Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Earnest: Good afternoon, everybody.
Thank you for being at the White House
for the briefing today.
Surely some of you are coming back from
a late-night trip to Mexico, which sounds
a little more exciting than it probably was.
(laughter) But I appreciate you making
the effort to be here.
The Press: Key word -- "sounds."
Mr. Earnest: Exactly.
I don't have anything at the top.
But, Julie, in the spirit of the Winter Olympic
Games, I'll let you drop the puck.
The Press: Thank you.
Can you walk us through what the theory is behind
dropping chained CPI from
the President's budget this year?
Is this basically an acknowledgement
that whatever hope there may have been --
small though it may have been -- that a grand bargain could
be accomplished is now gone?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Julie, let me answer that
in a couple of different ways.
The first is -- and it's important for you and your
readers to understand -- that this option,
this offer from the President remains on the table.
You will recall that in the context
of the discussions that we've been having with
congressional Republicans about reducing the
deficit, that the President put forward some
specific ideas about how we can do that
in a balanced way.
Now, a balanced way means that the President put
forward ideas that Republicans themselves
support -- things like changes to entitlement
programs -- and coupled them with some things
that the President thinks would be good policy --
things like closing tax loopholes -- and using revenues
from those closed tax loopholes, savings from
the entitlement changes that Republicans had
sought, and use that to reduce the deficit.
So the President was willing to step forward
and put on the table a concrete proposal.
Unfortunately, Republicans refused to even consider
the possibility of raising from revenue by closing
some loopholes that benefit only the wealthy
and the well-connected.
So that is an unfortunate policy choice
that Republicans themselves have made.
But the thing that's also important to understand
is we have made substantial progress
in reducing the deficit.
There is more that we can do, and that's
why the offer remains on the table.
But over the last few years, the deficit in this
country has reduced -- has been declining at the
fastest rate since the end of World War II.
And what the budget proposal will show when
it's released in detail in a couple of weeks,
it will show that the deficit at the end of this 10-year
window will be at less than 2 percent of GDP.
Now, that sounds very technical,
but I'm raising it for an important reason.
You'll recall that when Democrats and Republicans
agreed that we should work in bipartisan fashion
and appoint the Simpson-Bowles commission to examine
proposals for reducing the deficit,
the goal that was identified by Simpson-Bowles
was to reduce the deficit as a percentage
of GDP to below 3 percent.
But what our budget projection shows is that
by -- and over the course of the next 10 years,
or in 10 years, the percentage will actually
be below 2 percent.
So we've made substantial
progress in reducing the deficit.
We welcome opportunities to cooperate further and
reduce the deficit further with Republicans.
But the President also believes it's important
that we start spending some time focusing on what
kinds of policies we can put in place that will
expand economic opportunity
for every American.
The Press: But I guess, even though chained CPI
remains on the table, sort of in a theoretical way,
including it in the budget has been seen
as a good-faith gesture to Republicans.
So I'm just trying to understand, is this --
by not including it this year, is this just
a signal that you don't see the possibility of sort
of opening larger budget negotiations with
Republicans this year?
Mr. Earnest: Well, again, that will have
to be up to Republicans.
The Press: But doesn't this signal that
the White House really doesn't see that as possible?
Otherwise, why wouldn't
you just put it in the budget?
Mr. Earnest: And the reason for that is --
there's actually a good reason for that,
so let me get to that, which is that traditionally what budget
proposals from Presidents in either party have been
is they have been a specific,
tangible proposal from the administration about how
the President in an ideal world believes
that the government should be funded.
Now, what we've seen over the last several months
is a return to -- a welcome return to regular order.
We saw Democrats and Republicans
on Capitol Hill get together, broker a budget agreement
in which both sides had to compromise.
Neither side got every single thing that they
wanted, but we saw that piece of legislation
passed with bipartisan majorities.
And so the budget proposal that the President
is going to put forward will reflect the spending
levels that were agreed to by Ryan and Murray,
that the President is going to live within that
compromise and we'll have a specific proposal
for how we can do that.
So this is really -- the budget submission that
you'll see from the President is really
a return to regular order.
Last year's was a little bit different
that the President presented a unique budget offering
to reflect the circumstances.
There was a point in time when there was a little
bit more optimism about the willingness
of Republicans to budge on closing
some tax loopholes.
But over the course of the last year,
they've refused to do that.
So with this return to regular order in Congress,
we're seeing a return to regular order in terms
of the President's budget offering.
But it does not reflect any reduction in the
President's willingness to try to meet Republicans
in the middle and find a balanced way
to reduce our deficit even further than we already have.
The Press: Okay.
And on a separate topic, the EU, looks like they've
decided to impose sanctions
on officials in Ukraine that they say
are responsible for this violence.
Does the U.S.
plan to follow with sanctions of its own?
Mr. Earnest: I've seen those reports.
It's unclear to me whether or not EU officials have
actually confirmed those reports yet.
The Press: Some of the EU officials.
Mr. Earnest: Some of EUs have, okay.
Or some EU officials have.
I'm not in a position to confirm any additional
steps that the United States has decided
to take at this point.
The President and other senior members of this
administration alluded yesterday to the fact that
there were a range of tools that could be used
by the administration to hold accountable those
who have either ordered or are responsible for the
violence that's being perpetrated
by the Ukrainian government
against peaceful protesters.
So there are a range of options that are
available, and it is fair to say that a range of
options is being actively considered
at the White House.
But I don't have any specific things,
any specific decisions about those options
to relay to you now.
As soon as some decisions have been made,
if they are made, we'll let you know.
Let's skip around a little bit.
The Press: Apparently, a statement has come
out by the EU and confirming -- and I can read a piece
of it if you want.
Mr. Earnest: I wasn't doubting the reports.
I'm not surprised to hear that they've
made this decision.
We certainly are in close consultation with
our EU allies on a range of topics, but particularly
the situation in Ukraine.
The Press: Do you have any sense of timing on
when a decision will be made
by the U.S. on --
Mr. Earnest: I can't offer you any
insight into that right now, other than to say
that there are a range of options
that are available to the President.
He is actively considering those range of options,
and as soon as there is a decision to announce
we'll make sure that you and your colleagues
are among the first to know.
The Press: Sorry to interrupt.
Mr. Earnest: That's okay.
Roberta.
The Press: So yesterday, when the
President said that "there will be consequences
if people step over the line," has that line been
crossed in the renewed violence this morning?
And can you explain a little bit more about
what that line is and what that meant?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think the President was
trying to make a couple of points when he said that.
