health care reform --
not to mention the price that each and every one of us pays as
a result of uncompensated care when somebody who doesn't think
they're ever going to get sick or doesn't have access to
affordable health coverage gets sick, gets in a car accident,
doesn't have insurance but goes to the emergency room to get care.
All of that drives up the cost for what those with insurance
pay for health care.
So I think those are just some examples of why everybody has a
stake in this game.
It's not just about those that are unfortunate in the sense
that they don't currently have coverage,
but there are great risks even to those that are lucky enough
to have that coverage now -- because as we've seen,
when the cost of a premium for health care outstrip any
increase in your wages by three or four-to-one,
it's not going to take long before businesses,
particularly in a bad economic environment,
are making decisions to get out of providing health care.
The Press: And in a bad economic environment,
the President is proposing a fairly expensive effort.
At what point do you begin to worry about --
or worry more about overall spending,
overall size of the deficit, given that we're in a place no
one felt we'd ever be in right now?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, look, I think the President --
and I think he will do this throughout the week --
is address the budget challenges that we face.
We talked a little bit about them here today.
The main drivers of our federal budget deficit are things like
Medicare and Medicaid; that unless proposals to see cost
savings as it relates to Medicare and Medicaid are
instituted, it's going to be hard to drive down the budget
deficit and the cost of health care from the government's perspective.
Understand, this isn't -- none of this is going to be easy.
I'll segue a little bit to a different fight --
the President has laid down a veto threat on F-22s, right?
You guys are -- I think Jake asked me about a hundred million
dollars in savings -- this is $1.75 billion for a plane that
our Pentagon and the previous Pentagon say they don't need;
say the spending for that aircraft,
those additional aircraft, come in direct competition with the
resources that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are in need of now.
That's an assessment held by our Secretary of Defense and a
former Secretary of Defense; our Chair of the Joint Chiefs,
a former Chair of the Joint Chiefs.
And we're right now in a neck-and-neck battle just to cut
$1.75 billion for a plane the Pentagon itself says it doesn't want.
It's not going to be easy to change this budget deficit,
but the President is going to continue to work on it.
The Press: Robert, how much concern is there in the White House that
people who have health insurance don't recognize the risk you
just outlined in terms of rising costs,
the cost of uncompensated care?
Is there some concern that people with health insurance
don't see these, and do you need to do more to sort of emphasize that?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I think the President -- and I think the President
started to emphasize that even more today.
I don't doubt that we have to continue to make the case to
everybody involved that they have a genuine stake in health
care, whether they have access to affordable insurance or not.
And I think that's one of the things that you'll see the
President continue to highlight this week, again,
is to understand that everybody involved has a stake in this.
To build off of Wendell's question,
everybody that has a care or concern about the budget deficit
has a care or concern and has, to some degree,
skin in the game as it relates to the direction of our health
care spending from a federal level, from a state level,
from a local level -- all of that I think is something that
the President is concerned about and the American people are
rightly concerned about, as well.
The Press: Robert, just two questions?
Mr. Gibbs: I thought we were going to do yours at 4:00 today, Lester.
Go ahead.
The Press: Oh, Robert.
Mr. Gibbs: I know, I'm going to skip you for right now, Lester, I know.
The Press: You'll be back?
Mr. Gibbs: Do you have your birth certificate with you, can you --
go ahead --
(laughter)
You do?
The Press: I'm not going to ask about that.
Mr. Gibbs: We'll save that for next week.
Yes, sir.
The Press: I want to briefly change the subject to the manned
space program.
I know the President's going to be talking about this
momentarily, but from a budgetary standpoint,
does the President think that America can afford to go back to
the Moon or to Mars?
I know it's under review, but in the larger sense is he not
worried about the cost?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, again, as I said to the most --
two previous questions, you're always worried on any
expenditure about cost.
I know that the administration is committed to human space exploration.
We've said that throughout the campaign.
And as you mentioned, there is a committee set up through NASA to
evaluate this and come back with recommendations as to NASA's
policy going forward I think later in August.
And the President looks forward to seeing those commission
recommendations, and I have no doubt that the President will
get an opportunity to listen to astronauts that walked on the
Moon 40 years ago -- listen to their perspective and get a
sense of what those missions did for scientific discovery and how
that will impact the future.
The Press: It's been estimated that in today's dollars the Moon project
would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Is it conceivable that that kind of money could be spent in this environment?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I think, without looking at that study,
my assumption is that if you have no space program and start
a space program, there are significant start-up costs,
development costs, R&D costs that I think,
factoring 40-year-ago dollars into current decisions,
may not extrapolate quite as perfectly as one might presume.
But again, the President looks forward to the commission's recommendations.
The Press: Why did he drop in the polls on the big issues?
