Political Headlines May 7, 2013: Mark Sanford Wins South Carolina Congressional Seat

POLITICAL HEADLINES

http://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Mark Sanford Wins South Carolina Congressional Seat

Source: ABC News Radio, 5-7-13

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Mark Sanford has pulled off a political comeback some thought impossible….

Now Sanford is back, having retaken the South Carolina House seat he held in the 1990s. With 187 of 317 precincts reporting, Sanford led 54 percent to Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch’s 45 percent….READ MORE

Political Headlines May 7, 2013: Mark Sanford makes political comeback wins South Carolina House seat in special election

POLITICAL HEADLINES

http://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Mark Sanford wins South Carolina special election

Source: WaPo, 5-7-13

Sanford voting in Charleston, S.C. (AP Photo/Rainier Ehrhardt)

Sanford voting in Charleston, S.C. (AP Photo/Rainier Ehrhardt)

Mark Sanford won the South Carolina special election comfortably Tuesday, emerging victorious in a competitive race for what in normal circumstances is a safe Republican seat.

The former governor beat Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert Busch, for the state’s 1st congressional district.

In the end, Sanford won by nine points, 54 percent to 45 percent, according to the Associated Press’s tally….READ MORE

Political Headlines April 30, 2013: Ed Markey, Gabriel Gomez Win Senate Primaries in Massachusetts

POLITICAL HEADLINES

http://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Ed Markey, Gabriel Gomez Win Senate Primaries in Massachusetts

Source: ABC News Radio, 4-30-13

Democratic U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Republican businessman Gabriel Gomez are the winners in Tuesday’s primary for the special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated when John Kerry became Secretary of State….

Markey and Gomez will face off in the general election on June 25….READ MORE

Political Headlines November 28, 2012: Susan Rice Gains Little Ground on Day 2 With Skeptical Republican Senators

POLITICAL HEADLINES

http://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 112TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Susan Rice Gains Little Ground on Day 2 With Skeptical Senators

Source: ABC News Radio, 11-28-12

Official White House photo by Pete Souza

Day two of Susan Rice’s charm offensive on Capitol Hill brought little support for the U.N. ambassador to become the next secretary of state if nominated by President Obama.

After meeting privately with Rice Wednesday morning, moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said she still had questions about the embassy attack in Libya that “remain troubling” and needed to be answered before she can support Rice for secretary of state….READ MORE

Campaign Headlines November 4, 2012: Mitt Romney Makes Last Push in Pennsylvania, Tries to Turn State Red

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

Romney Makes Last Push in Pennsylvania, Tries to Turn State Red

FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

With just more than 24 hours until voters can head to the polls in Pennsylvania, Mitt Romney made a last minute stop there on Sunday, drawing tens of thousands to a rally that his campaign hopes will push him to a win in a state they now see as an opportunity this Tuesday.

“This audience and your voices are being heard all over the nation,” said Romney.  “They’re being heard in my heart.  The people of America understand we’re taking back the White House because we’re going to win Pennsylvania!”…READ MORE

Campaign Buzz June 5, 2012: Mitt Romney Sweeps Tuesday 5 GOP Primaries with Wins in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota & California

CAMPAIGN 2012

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University. Ms. Goodman has also contributed the overviews, and chronologies in History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 4th edition, edited by Gil Troy, Fred L. Israel, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger published by Facts on File, Inc. in 2011.

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

IN FOCUS: ROMNEY SWEEPS TUESDAY’S 5 GOP PRIMARIES IN MONTANA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, SOUTH DAKOTA & CALIFORNIA

Romney sweeps 5 primaries; redistricting shakes up Congressional races: Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney picked up more ammo in his quest for the White House, sweeping primaries in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota and California on Tuesday night…. – CNN, 6-6-12

 

  • Romney wins Republican primaries in 5 statesCBS News, 6-5-12
  • Republican Romney wins five more US state pollsAFP, 6-6-12
  • Five more states boost Romney delegate totalPhiladelphia Inquirer, 6-6-12
  • Romney sweeps primaries in 5 statesNews24, 6-6-12
  • Mitt Romney sweeps primaries in 5 states: The results aren’t surprising because the presidential candidate, who spent the day stumping for Latino support in Texas, has effectively claimed the nomination. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney campaigns in Fort Worth…. – LAT, 6-5-12
  • Romney wins Republican primaries in 4 states, adding to presumptive nominee’s delegates: Mitt Romney has won the Montana Republican presidential primary on his way to what could be a five-state sweep. Romney also won presidential primaries Tuesday in New Jersey, South Dakota and New Mexico. California is also holding a primary…. – WaPo, 6-5-12

Campaign Headlines May 29, 2012: Ted Cruz Tea Party Candidate Vies for Open Texas Senate Seat in Primary

CAMPAIGN 2012

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University. Ms. Goodman has also contributed the overviews, and chronologies in History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 4th edition, edited by Gil Troy, Fred L. Israel, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger published by Facts on File, Inc. in 2011.