The first is that there is -- that the government
in Ukraine has a responsibility, has the
primary responsibility for making sure that the
violence that we've seen does not continue.
Now, that doesn't absolve protestors of their
responsibility to exercise their right
to peaceful protest in a peaceful manner.
But the government of Ukraine has a unique
responsibility to allow and to protect the rights
of assembly and peaceful protest and freedom of
speech that the Ukrainian people
are seeking to exercise.
The President also was making clear that there
are options available to the United States
and to the international community, and to our
allies -- including those in the EU -- to hold
accountable those who perpetrate violence
against peaceful protestors.
So the options here are before us.
Some of our allies are starting to make some
decisions about them.
This is something that we are actively considering
here at the White House.
But at this point, I don't have any specific
decisions to share with you.
The Press: If I might ask on Keystone --
Mr. Earnest: You may.
The Press: -- given the Nebraska court decision
yesterday, will the administration put a pause
on the national interest determination process
that's underway right now?
Mr. Earnest: Roberta, as you've heard me and
others say many times, that this is a process
that currently is being
run by the State Department.
So if you have questions about the impact that
external factors might have on that process,
then you should direct those questions
to the State Department.
The Press: But how can the administration
possibly continue this process, given that the
route through Nebraska is somewhat uncertain given
yesterday's court decision?
Mr. Earnest: I haven't reviewed
the court decision myself.
I've certainly seen the reports of it.
But the impact of a court decision and ongoing
litigation -- what impact that might have
on the ongoing process is something that I can't say
from here, because this is a process that's being run
by the State Department.
So that's the --
The Press: The White House
isn't reviewing that?
The White House isn't reviewing
the impact of that?
Mr. Earnest: No, the State Department
is reviewing this process.
They've been in charge of this process for quite
some time now.
The Press: Right, but the White House isn't
reviewing the impact of that court decision
on the process?
Mr. Earnest: Again, this is a State Department
process, so the State Department
will be the ones -- will be the officials to evaluate what
impact ongoing litigation may have
on their process. Jen.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
Obama met with African American
civil rights leaders yesterday.
Did they talk about Michael Boggs at all,
the Georgia judicial nominee?
The Press: Tuesday.
Mr. Earnest: The President met with a group
of civil rights leaders a couple of days ago,
I think it was on Tuesday.
I haven't seen a -- I think there
is a blog post available at whitehouse.gov about the
conversation that the President
had with those leaders.
I know they talked about the Affordable Care Act
and the importance of communicating
to the American public, and particularly
to individuals in the African American community,
about the potential benefits that are available
to them at healthcare.gov, and some of the protections
that are now in place for consumers because
of the Affordable Care Act.
I know they had a number of conversations --
or they had a conversation about some of the ideas
related to criminal justice reform that the
President and the Attorney General
have both discussed.
But in terms of specifics, I can't go beyond that
in terms of whether or not a specific judicial nominee
came up or not.
The Press: Well, on that note, there's no more
than two dozen progressive groups, including NARAL
Pro-Choice America
the Human Rights Campaign, MoveOn,
and the National Organization for Women,
that are all calling on Obama to pull down Boggs's
nomination because they say they're really upset
about votes he took as a state legislator on abortion rights,
gay rights and civil rights.
They want him to nominate somebody else.
Do you think that Obama would consider putting
forward somebody else if the pressure from his own
base kept at this level?
Mr. Earnest: Jen, I haven't seen the
statements from the groups that you've mentioned.
I'll see if we can collect some more information
and get back to you with a specific reaction.
Jim.
The Press: Josh, can I follow up?
Mr. Earnest: I'll get to you, April.
The Press: Can we get back to Ukraine,
if we could?
What do you tell the American people,
the person sitting in their lounge chair watching this
terrible violence, about what strategic interest
the United States has in getting involved
in this protest?
What is the strategic interest
of the United States?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think there
are a couple of things.
I think that the American people I think are
justifiably concerned -- certainly the President
is -- when we see the basic human rights of anybody
around the globe being so flagrantly trampled.
That has certainly been part of the situation
that appears to be underway in Ukraine.
And that is a source of great concern
here at the White House.
The other concern that we have is the desire -- I
guess it's a related concern --
for countries to have governments that
reflect the will and aspirations of their people.
And what we have seen is an attempt by the
Ukrainian regime to stifle dissent in their country,
and that so much of the turmoil that's ongoing
there is related to the desire of the Ukrainian
people to have a government
and a leadership that reflects their will
and their preferences.
So what the President has been encouraging is for
the violence to come to an immediate end and for the
government and the opposition to sit down at
the table and try to reach a diplomatic solution to
this disagreement that would include a unity
government that would allow the country of
Ukraine to be integrated into the international
community and to have solid relationships with
their neighbors, but also to have solid
relationships with
countries all around the world.
And that is our longer-term goal here.
But any time that we see that there is this kind of
turmoil that has resulted in some basic civil rights
being violated is a source of some concern.
The Press: As far as the national security
of the United States, is there anything that's
happening in that square in Kyiv that really
impacts the United States?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think this is something
that we're monitoring, that this is something
that has aroused a lot of concern -- because, again,
as a freedom-loving country
and a freedom-loving people, it is the subject of
significant concern when the rights of peaceful
protestors who are trying to exercise their right
of peaceful assembly, who are trying to exercise their
right to express their disagreement with
political decisions, having those rights being
trampled is the source of some concern.
And that's why the President
is considering options like sanctions.
That's why the State Department announced the
decision that they made yesterday to put a visa
ban in place for government officials
in Ukraine who have been judged to be accountable
for some of the violence that's taken place there.
So this is the subject of some concern,
and it's why the President is considering a range
of options that are available to him.
The Press: And how much is the bigger picture
of the United States and Russia -- "spheres of
influence," going back -- echoes of a Cold War --
how much of that is of concern
to the White House?
Mr. Earnest: Well, the President talked about
this a little bit at the news conference yesterday,
that this idea of "spheres of influence" is a pretty
outdated notion; that what we're seeing in Ukraine
is a frustration on the part of the population that
their government, that their elected
representatives are not reflecting their
aspirations, and that we're starting
to see a rolling-back in some of the basic democratic
institutions in that country, and that it is
clear that at least some of the human rights --
basic human rights that we hold so dear in this
country are not being respected in that country.
And that's the source of quite a bit of concern.
But it is not necessarily related to any effort
by former Cold War adversaries
to try to gain a foothold in one country or another.
This shouldn't be a zero-sum game.