Mr. Gibbs: I'm sorry?
The Press: The President dropped in the polls --
Mr. Gibbs: They haven't called me, Helen.
I would answer a different way on the poll.
The Press: You haven't looked into the reasons why?
Mr. Gibbs: No, no, I made a joke.
It clearly didn't work.
(laughter)
Don't worry, I'll try again in a minute.
The Press: Yes, I'm not laughing.
(laughter)
Mr. Gibbs: I noticed.
See, now you are going to laugh and you're going to mess your
whole joke up.
You can't quite hold it --
The Press: I'm sorry.
Mr. Gibbs: Okay.
Look, I think the President is confronting a number of
difficult challenges, many challenges that have been put
off for many years, but finally have to be addressed.
Not all those are going to be easy.
Many of them -- some of them will compete,
though I would note that if you look deeper into the poll just
in the Post, you'll find that a majority of those support the
health care ideas that were outlined in the poll.
And I think America holds, according to that poll,
a 59% approval rating of the President,
which is a pretty darn good number for six months in.
The Press: How does he feel about the banks making so much money,
more than at any time in history, out of taxpayer money?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, obviously the President continues to share concerns that
everybody has; that nothing will be learned by what happened just
a few months ago.
Obviously the President has put a strong focus on financial
reregulation to ensure that what happened and got us into this
mess can't be repeated, and continues to believe that the
decisions that banks make and that executives make have to be
made in what's in the long-term interest rather than in the
short-term gain, and that's what the President will continue to
focus on.
The Press: This Wednesday the President has invited the Prime Minister of
Iraq al Maliki to join him.
What is the significance of the timing on this, Robert,
and what issues do you think will be preeminent in discussing
-- when he arrives?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, obviously we'll be joined by Ambassador Hill.
I know the President speaks regularly with General Odierno
about the continuing security challenges that we have to be
mindful of, as well as much of the political change that still
continues -- or needs to continue in order for us to
continue to see progress in Iraq.
I've no doubt that that will take up a large part of the
meeting with the Prime Minister.
They had a chance, as you all know,
to sit down earlier in the year in Baghdad,
and they'll continue these discussions.
We want to make sure we continue to keep the focus on, as I said,
the political engagement that has to happen to see that
necessary progress.
And I think that's one of the reasons the Vice President is
focused on this, as well.
John.
The Press: A question about how you interpret one of the President's
campaign commitments that's relevant to the discussions over
how you finance health care.
When the President said in his campaign that he wasn't going to
raise taxes on anybody earning less than $250,000 a year,
does that mean that no tax goes up for those people,
even if offset by other benefits and savings in the same legislation?
Or does it mean no tax goes up for those people at all?
Mr. Gibbs: I would point you to what the President said earlier --
not earlier this week but sometime last week about holding
the line on those that make $250,000 or less.
The Press: Do you understand what I'm asking?
It's the difference between whether -- that means --
Mr. Gibbs: You're talking about --
The Press: -- that means any--
Mr. Gibbs: -- versus net tax, right?
The Press: Correct.
Does that mean on net or does that mean any tax?
Mr. Gibbs: My impression was on the former rather than the latter.
The Press: Net.
The Press: Not on net.
Mr. Gibbs: No, no, not on net, but on --
Okay.
Mr. Gibbs: Right.
Yes, ma'am.
The Press: President Obama told reporters in Cairo that he wanted to stop
in Indonesia when he goes to Singapore in the fall.
Has the White House reevaluated that at all,
given the attacks last week, or kind of --
where is that in the process?
Mr. Gibbs: I think stops, in terms of that trip in the fall,
will be the subject of some meetings,
some scheduling meetings this week with deputies and
principals, including the President.
I have not seen those drafts.
I doubt that -- but I have no reason to believe that the
events of the past few days have changed or lessened the
President's desire.
Obviously it is the -- a country with the largest number of
Muslims in the world, important to him from that standpoint as
well as personally.
The Press: And has he consulted at all with Secretary of State Clinton
about health care?
Have they talked about her experience with the health care plans?
Mr. Gibbs: I can check.
I have not heard of any discussion recently on that.
But I'll have to check.
The Press: Robert, Jim Clyburn this morning said that he no longer thinks
the surtax on the wealthy is necessary, that health care --
even the Democratic House bill --
could be financed entirely through savings.
Does the President think he can finance the whole thing through
savings, or will there have to be some revenue?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I don't know what Representative Clyburn has in
mind about the full panoply of savings.
Obviously we have outlined a number of what people around
here call game-changers in terms of the direction of federal
spending on health care, and obviously there are proposals
that our team support to fast-track votes on Medicare and
Medicaid savings that come to Congress each year but rarely
get addressed.