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

IN FOCUS: TED CRUZ TEA PARTY CANDIDATE VIES FOR OPEN TEXAS SENATE SEAT IN PRIMARY

Tea partier Ted Cruz vies for open Texas Senate seat: Following Republican primary victories in Utah, Indiana, and Nebraska, the tea party movement is hoping for more good news on Tuesday in Texas, where Ted Cruz is taking on the Republican establishment in his campaign for the US Senate…. – ABC News, 5-29-12

  • Cruz confident he’ll earn runoff spot in GOP Senate race: Republican Senate hopeful Ted Cruz said the momentum of Tuesday’s primary election was with him this Memorial Day. He started campaigning in Richardson Monday morning, calling voters on the telephone from aboard a Tea Party… KHOU, 5-29-12
  • Much-watched Texas US Senate race may need runoff: The polls have opened in Texas for the primary election that’s a step leading to a new US senator for the state. Republican US Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is not seeking another term. Nine candidates are squaring … FOX 4 News, 5-29-12
  • Heated primary races await voters’ choice: Texas voters will at last troop to the polls Tuesday, after weeks of uncertainty and disputation over congressional and legislative redistricting, to cast ballots in the much-delayed primary elections. Voters will choose their nominees … Houston Chronicle, 5-27-12
  • Texas GOP Senate Primary: Big Spending, Big Fight for Conservative Crown: In Texas, the GOP primary to fill Kay Bailey Hutchison’s US Senate seat has become a costly and bitter fight that may not end today. Texas election code stipulates that candidates must receive at least 50 percent of the vote to win their party’s…. – ABC News, 5-29-12

Campaign Headlines May 22, 2012: Rep. Paul Ryan blames President Obama for Nation’s Economic Woes at Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library Speech “A Rendezvous with Reagan’s Legacy: Lessons for 2012″

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

Rep. Paul Ryan
Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) speaks Tuesday at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. (Jae C. Hong / Associated Press / May 22, 2012)

Paul Ryan Says Romney Will ‘Save This Country’

Source: ABC News Radio, 5-22-12
Rep. Paul Ryan, one of the top contenders floated in GOP circles as a potential running mate to Mitt Romney, addressed a sold-out audience Tuesday evening at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library, telling the friendly audience that he believes Romney will “save this country.”
The 42-year-old Wisconsin Republican, who serves as chairman of the House Budget committee, delivered an address titled “A Rendezvous with Reagan’s Legacy: Lessons for 2012.”  In a speech where President Reagan was named at least a dozen times, Ryan contrasted the GOP’s proposals to reform entitlements and taxes with President Obama and the Democrats’ policies….READ MORE

IN FOCUS: REP. PAUL RYAN BLAMES OBAMA FOR ECONOMIC WOES IN REAGAN LIBRARY SPEECH

Possible VP pick pounds Obama on spending: Rep. Paul Ryan, a potential pick to join Mitt Romney’s presidential ticket, blamed President Barack Obama on Tuesday for anemic job growth and unchecked spending and debt that he said are pushing the nation toward decline…. – AP, 5-22-12

  • Paul Ryan coy on whether he’d join the GOP ticket: Rep. Paul Ryan, who is considered a contender to be Mitt Romney’s running mate, is predictably evasive in addressing the question during an appearance at the Reagan library in Simi Valley. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) speaks Tuesday at the Reagan Library…. – LAT, 5-23-12
  • Paul Ryan goes into Obama attack mode at the Reagan library: Rep. Paul Ryan on Tuesday was the third Republican with vice-presidential buzz to speak at the Reagan library this election season. But his speech had a different purpose…. – CS Monitor, 5-23-12

Campaign Buzz May 22, 2012: Mitt Romney Sweeps Arkansas, Kentucky Primaries — Closer to Amassing Delegates Needed for GOP / Republican Nomination & Out Performs Obama

CAMPAIGN 2012

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University. Ms. Goodman has also contributed the overviews, and chronologies in History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 4th edition, edited by Gil Troy, Fred L. Israel, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger to be published by Facts on File, Inc. in late 2011.

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

Romney Wins Arkansas, Kentucky Primaries, Outperforms Obama in Both States

Source: ABC News Radio, 5-22-12

Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Alex Wong/Getty Images

Mitt Romney’s victories Tuesday night in Arkansas and Kentucky may have been foregone conclusions, but besides two more batches of delegates on his way to the 1,144 he needs to clinch the Republican presidential nomination, they also gave him something else — bragging rights over President Obama.