This should be -- it's in the interest of the
international community for peace and stability
to be restored in Ukraine,
and that's what we're striving toward.
It's the view of the President
and it's the view of this administration that that
stability and peace will only be achieved through
conversations and through talks,
and through a willingness of both the government
and the opposition to sit across the table
and try to find some solutions.
This situation will not be resolved through violence.
The Press: Josh, we're over a month out from the
ACA signup deadline and it's beginning to sound
like you're not going to reach that 7 million goal.
The Vice President said 5 or 6 million;
the CBO said 6 million.
What's the number, if you know it?
And if you don't get to 5 million,
is the ACA in trouble?
Mr. Earnest: Well, you've cited some of the
bad news there, Joe, and I recognize that's
part of your job.
There's also some good news yesterday,
that if you look at state of California, they announced
yesterday that they'd already exceeded the
projections that they had made for the number
of sign-ups they were hoping for this year,
despite the fact that there are another six weeks left
in the signup period.
So there are some states -- some local exchanges
that are ahead of the curve when
it comes to signing people
up and exceeding their projections.
Now, that indicates a couple of things.
One, it indicates that the health care website
that was the subject of so much consternation
and frustration both from this administration, but also
from people across the country who were trying
to use it, that a lot of those problems have been
resolved, and that we have a website that's
functioning pretty well.
The second thing it indicates is that
that functioning website is presenting options
to people who visit it that are attractive; that
people are looking on that website,
finding that there are health care options that previously
weren't available to their family;
that these are health care offerings
that are of a higher quality
and a lower cost than was previously available.
They're taking advantage of that opportunity
by signing up, and that's why we're seeing
those strong numbers.
So there is some good news out there and we're
pleased to see it.
Ultimately, what our goal is, particularly the goal
that we're focused on over the course of the next six
weeks, is to sign up as many people as possible,
to educate people about the options that are
available to them, and let them know that there's
an opportunity for them to sign up.
The Press: Is coming in lower than
7 million a problem for you, though?
I mean, either in terms of optics
or in terms of fundamentals, is it a problem
to be at 5 million?
Is it a problem to be at 6 million?
Mr. Earnest: Well, the fundamentals actually are
determined by the kind of mix of the populations
that's incorporated into the exchange.
But again, we're not really
focused on the optics.
What we're focused on is making sure that every
single American can enjoy the benefits
of this important law.
If you are one of the vast majority of Americans
who already has health insurance,
this law only affects that health insurance by adding
additional protections to you to make sure
that you can't be discriminated against if you have
a preexisting condition.
It will help you -- in some cases, for seniors,
make their prescription drug cost a little lower.
But if you are in that group of Americans that
has to purchase health insurance on your own,
or you don't currently have health insurance, thanks
to the Affordable Care Act, for the first time,
there now are some high-quality,
affordable options that are available to you.
And that's the message that we're focused
on delivering over the course of the next
five to six weeks.
The Press: And quickly, just sort
of a political question.
The CBO has come out with some stuff recently that
has caused a bit of heartburn among Democrats,
including these latest numbers as well
as the stuff on the minimum wage earlier this week.
How are you going to sort of get through
to the American public when they're seeing this
30-second spot that no doubt is going
to hit the airwaves sooner or later that says the
administration has some real problems with
some of its key issues?
Mr. Earnest: Well, in terms of how people
are going to choose to respond to individual attack ads,
I mean, attack ads that are directed at the
President who is not facing reelection
is I guess money I'd welcome our opponents to spend,
if they chose to do so.
I assume that some of them will be maybe directing
those attack ads at individual members
of Congress who are on the ballot.
I would leave it to them, to those individual
members of Congress to decide how they would
want to respond to them.
But there is no doubt that there is a strong,
persuasive case that Democrats across
the country can make about this party,
this President's and individual members of Congress's
laser-like focus on expanding economic
opportunity for the middle class.
That is something that the minimum wage would do.
Raising the minimum wage would ensure that hard
work can lead to a decent living,
that if you're working 40 hours a week and you're making
the minimum wage you shouldn't have to raise your family
of four below the poverty line.
So raising the minimum wage, that's one reason
that I think you see strong support all across
the country for raising the minimum wage just
about everywhere except among the Republican House
and the Republican Senate, unfortunately.
But when it comes to the Affordable Care Act,
there's a strong case to be made about the security
that is now available to individual middle-class
families and small business owners,
that their health care costs will be lower, or at least
the growth in those health care costs will not be at
the same rate it was before, and that many
people -- particularly those who didn't
previously have health insurance --
now have quality options available to them so they
no longer have to go to sleep at night wondering if their
family is one illness away from bankruptcy.
The Press: CBO is not a problem for you lately?
Mr. Earnest: Well, look, when it comes to the
CBO, the CBO has an important role to play --
that they are the non-partisan arbiter
to evaluate what impact different proposals might
have on the budget or on the broader economy.
But the fact of the matter is a lot of the things
that the CBO found, particularly when it comes
to the minimum wage report that you mentioned,
are reasons to be strongly supportive
of raising the minimum wage.
They found that it would take millions of families
all across the country out of poverty,
that it would raise the salary of millions of other families
-- those who currently make below minimum wage or
currently less than $10.10 -- but also would raise
the wages of those who make
just a little more than $10.10.
And the resulting positive impact on the broader
economy would have strong benefits for communities
all across the country.
So in that CBO report that was the subject of some
discussion, shall we say, earlier this week,
there was plenty of evidence that was presented
by the independent CBO, the non-partisan CBO,
to indicate that raising the minimum wage would
have really good economic benefits.
So let's move around a little bit.
Mara.
The Press: Can you tell us what the message
is tonight from the President to the Democratic
governors, and how that would differ
from what he tells all the governors on Monday?
Mr. Earnest: I don't have any specific remarks
from the President to preview tonight,
so I'd encourage you to tune in and hear what
he has to say.
The Press: But that's going to be --
we can't do that.
Print pool only.
Mr. Earnest: That's right.
So you'll be able to --
The Press: Afterwards --
we can't tune in --
Mr. Earnest: Right -- not
literally tune in, but figuratively tune
in to your email and read the pool report
and the transcript that we'll issue.
But over the course of the next several days,
the President will have the opportunity to meet with
governors who are in town for the National Governors
Association meeting in Washington, D.C.
So the President on Friday -- tomorrow is Friday --
the President will be meeting with some Democratic
governors to talk about a range of issues.
Over the weekend, the President will hold his
traditional formal dinner for the governors
and their wives who are in town.