But I don't have in front of me what Mr. Clyburn has in terms of
the full level of savings.
The Press: He also said that he's met six times now with a number of House
Democrats and there's growing sentiment that they don't want
to do this tax increase.
What's your sense of the politics?
You talk obviously about a tax increase on those below
$250,000; what about those above $350,000?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, we addressed this a little bit last week.
I mean, when you're talking about $350,000, $500,000,
a million dollars, these are people that have tended to have
a pretty good time of it for quite some time.
Without getting into this tax or that tax,
I think the President has laid out ideas that he thinks are
best in order to move forward.
But we'll let Congress work through its process of deciding
how to fund health care reform.
The Press: Thanks, Robert.
Now that the hearings involving Judge Sotomayor are over,
what impact, if at all, did they have in terms of the President's
thinking about future Supreme Court nominees?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I have not heard the President discuss the impact of
those hearings on future nominees.
Obviously I think like every President,
he's hopeful to appoint many to the Supreme Court,
but I think he's focused on ensuring that one is seated
before the Court hears its important case in September and
before the beginning of the full term,
but hasn't gotten much into what happens next.
The Press: Any rethinking of his own standard of the importance of
empathy for judges?
Mr. Gibbs: None that I've heard him enunciate.
The Press: I have two questions on health care.
One, going back to the President's visit to the
Vatican, he reportedly told the Pope that he would work to and
do all he could to reduce the number of abortions --
Mr. Gibbs: I think he said -- he said that in a speech to Planned
Parenthood in 2007, so yes.
The Press: Could someone reasonably say that in doing all you can do to
reduce the number of abortions would also mean supporting the
Hatch amendment to the health care bill that would prohibit
federal funds going to abortion?
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I have not seen the Hatch amendment.
I know the President believes that current policy --
certainly current policy for Medicaid prohibits federal
funding for abortions.
That's the Hyde amendment.
I think when it comes to designing a benefit package,
I think the President and this administration agree that that's
-- a benefit package is better left to experts in the medical
field to determine how best and what procedures to cover.
The Press: And also, over the weekend at the National Governors
Association, Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee had said
that he feared that Congress was about to bestow the mother of
all unfunded mandates on states with the health care bill.
Governor Bredesen has been dealing for two terms on TennCare.
How closely has that -- and that is, in fact,
a version of a public option.
How closely has the administration studied that plan
and how well it's worked?
Because it's run into a number of financial problems.
Mr. Gibbs: Yes, I don't know the degree to which folks here have looked at
either TennCare or other plans.
I would note that the House bill fully funds additional benefits
passed through its legislation on Medicaid.
And as you know and as others have pointed out during the
briefing, the jurisdiction for that in the Senate is the
Finance Committee.
They have not yet acted.
So I think the fears expressed by the governors,
certainly as it relates to the House bill, are unfounded.
The Press: But do you see similarities between the two, though --
TennCare and your public option?
Mr. Gibbs: That would be a bit out of my policy depth in terms of an
off-the-cuff analysis from a policy perspective.
I will say this: I think a number of plans and proposals
that have been instituted by states have not necessarily
begun first by addressing the rising cost and how to turn the
curve on what government spends on health care.
I think that's why the President has decided, rightly so,
to put his time and resources -- no pun intended --
into ensuring that we don't forget addressing cost even as
we look to expand coverage for those that don't have care.
I'll take one more, April, and then --
The Press: Robert, on health care again, understanding that this
administration is reaching out to a lot of grassroots
organizations to get them to put pressure on Congress to support
the President's plan, what kind of outreach is going on from
this administration into the small business community --
because I'm hearing on a grassroots' level from small
businesses, that if the President's health care plan
does go into effect, it could create a worsening recession.
A lot of businesses have said, look, if this does happen,
that they will have to make a lot of their full-time people
that they would have to cover part time and maybe even close up shop.
What are you doing to allay a lot of their concerns --
Mr. Gibbs: Well, I think it's probably -- I'd start with,
I'm not sure that -- I don't know who you talked to,
but I'm not sure that there's a full understanding of --
I think the President has spoken about the notion that there are
businesses that are not going to come under some of the
requirements of any of the health care bills as it relates
to providing immediate coverage based on the size of those businesses.
So I think in some senses, their fears sound likely unwarranted.
But I know the administration has and continues to reach out
to business groups, both small and large,
and the rest of the stakeholders involved in searching for a
reform plan that addresses the rising cost, again,
for both large and small businesses.
I don't think anybody is immune or exempt from what we've seen
happen over the past many years in terms of rising cost.
In fact, many of the smaller businesses lack the larger pool
purchasing power to drive down rates by covering more people
than just a smaller universe that is employed by a specific business.
Thanks, guys.