In Kentucky, Romney, who is expected to clinch the nomination after the Texas primary on May 29, received a higher percentage of the vote in the Republican presidential primary than Obama received in the Democratic presidential primary. With 99.9 percent of precincts reporting, Romney had 67 percent of the vote, while Obama had 58 percent….READ MORE

IN FOCUS: ROMNEY SWEEPS KENTUCKY & ARKANSAS PRIMARIES

Romney inches closer to GOP nomination with sweep: Mitt Romney is creeping ever closer to ditching the ‘presumptive’ tag in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. Romney swept the Kentucky and Arkansas Republican presidential primaries yesterday…. – AP, 5-23-12

  • Kentucky and Arkansas: Romney romps, Obama struggles, also rans remain also rans: With the presidential nominees of both parties already decided, it is tempting to forget that some states are still holding primaries. June 5th offers contests in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico…. – Washington Times, 5-23-12
  • Ky., Ark. primaries push Romney toward inevitable nomination: Tuesday’s presidential primaries in Kentucky and Arkansas served one major function: ensuring that Mitt Romney can lock-up the delegates he needs to secure the nomination when Texas votes next week…. – USA Today, 5-22-12
  • Sweep assures his GOP nod: Mitt Romney won all 42 delegates in Kentucky and 21 of 33 in Arkansas. He spent Tuesday evening fund-raising in New York…. – Philadelphia Inquirer, 5-23-12
  • Mitt Romney inches closer to GOP nomination with sweep: Mitt Romney speaks in Lansing, Mich. Romney is looking to pad his lead in the race for convention delegates in Republican presidential primaries Tuesday in Arkansas and Kentucky as he inches closer to the nomination he’s all but certain to win…. – Chicago Sun-Times, 5-23-12

Campaign Headlines May 22, 2012: Republican & Democratic Arkansas, Kentucky Presidential Primaries — Romney Set to Win — Obama may Lose Arkansas to TN Attorney John Wolfe

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

Arkansas, Kentucky Primaries: What to Watch For

Source: ABC News Radio, 5-22-12

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Arkansas and Kentucky hold their state and presidential primaries on Tuesday.

A total of 81 delegates are at stake in the GOP presidential primaries, which will undoubtedly bring Mitt Romney much closer to, although still slightly short of, the 1,144 delegates he needs to clinch the GOP nomination.  Romney currently has 992 delegates, ABC News projects.

Mathematically speaking, Romney will not be able to hit the 1,144 mark on Tuesday.  That is expected to happen next week, when Texas holds its primary on May 29.

The races to watch on Tuesday will be the Democratic presidential primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky….READ MORE

Full Text Obama Presidency April 3, 2012: President Barack Obama’s Speech at the Associated Press Luncheon Attacks GOP / Republican Budget as Radical & “Social Darwinism”

POLITICAL SPEECHES & DOCUMENTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 112TH CONGRESS:

President Obama delivers remarks at the Associated Press Luncheon (April 3, 2012)President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Associated Press (AP) Luncheon at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C., April 3, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Obama Calls G.O.P. Budget Plan ‘Social Darwinism’

Source: NYT, 4-3-12

President Obama delivered a speech attacking the Republican budget plan on Tuesday in Washington.

Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

President Obama delivered a speech attacking the Republican budget plan on Tuesday in Washington.

President Obama opened a full-frontal assault Tuesday on the budget adopted by House Republicans, saying it would greatly deepen inequality in the country….READ MORE

IN FOCUS: PRESIDENT OBAMA ATTACKS REPUBLICAN BUDGET IN SPEECH TO ASSOCIATED PRESS

Obama blasts Ryan, Romney, Republican budget USA Today, 4-3-12

Obama Calls G.O.P. Budget Plan ‘Social Darwinism’: President Obama delivered a speech attacking the Republican budget plan on Tuesday in Washington. President Obama opened a full-frontal assault Tuesday on the budget adopted by House Republicans, saying it would greatly deepen inequality in the country…. NYT, 4-3-12

  • Obama says election choice ‘unambiguously clear': Making his case for re-election, President Barack Obama said Tuesday the nation must restore a sense of security for hard-working Americans and stand for a government willing to help those in hard…. – AP, 4-3-12
  • US election 2012: Barack Obama accuses Republicans of ‘social Darwinism': President Barack Obama on Tuesday night accused the Republican party of trying to impose “social Darwinism” on America by slashing public spending and radically shrinking the scope of the US government…. – Telegraph.co.uk, 4-3-12
  • Obama Says Reagan Couldn’t Get Through GOP Primary: President Barack Obama says if President Ronald Reagan was running for president now, he “could not get through a Republican primary today.” Obama said during a question-and-answer session with newspaper editors on Tuesday…. – AP, 4-3-12
  • Obama: GOP ‘doubling down’ on faulty policies: President Barack Obama says a budget plan presented by House Republicans represents a “doubling down” on a failed economic policy. In a speech before newspaper executives, Obama says a $3.5 trillion budget plan pushed by House Republicans … – CBS News, 4-3-12
  • Obama attacks, mocks Romney and Ryan budget: President Barack Obama jumped fully into the 2012 race Tuesday, naming his likely Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, for the first time in an official presidential speech that accused the Republican establishment of embracing polices that threaten the … – Politico, 4-3-12
  • Obama: GOP budget a “Trojan horse”: Launching a broad argument for his re-election, President Obama on Tuesday delivered a scathing criticism of House Republicans’ proposed 2013 budget proposal…. – CBS News, 4-3-12
  • Obama Calls GOP Budget ‘A Trojan Horse…for Thinly-Veiled Social Darwinism…': “Whoever he may be, the next president will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their … – Fox News, 4-3-12
  • On primary day, Obama lambastes GOP budget plan as ‘Trojan horse': President Obama launched an election-year broadside Tuesday against House Republicans — and particularly Rep. Paul Ryan — denouncing their $3.5 trillion budget plan as a “Trojan horse” and “radical” overhaul that is wrong for America…. – Fox News, 4-3-12