And then as you point out, Mara, on Monday the
President will be speaking to a bipartisan group
of governors here at the White House.
So the President is looking forward to the
opportunity to talking to this bipartisan group
of governors about a range of proposals that the
President himself has been urging Congress to act on.
I think what you'll find is that there is strong,
bipartisan support among the group of governors
for some of the proposals that the President
is advocating that are currently being blocked by
Republicans in Congress; that from raising the
minimum wage to investing in early childhood
education, to reforming our job training programs,
those are the kinds of proposals that governors,
Republican governors all across the country are
supportive of in their states, so there's
no reason that Republican members of Congress
shouldn't be willing to sit down with the
President and try and make progress
on some of these areas.
So I don't want to preview exactly what
the President's message will be to those governors,
but I would encourage you -- you'll get the chance
to hear what the President has to say to them,
and it should be interesting.
The Press: But do you anticipate these remarks
to be pretty much identical,
what he is going to tell the Democrats and what he is
going to tell the big NGA?
Mr. Earnest: I think that there will
be a lot of overlap.
Again, I don't want to predict two different --
you're asking me to sort of predict two different
types of remarks the President
hasn't delivered yet.
But I think that the message that the President
wants to convey to those governors about
his commitment to expanding economic opportunity for
every single American in this country.
And the ideas that he has presented related
to funding for early childhood education,
funding for infrastructure projects that would create
jobs in the short term and strengthen the economy
over the long term, that reforming job training
programs, investments in clean energy
are all the kinds of ideas that should have appeal
to both Democratic and Republican governors.
Unfortunately, they don't -- for some reason don't
seem to have much appeal among
Republican members of Congress.
But we're going to try to change that.
Major.
The Press: What's the sense of urgency
on sanctions with Ukraine?
What's the timeline?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I can't give you
a specific timeline.
But given the violence that we saw overnight
in Ukraine, I think it's fair to say that the options
available to the President are being
considered with some urgency.
The Press: Why does the administration believe
sanctions would help and not punish some of the
very citizens of Ukraine that the United States
theoretically would like to help?
Mr. Earnest: Well, unintended consequences
of the sort that you have highlighted here are one
of the reasons that these kinds of things are under
consideration, that making a decision about sanctions
can't just be a kneejerk reaction;
that it's important for us to consider
the range of consequences that could ensue
from applying some sanctions.
But, again, there is a sense of urgency that
is being felt because of the terrible violence
that we saw overnight.
The Press: Is it fair to say that you're looking
at maybe granular sanctions that might focus
on those wealthiest in Ukraine who have assets
inside and outside of the country, but have also
been supportive of the Yanukovych government?
Mr. Earnest: I don't want to speculate about
what the end result might
be or what specific options the President is considering.
There is a full toolkit -- I think someone described
it as yesterday -- and that's what the President
is taking a look at that entire toolkit
and will make some decisions based on the kinds
of policies that would have the maximum effect.
And again, the result that we're trying
to get to here is an end to the violence on both sides and
conversations between the opposition
and the government about a unity government that could
be formed, about a technical government that would
reflect the will and aspirations
of the Ukrainian people.
The Press: Speaking of those potential
conversations, there were reports this morning that
Vladimir Putin wants to send an envoy to Ukraine
to participate in talks between the opposition
and the Yanukovych government.
How would the administration look upon
that -- favorable or unfavorably?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I don't have a specific
reaction in terms of personnel that may be sent
from the Putin administration to Ukraine.
But suffice it to say that the United States and
Russia do share a common interest in peace and
stability in Ukraine.
That is certainly what the Obama administration
is advocating for.
And because it's in the clear interest
of the Russians, we are hopeful
that that's what -- that Putin -
The Press: The White House would not view
that as meddlesome?
Mr. Earnest: Again, I wouldn't have anything
to say specifically about an individual,
an emissary from the Putin administration
heading to Ukraine.
But suffice it to say that there is shared interest
on the part of not just of Russia and the United
States, but countries all around the world for peace
and stability to be restored in Ukraine.
Jon-Christopher.
The Press: Jay -- Josh, excuse me -- (laughter)
I could never mistake -
Mr. Earnest: It's okay,
I've been called worse.
The Press: We'll leave it at that.
(laughter)
Needless to say,
things have gone from worse to worse.
There are 45 million Ukrainians affected
not only in Kyiv but in other major cities
across the country.
How does it complicate things that it's been
reported that the protestors now have taken
67 police officers as prisoners and that they
will not back down until Yanukovych has resigned?
Mr. Earnest: There is no question that what
we're looking at here is a chaotic and violent
situation, and trying to get to the bottom
of individual actions that have taken place all
across the country is very difficult.
But we have been very clear for quite some time
now that the Yanukovych government has the primary
responsibility to ensure that violence does not
occur, or to bring violence
to an end when it does.
And that is a responsibility that they
should take seriously, and they need to exercise
the authority and control that they have to bring that
violence to an end.
There's also a responsibility on the part
of protestors to make sure that they're expressing
their concerns and expressing their right
to peaceful assembly in a peaceful way.
The Press: But it looks like
it's no longer peaceful, Josh.
Mr. Earnest: That's evident from the reports.
The Press: The reporting is -- the
footage is unbelievable.
Mr. Earnest: Again, there's --
The Press:
There's Molotov cocktails, et cetera, burning --
Mr. Earnest: That there is chaos and violence there,
that is of significant concern
to this administration.
We are calling on all sides to end the violence.
We do need to get to a place where we can have
constructive talks between the opposition
and the government.
While those talks are ongoing, the violence
should be put to rest, and that's what this
administration is working to do --
from the Vice President's repeated calls
to President Yanukovych, to senior members of the
State Department who have
traveled to Ukraine in recent weeks,
to our diplomatic staff in Ukraine right now that
is putting themselves in harm's way to try
to bring an end to the violence.
The Press: Can you give us any insight as to some
of the conversations that the President may have had
with some of the leaders in NATO, for example?
Mr. Earnest: I'm not in a position
to do that right now.
I wouldn't rule out that the President may have
some conversations later today with some of our
allies around the world that do have a vested
interest in peace and stability in Ukraine.
If we're in a position to read out those calls
later today, we'll do that.
The Press: Thank you, Josh.
Mr. Earnest: Luke, welcome
to the briefing room, buddy.
The Press: Thank you.
It's back to quarterback day.
Mr. Earnest: There you go.
The Press: You talk about chained CPI still
being on the table.