Three Charts Illustrating Two Different Visions for Our Nation

Source: WH, 4-3-12
The President believes this is a make or break moment for the middle class and those working to reach it.  That’s why he has put forward a blueprint for an economy built to last – one where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.

Today at the Associated Press Luncheon, the President discussed how his vision differs with the radical vision laid out in the House Republican Budget:

“This Congressional Republican budget, however, is something different altogether.  It’s a Trojan Horse.  Disguised as deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.  It’s nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism.  It’s antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everyone who’s willing to work for it – a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class.  And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last – education and training; research and development – it’s a prescription for decline.”

The President’s approach to reducing our deficit is a balanced approach that asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share, achieves significant health savings and enacts sensible spending cuts while making the investments we need to have a strong middle class.

Take a look at how the President’s approach and the Congressional Republican policies stack up side by side:

Side by Side – The President’s Budget vs. Republican Budget

It’s a test of fairness.  The Congressional Republican budget gives every millionaire and billionaire a tax cut of at least $150,000 paid for by ending Medicare as we know it and gutting programs that help the middle class and our economy.  This graphic shows just what that $150,000 means to those programs our economic recovery depends on:

The House Republican Budget – The Budget Fails the Test of Balance, Fairness, and Shared Responsibility

By standing by massive tax cuts we can’t afford paid for by the middle class and seniors, the Republican establishment has rubber stamped the economic policies of the past that caused the financial crisis in the first place.   Just take a look at how much the Republican policies of the past added to our deficit:

 Changes in Deficit Projections Since January 2001

At this critical moment for our economy and the middle class, the President will continue to stand by a policy of fairness that reflects our core values as a nation.

POLITICAL QUOTES & SPEECHES

Remarks by the President at the Associated Press Luncheon

Source: WH, 4-3-12

Marriott Wardman Park
Washington, D.C.
12:35 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Please have a seat.  Well, good afternoon, and thank you to Dean Singleton and the board of the Associated Press for inviting me here today.  It is a pleasure to speak to all of you — and to have a microphone that I can see.  (Laughter.)  Feel free to transmit any of this to Vladimir if you see him.  (Laughter.)

Clearly, we’re already in the beginning months of another long, lively election year.  There will be gaffes and minor controversies, be hot mics and Etch-a-Sketch moments.  You will cover every word that we say, and we will complain vociferously about the unflattering words that you write — unless, of course, you’re writing about the other guy — in which case, good job.  (Laughter.)

But there are also big, fundamental issues at stake right now — issues that deserve serious debate among every candidate, and serious coverage among every reporter.  Whoever he may be, the next President will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression.  Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage.  Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit.  A debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down.

In the face of all these challenges, we’re going to have to answer a central question as a nation:  What, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of security for people who are willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country?  Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by?  Or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules?

This is not just another run-of-the-mill political debate.  I’ve said it’s the defining issue of our time, and I believe it. It’s why I ran in 2008.  It’s what my presidency has been about. It’s why I’m running again.  I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and I can’t remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear.

Keep in mind, I have never been somebody who believes that government can or should try to solve every problem.  Some of you know my first job in Chicago was working with a group of Catholic churches that often did more good for the people in their communities than any government program could.  In those same communities I saw that no education policy, however well crafted, can take the place of a parent’s love and attention.

As President, I’ve eliminated dozens of programs that weren’t working, and announced over 500 regulatory reforms that will save businesses and taxpayers billions, and put annual domestic spending on a path to become the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower held this office — since before I was born.  I know that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not Washington, which is why I’ve cut taxes for small business owners 17 times over the last three years.

So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.  My mother and the grandparents who raised me instilled the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility that remain the cornerstone of the American idea.  But I also share the belief of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln — a belief that, through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.

That belief is the reason this country has been able to build a strong military to keep us safe, and public schools to educate our children.  That belief is why we’ve been able to lay down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce.  That belief is why we’ve been able to support the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, and unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries.

That belief is also why we’ve sought to ensure that every citizen can count on some basic measure of security.  We do this because we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any moment, might face hard times, might face bad luck, might face a crippling illness or a layoff.  And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee health care and a source of income after a lifetime of hard work.  We provide unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss and facilitates the labor mobility that makes our economy so dynamic.  We provide for Medicaid, which makes sure that millions of seniors in nursing homes and children with disabilities are getting the care that they need.

For generations, nearly all of these investments — from transportation to education to retirement programs — have been supported by people in both parties.  As much as we might associate the G.I. Bill with Franklin Roosevelt, or Medicare with Lyndon Johnson, it was a Republican, Lincoln, who launched the Transcontinental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, land grant colleges.  It was Eisenhower who launched the Interstate Highway System and new investment in scientific research.  It was Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan who worked with Democrats to save Social Security. It was George W. Bush who added prescription drug coverage to Medicare.

What leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that these investments aren’t part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another.  They are expressions of the fact that we are one nation.  These investments benefit us all.  They contribute to genuine, durable economic growth.

Show me a business leader who wouldn’t profit if more Americans could afford to get the skills and education that today’s jobs require.  Ask any company where they’d rather locate and hire workers –- a country with crumbling roads and bridges, or one that’s committed to high-speed Internet and high-speed railroads and high-tech research and development?

It doesn’t make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly or the sick or those who are actively looking for work.  What makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell, or when entrepreneurs don’t have the financial security to take a chance and start a new business.  What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else.

In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few.  It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class.  That’s how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known.  That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made.  That’s why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

And yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics.  They keep telling us that if we’d convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.  They keep telling us that if we’d just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we’d all be better off.  We’re told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it’s good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else.  That’s the theory.

Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we’ve tried their approach — on a massive scale.  The results of their experiment are there for all to see.  At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003.  We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth.  They did not.  The wealthy got wealthier — we would expect that.  The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year.  But prosperity sure didn’t trickle down.

Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century.  And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing.

It was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didn’t have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them.  And what was the result?  Profits for many of these companies soared. But so did people’s health insurance premiums.  Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most.  Families were enticed, and sometimes just plain tricked, into buying homes they couldn’t afford.  Huge, reckless bets were made with other people’s money on the line.  And our entire financial system was nearly destroyed.

So we tried this theory out.  And you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility, might moderate their views a bit.  You’d think they’d say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders.  Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts.  Maybe when we know that most of today’s middle-class jobs require more than a high school degree, we shouldn’t gut education, or lay off thousands of teachers, or raise interest rates on college loans, or take away people’s financial aid.

But that’s exactly the opposite of what they’ve done.  Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal.  (Laughter.)  In fact, that renowned liberal, Newt Gingrich, first called the original version of the budget “radical” and said it would contribute to “right-wing social engineering.”  This is coming from Newt Gingrich.

And yet, this isn’t a budget supported by some small rump group in the Republican Party.  This is now the party’s governing platform.  This is what they’re running on.  One of my potential opponents, Governor Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency.  He said that he’s “very supportive” of this new budget, and he even called it “marvelous” — which is a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget.  (Laughter.)  It’s a word you don’t often hear generally.  (Laughter.)

So here’s what this “marvelous” budget does.  Back in the summer, I came to an agreement with Republicans in Congress to cut roughly $1 trillion in annual spending.  Some of these cuts were about getting rid of waste; others were about programs that we support but just can’t afford given our deficits and our debt.  And part of the agreement was a guarantee of another trillion in savings, for a total of about $2 trillion in deficit reduction.

This new House Republican budget, however, breaks our bipartisan agreement and proposes massive new cuts in annual domestic spending –- exactly the area where we’ve already cut the most.  And I want to actually go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly.  So bear with me.  I want to go through this — because I don’t think people fully appreciate the nature of this budget.

The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each.  There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS.  There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers.  Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.

If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program.  Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food.  There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders.  Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year.  We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.

Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country.  Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites.  And that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.

That’s just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget.  Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we’ll avoid some of these cuts — since they don’t specify exactly the cuts that they would make.  But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas.  This is math.  If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research that means they’ve got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement.  The converse is true as well.  If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college.

Perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall — but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there is no secret plan or formula that will be able to protect the investments we need to help our economy grow.

This is not conjecture.  I am not exaggerating.  These are facts.  And these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next.

If this budget became law, by the middle of the century, funding for the kinds of things I just mentioned would have to be cut by about 95 percent.  Let me repeat that.  Those categories I just mentioned we would have to cut by 95 percent.  As a practical matter, the federal budget would basically amount to whatever is left in entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the national debt — period.  Money for these investments that have traditionally been supported on a bipartisan basis would be practically eliminated.

And the same is true for other priorities like transportation, and homeland security, and veterans programs for the men and women who have risked their lives for this country.  This is not an exaggeration.  Check it out yourself.

And this is to say nothing about what the budget does to health care.  We’re told that Medicaid would simply be handed over to the states — that’s the pitch:  Let’s get it out of the central bureaucracy.  The states can experiment.  They’ll be able to run the programs a lot better.  But here’s the deal the states would be getting.  They would have to be running these programs in the face of the largest cut to Medicaid that has ever been proposed — a cut that, according to one nonpartisan group, would take away health care for about 19 million Americans — 19 million.

Who are these Americans?  Many are someone’s grandparents who, without Medicaid, won’t be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid.  Many are poor children.  Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s Syndrome.  Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care.  These are the people who count on Medicaid.