Where is the onus to go to the table?
Is it on the Speaker or the White House?
Mr. Earnest: Well, considering that
the White House has put forward a very specific, tangible,
formal offer that was included in last year's
budget proposal, there's an opportunity
for Republicans to respond to that proposal.
That includes the balanced approach that
the President has advocated.
We have not seen that from Republicans so far.
It seems to me that, based on common sense,
that Republicans have the opportunity to advance
those discussions if they choose to do so.
If they choose not to do so,
that's up to them as well, too.
The Press: They say you guys refuse to negotiate.
Mr. Earnest: Well, the first step in negotiating
is put forward a specific,
tangible compromise proposal.
And that's what the President did in December
of 2012, and here we are in February of 2014
still waiting for a constructive, specific,
formal proposal from Republicans that, again,
acknowledges the spirit
of what the President offered.
And it's important for people to understand
that the President -- this would be a little more
legitimate criticism if the President were just
putting forward the ideas that he supports
and told the Republicans to take it or leave it.
But what the President
did was very different than that.
What the President put forward was a series of
proposals that led with ideas that Republicans
themselves advocate.
Changes to entitlement programs is something that
Republicans in Congress ran for office
on and had been aggressively advocating.
The President, in a sign of his willingness
to compromise, included those entitlement changes
into the formal offer and coupled them with some
things that the President would like to see done
in the form of closing loopholes that benefit
the wealthy and the well-connected --
tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy
and the well-connected.
We haven't seen a willingness from
Republicans to do anything other than just try
to accept the things they've already said they support.
That's not the kind of spirit and compromise
that's going to lead to the kind of solution that
they say they would like to see.
The Press: With the debt limit, though, pushed
until next year and the budget figured out until
later in the year -- probably not going
to come up as a midterm issue -- do you foresee large-scale
deficit reduction talks in 2014?
Mr. Earnest: Well, again,
those are talks the President is willing to engage in.
But I think it would be fair for you to say that
the President's focus, while that offer remains
on the table, is squarely upon ideas that
he has and ideas that are supported by, as I mentioned,
Republican governors across the country
to expand economic opportunity for the middle
class; that there are a range of ideas related
to clean energy, infrastructure, research
and development, early childhood education
that the President is focused on and that the President
will have, as was reported earlier today,
some specific ideas for how we can make those kinds
of investments that are so critical to our economy
and do that in a fiscally responsible way.
So even if Republicans don't want to sit down
at the table and try to reach a broader agreement that
would result solely in deficit reduction,
maybe they'll be willing to sit down across
the table from the President and have a conversation about
policies that people on both sides of the aisle
say would be good for our economy and, most
importantly, good for middle-class families.
The Press: One of those issues
is immigration reform.
Would the White House support House Democrats
filing a discharge petition on the Senate
immigration bill in the House?
Mr. Earnest: That's a good question.
I don't think that we've taken a position
on a specific discharge petition.
If we have, I'll get back to you on that.
What we have said is that there is an opportunity
for -- now that there has been a bipartisan
compromise passed through the Senate, the process
now rests with the House.
And the President and this administration have
committed to taking a step back and giving House
Republicans the opportunity to consider
a range of proposals -- there were some principles
that leaked out from a Republican meeting
a couple of weeks ago -- for how to move forward
on immigration reform.
So we're going to give House Republicans the
opportunity to have some
conversations among themselves.
We're hopeful that they will make a decision
to act in a bipartisan way.
That's what we saw in the Senate.
And if we get that same kind of bipartisan spirit
moving in the House, then I'm confident that
we can move pretty quickly to resolve something that
both parties acknowledge needs to be fixed.
The Press: And real quick, if you guys put
your muscle behind a discharge petition, all
you need is around 28 Republicans -- you saw
they came around on the debt limit increase --
why not move on that?
Are you worried about losing immigration
as an issue out of the midterms?
Mr. Earnest: No.
I think what the President is worried about
is finally reforming a broken immigration system that
if we put in place the comprehensive,
common-sense, bipartisan compromise that Republican
senators voted for, that we would strengthen
the economy, we'd create jobs,
we'd expand economic growth and we'd reduce the deficit.
So there are a whole lot of reasons why
implementing immigration reform along the lines
of the bipartisan compromise that was reached by the
Senate would be good for the economy.
That's what the President is focused on.
The politics and the elections will take care
of themselves -- and they can take care
of themselves, frankly, in a number of ways.
I think many Republicans who know much more about
Republican politics than I do have spoken to the
danger of Republican members of Congress
continuing to oppose
bipartisan immigration reform.
Ed.
The Press: Josh, back on Ukraine,
I just wondered -- when you were talking about the full
toolkit, is this just
a conversation about sanctions,
or is a U.S. military option on the table like it is for other
crises like Syria?
Is this a different situation,
or is a military option on the table?
Mr. Earnest: Right now the things --
when I talked about options that are under active
consideration right now,
we're talking about sanctions.
The Press: And CNN specifically reported
earlier today that the sanction --
potential U.S. sanctions have been "fast-tracked" and that
they're actually already here ready for the
President's signature, obviously waiting
to see what he'll decide.
When you say "urgency," has it been fast-tracked?
Is it sitting here at the White House ready to go?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I don't want to get into the
sort of behind-the-scenes details
of this process -- understandably so.
But suffice it to say that the President and his
senior members of his team have been acting quickly
to consider the range of options that are
available, and acting with a sense of urgency because
of the terrible violence that we saw overnight.
And as soon as we have a decision to announce
on which of those options make the most sense and
would produce -- are most likely to produce
the intended result, then we'll
let you know of that decision.
The Press: You today and the President last
night at the news conference sort
of downplayed that this is a Cold War kind
of back-and-forth with Putin.
Wall Street Journal on its front page today reports,
"The Obama administration has found itself
repeatedly caught off guard by Putin's moves in
places like Syria, Iran, Egypt and even NSA leaker
Edward Snowden."
Is there frustration here at the White House that
there's at least a perception around the
world that Putin is in control over the President
on some of these issues?
Mr. Earnest: I'm not sure that's the prevailing
sentiment around the globe.
It might be the prevailing sentiment in the Wall
Street Journal editorial -- The Press: This is
the front-page news story.
Mr. Earnest: Okay.
Okay.
Well, again, if you take a look at some of the
examples that you've cited,
there is a lot of common ground between the
United States and Russia that could be staked out.
But again, it is not in Russia's interest and it's
not in the world's interest for there
to be this continued violence
and instability in Ukraine.