Then there’s Medicare.  Because health care costs keep rising and the Baby Boom generation is retiring, Medicare, we all know, is one of the biggest drivers of our long-term deficit.  That’s a challenge we have to meet by bringing down the cost of health care overall so that seniors and taxpayers can share in the savings.

But here’s the solution proposed by the Republicans in Washington, and embraced by most of their candidates for president:  Instead of being enrolled in Medicare when they turn 65, seniors who retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second cheapest health care plan in their area.  If Medicare is more expensive than that private plan, they’ll have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional Medicare.  If health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher — as, by the way, they’ve been doing for decades — that’s too bad.  Seniors bear the risk.  If the voucher isn’t enough to buy a private plan with the specific doctors and care that you need, that’s too bad.

So most experts will tell you the way this voucher plan encourages savings is not through better care at cheaper cost.  The way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors — cherry-picking — leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional Medicare, where they have access to a wide range of doctors and guaranteed care.  But that, of course, makes the traditional Medicare program even more expensive, and raise premiums even further.

The net result is that our country will end up spending more on health care, and the only reason the government will save any money — it won’t be on our books — is because we’ve shifted it to seniors.  They’ll bear more of the costs themselves.  It’s a bad idea, and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.

Now, the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts because our deficit is so large; this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future generations, so on and so on.  And that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates.

We’re told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions.  But the Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close.  Not one.  And by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.6 trillion in savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle-class families — tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for homeownership.

Meanwhile, these proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year.  That’s an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country — $150,000.

Let’s just step back for a second and look at what $150,000 pays for:  A year’s worth of prescription drug coverage for a senior citizen.  Plus a new school computer lab.  Plus a year of medical care for a returning veteran.  Plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease.  Plus a year’s salary for a firefighter or police officer.  Plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable.  Plus a year’s worth of financial aid.  One hundred fifty thousand dollars could pay for all of these things combined — investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us.  For $150,000, that would be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country.  This budget says we’d be better off as a country if that’s how we spend it.

This is supposed to be about paying down our deficit?  It’s laughable.

The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission that I created — which the Republicans originally were for until I was for it — that was about paying down the deficit.  And I didn’t agree with all the details.  I proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion — I’m sorry — it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and about $600 billion more in defense cuts than I proposed in my own budget.  But Bowles-Simpson was a serious, honest, balanced effort between Democrats and Republicans to bring down the deficit.  That’s why, although it differs in some ways, my budget takes a similarly balanced approach:  Cuts in discretionary spending, cuts in mandatory spending, increased revenue.

This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether.  It is a Trojan Horse.  Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.  It is thinly veiled social Darwinism.  It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class.  And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last  — education and training, research and development, our infrastructure — it is a prescription for decline.

And everybody here should understand that because there’s very few people here who haven’t benefitted at some point from those investments that were made in the ’50s and the ’60s and the ’70s and the ’80s.  That’s part of how we got ahead.  And now, we’re going to be pulling up those ladders up for the next generation?

So in the months ahead, I will be fighting as hard as I know how for this truer vision of what the United States of America is all about.  Absolutely, we have to get serious about the deficit. And that will require tough choices and sacrifice.  And I’ve already shown myself willing to make these tough choices when I signed into law the biggest spending cut of any President in recent memory.  In fact, if you adjust for the economy, the Congressional Budget Office says the overall spending next year will be lower than any year under Ronald Reagan.

And I’m willing to make more of those difficult spending decisions in the months ahead.  But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — there has to be some balance.  All of us have to do our fair share.

I’ve also put forward a detailed plan that would reform and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid.  By the beginning of the next decade, it achieves the same amount of annual health savings as the plan proposed by Simpson-Bowles — the Simpson-Bowles commission, and it does so by making changes that people in my party haven’t always been comfortable with.  But instead of saving money by shifting costs to seniors, like the congressional Republican plan proposes, our approach would lower the cost of health care throughout the entire system.  It goes after excessive subsidies to prescription drug companies.  It gets more efficiency out of Medicaid without gutting the program.  It asks the very wealthiest seniors to pay a little bit more.  It changes the way we pay for health care — not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve their results.

And it slows the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission — a commission not made up of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers, who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need.

We also have a much different approach when it comes to taxes — an approach that says if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t afford to spend trillions more on tax cuts for folks like me, for wealthy Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them, and that the country cannot afford. At a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1 percent of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years.  As both I and Warren Buffett have pointed out many times now, he’s paying a lower tax rate than his secretary.  That is not fair.  It is not right.

And the choice is really very simple.  If you want to keep these tax rates and deductions in place — or give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, as the Republicans in Congress propose — then one of two things happen:  Either it means higher deficits, or it means more sacrifice from the middle class.  Seniors will have to pay more for Medicare.  College students will lose some of their financial aid.  Working families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest Americans are doing less.  I repeat what I’ve said before:  That is not class warfare, that is not class envy, that is math.

If that’s the choice that members of Congress want to make, then we’re going to make sure every American knows about it.  In a few weeks, there will be a vote on what we’ve called the Buffett Rule.  Simple concept:  If you make more than a million dollars a year — not that you have a million dollars — if you make more than a million dollars annually, then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do.  On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year — like 98 percent of American families do — then your taxes shouldn’t go up.  That’s the proposal.

Now, you’ll hear some people point out that the Buffett Rule alone won’t raise enough revenue to solve our deficit problems.  Maybe not, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction.  And I intend to keep fighting for this kind of balance and fairness until the other side starts listening, because I believe this is what the American people want.  I believe this is the best way to pay for the investments we need to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class.  And by the way, I believe it’s the right thing to do.

This larger debate that we will be having and that you will be covering in the coming year about the size and role of government, this debate has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the ones that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper; it gets more vigorous.  That’s a good thing.  As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates that we can have.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs as Americans.  We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves.  We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible.  We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community.  We have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

And this sense of responsibility — to each other and our country — this isn’t a partisan feeling.  This isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea.  It’s patriotism.  And if we keep that in mind, and uphold our obligations to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, then I have no doubt that we will continue our long and prosperous journey as the greatest nation on Earth.

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

MR. SINGLETON:  Thank you, Mr. President.  We appreciate so much you being with us today.  I have some questions from the audience, which I will ask — and I’ll be more careful than I was last time I did this.

Republicans have been sharply critical of your budget ideas as well.  What can you say to the Americans who just want both sides to stop fighting and get some work done on their behalf?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I completely understand the American people’s frustrations, because the truth is that these are eminently solvable problems.  I know that Christine Lagarde is here from the IMF, and she’s looking at the books of a lot of other countries around the world.  The kinds of challenges they face fiscally are so much more severe than anything that we confront — if we make some sensible decisions.

So the American people’s impulses are absolutely right.  These are solvable problems if people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise.  The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise.  And this is not just my assertion.  We had presidential candidates who stood on a stage and were asked, “Would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involved $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue increases?” Ten-to-one ratio of spending cuts to revenue.  Not one of them raised their hand.

Think about that.  Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases.  Did it multiple times.  He could not get through a Republican primary today.

So let’s look at Bowles-Simpson.  Essentially, my differences with Bowles-Simpson were I actually proposed less revenue and slightly lower defense spending cuts.  The Republicans want to increase defense spending and take in no revenue, which makes it impossible to balance the deficit under the terms that Bowles-Simpson laid out — unless you essentially eliminate discretionary spending.  You don’t just cut discretionary spending.  Everything we think of as being pretty important — from education to basic science and research to transportation spending to national parks to environmental protection — we’d essentially have to eliminate.

I guess another way of thinking about this is — and this bears on your reporting.  I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they’re equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented — which reinforces I think people’s cynicism about Washington generally.  This is not one of those situations where there’s an equivalence.  I’ve got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it.  And we couldn’t get a Republican to stand up and say, we’ll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won’t give more tax cuts to people who don’t need them.

And so I think it’s important to put the current debate in some historical context.  It’s not just true, by the way, of the budget.  It’s true of a lot of the debates that we’re having out here.

Cap and trade was originally proposed by conservatives and Republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems.  The first President to talk about cap and trade was George H.W. Bush.  Now you’ve got the other party essentially saying we shouldn’t even be thinking about environmental protection; let’s gut the EPA.

Health care, which is in the news right now — there’s a reason why there’s a little bit of confusion in the Republican primary about health care and the individual mandate since it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace in health care while still assuring that everybody got covered, in contrast to a single-payer plan.  Now, suddenly, this is some socialist overreach.

So as all of you are doing your reporting, I think it’s important to remember that the positions I’m taking now on the budget and a host of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, would have been considered squarely centrist positions.  What’s changed is the center of the Republican Party.  And that’s certainly true with the budget.

MR. SINGLETON:  Mr. President, the managing director of the (inaudible) for continuation of United States leadership (inaudible) economic issues, and underscored the need for a lower deficit and lower debt.  How can you respond to that claim?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, she’s absolutely right.  It’s interesting, when I travel around the world at these international fora — and I’ve said this before — the degree to which America is still the one indispensable nation, the degree to which, even as other countries are rising and their economies are expanding, we are still looked to for leadership, for agenda setting — not just because of our size, not just because of our military power, but because there is a sense that unlike most superpowers in the past, we try to set out a set of universal rules, a set of principles by which everybody can benefit.

And that’s true on the economic front as well.  We continue to be the world’s largest market, an important engine for economic growth.  We can’t return to a time when by simply borrowing and consuming, we end up driving global economic growth.

I said this a few months after I was elected at the first G20 summit.  I said the days when Americans using their credit cards and home equity loans finance the rest of the world’s growth by taking in imports from every place else — those days are over.  On the other hand, we continue to be a extraordinarily important market and foundation for global economic growth.