It is not in Russia's interest, I think as they
themselves have said, for their client state, Syria,
to be coming apart at the seams based
on some sectarian tensions.
The Press: Right, but in that case --
the President has made that case directly
to Putin and he doesn't seem to be listening.
So isn't there a perception that he's --
you've made that case on Syria again and again,
client state, and he doesn't listen.
Mr. Earnest: We have.
But I guess the point I'm trying to make here
is it's not as if Mr. Putin has his feet up on his
desk, sighing with relief about the current
situation in either Ukraine
or Syria right now.
The fact of the matter is it is not in Russia's
interest for there to be this continuing sectarian
violence that is threatening to pull apart
this client state, the only client state that
Russia has in the Middle East right now.
So I guess this highlights something that the
President alluded to in his comments yesterday,
that resolutions to these terrible situations
are not a zero-sum game; that trying to bring peace
and stability -- or at least to get both sides to put
down arms and sit across the negotiating table from
one another -- to try to put in place governments
that are actually representative
of the will of the people are in the broader global interest,
and that there is nothing for the United States
to gain at the expense of Russia for some of these
changes to start happening.
In fact, the perpetuation of this violence, frankly,
runs counter to the national interests
of the United States.
And I assume and I think it stands to reason that
President Putin would thing
the same thing about Russia's interests in these situations.
The Press: Quick last one.
Several Republicans on Capitol Hill have
expressed outrage about an FCC proposal
to put monitors into news rooms.
Is there a White House position on that?
Mr. Earnest: I haven't seen that report.
I'll have to take a look at that.
Carol.
The Press: You guys have repeatedly said that
you're not going to preview the President's
budget, and yet today you're coming out with not
only specific details of his budget but also the
general theme on how he's approaching his budget.
Why are you doing that now?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I guess a couple of reasons.
There's been a lot of interest in trying
to understand what the President's approach
will be in putting forward his budget, that budgets
traditionally have been an opportunity
for an administration to lay out its principles,
its priorities when it comes to funding the government.
You've heard people in both parties talk about
how budgets are basically nothing more than
an articulation of one party's
or one individual's priorities, that budgets
are about priorities.
And so given all of the interest and attention on
the President's priorities over the last couple
of weeks, particularly in the aftermath
of the State of the Union, it makes sense
that I try to explain to you what those priorities
are based on an Associated Press report today.
The Press: Is there a message that you're trying
to send at this particular time to Republicans?
Mr. Earnest: No -- well,
at least not a message that's any different
than the message that the President
delivered in his State of the Union address;
that the focal point of this President's domestic
policy-making agenda is expanding economic
opportunity for the middle class,
and that he is going to leave no stone
unturned in his search for policies that will
strengthen the likelihood that economic opportunity
will be expanded in this country, and the President
will leave no stone unturned in his search
for individuals on the other side of the aisle who are
willing to work with him to achieve that agenda.
But the President has also been clear that
he's not just going to wait for those individuals
on the other side of the aisle to materialize.
The Press: Well, they say that he's throwing
in the towel, that that's what this budget is.
Mr. Earnest: Well, I'm not sure
in which context they mean.
The Press: Meaning that he's not looking
to negotiate, that he's, like you said,
setting out his own priorities and championing
his own priorities, and not trying
to convene some kind of --
Mr. Earnest: Is that somebody from
the Speaker's office who said that?
Did you point out to them in that conversation
that it was their boss who said that they were
done negotiating with the President?
The Press: No, I'm asking you what --
Mr. Earnest: Yes, I know.
I'm not critiquing your journalism skills here.
I'm just sort of pointing out that it's slightly
ironic for somebody who has resolutely declared
on national television that they're no longer
negotiating with the President to criticize
the President for refusing to negotiate.
The fact of the matter is the President is
articulating very clearly what his principles are.
They are encapsulated in his budget.
And you and all the Republicans
on Capitol Hill will have the opportunity to pore over
the details of that budget when we release the tables
in a couple of weeks.
The Press: So does he -- just to get back
to what he plans to do with them then,
if he's not going to convene some negotiations around what
he's proposing, is he going to hit the road
and try to sell these things to the public?
Is there a different approach he's going
to be taking in that respect?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think you can continue
to see -- you can expect that the President will
continue to do what he's done the last several
weeks, which is to lay out very clearly what
his principles are, what his priorities are when
it comes to putting in place policies that will expand
economic opportunity for the middle class.
The President will go on the road and talk about
what those priorities are.
He will urge Congress to act on them
and he will demonstrate his willingness
to act where Congress doesn't.
It doesn't mean that he's given up on Congress at
all, but it does mean that he is not going to allow
congressional inaction to prevent progress
in Washington, D.C. on a set of priorities
that the President thinks are critical
for the long-term success of this country.
Viqueira.
The Press: Thank you, sir.
So "spheres of influence" and Cold War chessboards
notwithstanding, obviously Russia
is a big player in Ukraine and in this crisis.
And to a large degree, it's an adversarial
relationship with the United States, especially
over this back-and-forth over the last several
weeks culminating in the President's comments
last night about Vladimir Putin.
So why doesn't the President pick up the
phone and call Vladimir Putin and try to come
to some sort of agreement as Kyiv burns?
Mr. Earnest: Well, the President tried
to make this point last night, and I will not
do it as eloquently as he did but I'm going to give
it a shot anyway -- as long as I'm standing up here.
The fact of the matter is the dispute that
is ongoing in Ukraine now, as tragic and as violent
as it is now, is not the result of differing
perspectives in Ukraine between
the United States and Russia.
That may have been true in the '70s and '80s,
but it's not true today.
That the turmoil that we're seeing in Ukraine
is directly related to the aspirations of the
Ukrainian people and their sense that their
government is not doing a good job of representing
their wishes and their aspirations.
And you have people in Ukraine
who are not focused on whether or not the United States would
benefit from one decision
of the Yanukovych administration.
They're focused on whether or not the Ukrainian
people benefit from a decision or two that
is made by the Yanukovych administration.
So the focus on this situation shouldn't
be on this outdated notion of spheres of influence.
It should be focused on a peaceful resolution
of the concerns of the Ukrainian people.
The Press: Yes, but it is essentially
an East-West divide that triggered this, right?
The EU versus Moscow and Yanukovych's decision
to go to Moscow for loan guarantees.
So is there -- as the President looks over this
range of options on sanctions,
is there a concern that sanctions might have
the opposite of the intended effect
and drive Yanukovych further into the arms of Russia?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I'll say a couple
of things about that.
The first is -- and Major sort of asked a version
of this question earlier, which is that
we do have a -- we are carefully considering what our
options are when it comes to sanctions, because
there are a range of consequences,
some intended and some not.
So we're going to carefully consider
the options that are available,
and if and when a decision is made we'll
make an announcement about those.
But our concern does not -- our principal concern
here does not lie in whether
or not Vladimir Putin stands to gain or lose from the ongoing
conflict in Ukraine.
Our principal concern is making sure that violence
in Ukraine comes to an end, that the opposition
and the government sit down at the negotiating
table and reach an agreement to move forward
in a way that will unify the government and
integrate the Ukrainian government
back into the international community.
That is the principal focus of our policymaking.
And while there may be some geopolitical intrigue
about whether or not Vladimir Putin's sphere
of influence is enhanced or reduced by that outcome,
that may be interesting sort of parlor
conversation, but it's not how this administration
views the dynamics that
are at play in this situation.
April.
The Press: Josh, two topics.
Going back to the ACA, this administration has
said for months that they are expecting many people,
particularly young people, to sign up at the last
minute, and then you tell
Joe Johns there's some bad news.
So what is it?
I mean, are you expecting bad news, or are you
expecting that they're not going to do what you
thought they were going to do?
Mr. Earnest: Well, in terms of the bad news,
I think Joe brought up what some people might describe
as bad news, and I characterized some things
that many people I think would describe
as good news.
Our projections about the signup rate of young
adults under the Affordable Care Act
has not changed.
We still do anticipate -- and this is informed
strongly by the experience
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when
they established their health care exchange
under their health care reform law.
What they found was that the preponderance of young
adults signed up near the end of the window.
And we do have a similar expectation that the rate
of young adults who sign up will increase
as we reach the -- as we get closer to the deadline.
The Press: So you're expecting that 7 million
mark to be hit by March 31st?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think what I said was what
I expect is that the rate of young people signing
up for the health care plan will continue
to increase as we get closer to the deadline.
The Press: All right.
And last question.
President Obama -- according to the civil
rights leaders who met with him on Tuesday,
the President did not give, divulge details about
"My Brother's Keeper."
But could you tell us this -- will the initiative
follow along the lines that have been going on
for the last couple of years with Eric Holder as
the co-chair of the initiative and more grants
to be given out for organizations like the
Urban League and the NAACP to help keep at-risk black
males out of prison or get them jobs?
I mean, what can you tell us?
Mr. Earnest: I certainly welcome your
interest in this very important issue, April.
And the President does view this
as an opportunity for him to exercise some authority
by using the phone on his desk to mobilize people
all across the country in pursuit of this worthy
goal of making sure -- of doing more to meet the
needs of and support in particular young, black
men in this country.
We're going to have some more details about how
that program is structured and what some of the
commitments the people all across the country have
made in support of this effort next week when the
President has an event on this here
at the White House.
The Press: When you say that he wants to do more
and picking up the phone, we're hearing that it's
not necessarily a call to Congress,
it's a call to the private sector.
Wouldn't it be more, getting more done by going
to Congress and getting more enacted
on this effort?
Mr. Earnest: Well, we certainly would welcome
some congressional action on this.
But there is a lot that can be done
in the private sector and that there are a lot of people
in communities all across the country in academia,
in business, other political leaders who are concerned
about this issue and bring their own resources
to trying to address this problem.
And, again, I don't want to get ahead
of the President's announcement.
But I think the President is optimistic
that we can make some progress on this.
And the President can make some progress
on this by mobilizing people all across the country
to take some action.
Mike.
The Press: Over the last 24 hours or so --
on Ukraine -- the President has been pretty firm
in siding with the protestors and putting the brunt
of the responsibility on the government similar
to the way that he did in Syria over the many months
of that conflict there.
Is there any concern on the part of the
administration that in the end there are some
elements of the protestors that are nationalistic and
that are maybe not the kinds of people
that the United States wants to be siding with?
Is that kind of dilemma similar to some
of the issues that have played out in Syria as well?
Is that being talked about?
Mr. Earnest: Well, they are obviously
two very different situations.
But you're right that, again, the situation
on the ground in Kyiv and in some other cities
in Ukraine is chaotic and violent,
and so, in some cases, it is difficult to determine
who is responsible for what specific action.
But what is undeniably true -- and this has been
an operating principle for some time in terms
of our dealings with Ukraine -- is that the government
does have the principal responsibility for
restoring peace and ensuring that violence
is not perpetrated against peaceful protestors.
It's also apparent that at least
in some situations that that has not happened.
And that is why you saw the State Department put
this visa ban in place, and it's why the President
is considering a range of other options.
But we've also been just as clear that just because
the government has the principal responsibility
to keep the peace, it does not absolve protestors
from their responsibility to exercise
their right of assembly in a peaceful manner.
We'll do a couple more here.
Roger.
The Press: Thank you.
Chained CPI again.
The CBO reported that that would raise about $163
billion over 10 years.
Since that's not going to be in the budget now,
will you be proposing some alternative for that?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Roger,
there will be an opportunity for you to pore over the details
of the budget when we release the budget and all the
attendant indexes and charts and tables
that go along with it in a couple of weeks.
But I made reference to the fact earlier that
there are already a number of things,
a number of policies that have been in place
that have substantially reduced the deficit.
The deficit is coming down at a rate now that
is faster than at any time since
the end of World War II.
I mentioned the statistic that what the budget will
show is that at the end of the 10-year window,
the deficit as a percentage of GDP will
be below 2 percent.
The previous target for this was trying
to get the deficit, this percentage below 3 percent.
There are a number of reasons for that.
One important reason for that is we have enjoyed
some success in reducing health care costs.
At least some of that success is attributable
to the Affordable Care Act; that reducing health care
costs, it turns out, isn't just good for the economy
and good for small business owners
who want to provide health insurance
to their workers.
It's not just good for middle-class families who
want to make sure that their family members
can get health care.
It turns out that it's actually good for the
government who has to bear
a lot of health care costs.
The Press: You're not going to do an alternate
-- you're not going to have a substitute?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I'm not going to get ahead
of where we are on the budget.
But what the budget will show --
I don't want to get ahead of what details
may be produced in the budget.
But what the budget will show is that we've made
substantial progress in reducing the deficit, and
it will demonstrate that the President is focusing
his domestic policymaking agenda on ideas
for expanding opportunity for the middle class.
The Press: And one other.
Can you confirm the report that the budget
is going to increase spending by $56 billion?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think what you're
referring to is one other aspect of the budget
proposal, which is that the budget proposal will
reflect the spending levels that were agreed
to in the compromise between Senator Murray
and Congressman Ryan.
The Press: That's not
in the discretionary number, right?
Mr. Earnest: Well, let me finish this part
of it, which is in addition to that, in addition to those
spending levels, those compromise spending levels
that were agreed upon at the end of last year,
the President will also propose an opportunity,
growth and security initiative.
And that initiative will be a package of ideas
for expanding economic opportunity.
Now, it's important for you to understand that the
ideas, this initiative that the President will
propose will be fully paid for.
It will be fully offset;
it will be deficit-neutral.
But the ideas that will be included in here are ideas
that you've heard the President talk about --
manufacturing hubs, fully funding the manufacturing
hub program that would facilitate innovation
in the manufacturing industry in communities
all across the country.
It would inject additional resources into reforming
our skills programs to make these training
programs more job-driven.
It would inject funding into early childhood
education programs so that children all across
the country would have access to high-quality
early childhood education.
In some cases, that's pre-K programs.
In other cases, that's Head Start programs.
But there are a range of ideas that
will be included in this initiative
that will be fully paid for.
And they will be sort of the separate module
from a budget proposal that the President will roll out
that reflects the compromise spending levels
reached by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan.
The Press: Just to clarify, you ticked
off a bunch of things -- the hubs and the education,
things like that.
Those have been all proposed in last year's
budget and some of them the year before.
Is there anything new?
Mr. Earnest: Stay tuned and we'll have some more
details on what's included in there.
I would anticipate some new ideas
on the budget as well.
We'll just do a couple more here.
Scott.
The Press: "Spheres of influence" aside,
what is the White House's appraisal of how much
influence Putin has over the Yanukovych government?
Mr. Earnest: Well, there are probably some
experts in the United States government
who are a little more well-versed on the history
between President Putin and President Yanukovych.
The focal point of our policymaking is ensuring
that whoever the leader is of Ukraine,
and regardless of what that person's relationship is with
the President of Russia, that the government of Ukraine
reflects the will and aspirations
of the Ukrainian people, and that when those aspirations
or when that will is not represented by the
government, that there's a willingness
by the government to respect that will, to respect the right
-- the basic right of the citizens to express
their opposition, and to demonstrate a willingness
to peacefully sit across the negotiating table
and try to broker some political agreements
without resorting to violence.
That's the criteria that we're looking for here.
And so the question that you're asking about
the relationship between President Yanukovych and
President Putin is an interesting one and not
irrelevant, but it is not the focal point
of our decision-making at this point.
The Press: But if your goal is a government that
reflects the will of the Ukrainian people,
isn't Putin a key part of making that happen?
And wouldn't that be a focus of your engagement
of this crisis in general?
Mr. Earnest: Look, Ukraine obviously
has a relationship with their neighbor, Russia,
both a historical one but also a geographic one, because
they're in such close proximity to one another.
So, again, it's not a matter of that
relationship, of the relationship between
the President of Ukraine and
the President of Russia, being irrelevant.
But the focal point here is ensuring that the
government of Ukraine is both respecting but also
representing the will of the people.
And because of their failure in recent months
to serve the will of the people,
we've seen a lot of conflict and strife in Ukraine.
And that's why we're urging both sides
to put down arms, to sit down at the negotiating table
and try to hammer out a political agreement here
that will allow the government of Ukraine
and the country of Ukraine to move forward
in a way that better integrates them
into the international community.
And they can do all of that without there
having to be a complicated assessment
of the geopolitical consequences for Russia,
the United States, or any other country.
Jared, I'm going to give you the last one.
The Press: You said, Josh,
earlier that chained CPI -- it's still on the table.
Does the White House view chained CPI as worth
taking up only in some kind of transaction
for something out of the Republicans?
Or is the deficit reduction the chained CPI
would give you worth doing on its own?
Mr. Earnest: It's a really good question.
I'm glad that you asked, and here's why:
This is a really important principle for the President
not just because it's good policy,
but because it's simple fairness.
The President is not going to be in a position where
he is going to ask senior citizens
and middle-class families to make sacrifices in pursuit
of reducing the deficit and not ask the wealthy
and well-connected to make some sacrifices, too;
that it's just not fair and it's not good policy.
So if Republicans -- and Republicans thus far have
refused to even consider closing any loophole that
would cost a corporation or a wealthy individual
one penny; that the second you bring up the prospect
of closing tax loopholes, Republicans
want to walk away.
And why they think that it's good policymaking
to ask senior citizens and veterans and middle-class
families to make sacrifices,
but say that corporations and wealthy individuals and
well-connected individuals shouldn't have
to bear any of that responsibility or make
any of those sacrifices, it doesn't make sense.
It's not fair and it's not good policy.
So that's why the President has insisted
that if we're going to ask seniors and others to make
sacrifices by changing entitlement programs,
then we're also going to ask corporations
and well-connected individuals to give up some
of their tax loopholes.
The Press: So you're saying that chained CPI,
while it would reduce the deficit, either doesn't
do it enough or doesn't do it in a significant way that
would make it worth doing on its own?
Mr. Earnest: I'm saying that it would not be fair
to just ask seniors to make a sacrifice
in support of reducing the deficit without also
asking the wealthy and well-connected
to give up some of their tax loopholes.
That is an important principle.
It's a principle of fairness.
It's also a principle of good policy.
So if Republicans hearing this exchange are thinking
to themselves, well, you know what, that makes
a lot of sense, maybe I should call the White
House and say, hey, look, I'm willing to close some
tax loopholes if you're willing to put some
entitlement reform changes on the table --
then I would encourage those Republicans to call the
White House right now.
I'm sure we can set up a meeting and we can have
a conversation about that.
But that offer has been on the table for more
than a year and we have not seen any constructive
engagement from the other side.
Now, I'm not really sure why that is.
Is that because Republicans are interested
in protecting the tax benefits enjoyed
by the people who are funding their campaigns?
Is it because Republicans have a philosophical
objection to entitlement programs?
You'd have to ask them why
this isn't a reasonable proposal.
But the President thinks
it is a common-sense proposal.
People all across the country think
that this approach to reducing our deficit makes
a lot of sense.
We just haven't seen a willingness
from the other side to engage
in a constructive conversation about that.
But, again, if the fact of this conversation is going
to change that and cause more Republicans
to reconsider their position, then we're standing
by and ready to have that conversation.
Thanks, everybody.