We do have to take care of our deficits.  I think Christine has spoken before, and I think most economists would argue as well, that the challenge when it comes to our deficits is not short-term discretionary spending, which is manageable.  As I said before and I want to repeat, as a percentage of our GDP, our discretionary spending — all the things that the Republicans are proposing cutting — is actually lower than it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower.  There has not been some massive expansion of social programs, programs that help the poor, environmental programs, education programs.  That’s not our problem.

Our problem is that our revenue has dropped down to between 15 and 16 percent — far lower than it has been historically, certainly far lower than it was under Ronald Reagan — at the same time as our health care costs have surged, and our demographics mean that there is more and more pressure being placed on financing our Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs.

So at a time when the recovery is still gaining steam, and unemployment is still very high, the solution should be pretty apparent.  And that is even as we continue to make investments in growth today — for example, putting some of our construction workers back to work rebuilding schools and roads and bridges, or helping states to rehire teachers at a time when schools are having a huge difficulty retaining quality teachers in the classroom — all of which would benefit our economy, we focus on a long-term plan to stabilize our revenues at a responsible level and to deal with our health care programs in a responsible way.  And that’s exactly what I’m proposing.

And what we’ve proposed is let’s go back, for folks who are making more than $250,000 a year, to levels that were in place during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were doing just fine, and the economy was growing a lot stronger than it did after they were cut.  And let’s take on Medicare and Medicaid in a serious way — which is not just a matter of taking those costs off the books, off the federal books, and pushing them onto individual seniors, but let’s actually reduce health care costs.  Because we spend more on health care with not as good outcomes as any other advanced, developed nation on Earth.

And that would seem to be a sensible proposal.  The problem right now is not the technical means to solve it.  The problem is our politics.  And that’s part of what this election and what this debate will need to be about, is, are we, as a country, willing to get back to common-sense, balanced, fair solutions that encourage our long-term economic growth and stabilize our budget.  And it can be done.

One last point I want to make, Dean, that I think is important, because it goes to the growth issue.  If state and local government hiring were basically on par to what our current recovery — on par to past recoveries, the unemployment rate would probably be about a point lower than it is right now.  If the construction industry were going through what we normally go through, that would be another point lower.  The challenge we have right now — part of the challenge we have in terms of growth has to do with the very specific issues of huge cuts in state and local government, and the housing market still recovering from this massive bubble.  And that — those two things are huge headwinds in terms of growth.

I say this because if we, for example, put some of those construction workers back to work, or we put some of those teachers back in the classroom, that could actually help create the kind of virtuous cycle that would bring in more revenues just because of economic growth, would benefit the private sector in significant ways.  And that could help contribute to deficit reduction in the short term, even as we still have to do these important changes to our health care programs over the long term.

MR. SINGLETON:  Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress.  But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence.  If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner.  Right?  So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress.  And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there.  I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has.  As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.

What I did emphasize yesterday is there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember.  This is not an abstract exercise.  I get letters every day from people who are affected by the health care law right now, even though it’s not fully implemented.  Young people who are 24, 25, who say, you know what, I just got diagnosed with a tumor.  First of all, I would not have gone to get a check-up if I hadn’t had health insurance. Second of all, I wouldn’t have been able to afford to get it treated had I not been on my parent’s plan.  Thank you and thank Congress for getting this done.

I get letters from folks who have just lost their job, their COBRA is running out.  They’re in the middle of treatment for colon cancer or breast cancer, and they’re worried when their COBRA runs out, if they’re still sick, what are they going to be able to do because they’re not going to be able to get health insurance.

And the point I think that was made very ably before the Supreme Court, but I think most health care economists who have looked at this have acknowledged, is there are basically two ways to cover people with preexisting conditions or assure that people can always get coverage even when they had bad illnesses.  One way is the single-payer plan — everybody is under a single system, like Medicare.  The other way is to set up a system in which you don’t have people who are healthy but don’t bother to get health insurance, and then we all have to pay for them in the emergency room.

That doesn’t work, and so, as a consequence, we’ve got to make sure that those folks are taking their responsibility seriously, which is what the individual mandate does.

So I don’t anticipate the Court striking this down.  I think they take their responsibilities very seriously.  But I think what’s more important is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to recognize that in a country like ours — the wealthiest, most powerful country on Earth — we shouldn’t have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick, or end up waiting until they do get sick and then go to the emergency room, which involves all of us paying for it.

MR. SINGLETON:  Mr. President, you’ve been very, very generous with your time, and we appreciate very much you being here.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, everybody.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

END
1:35 P.M. EDT

 

Getting at the Facts

Source: WH, 4-6-12

On Tuesday, the President gave a speech in which he contrasted his vision for our economy – one where everyone pays their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules – with the Republican approach of giving massive tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires paid for by cuts to programs that the middle class and seniors depend on.

Congressman Ryan and his staff has since taken issue with some of the critiques the President made about the Republican approach.  We believe in backing up our facts – so here’s some further explanation of some of the core problems with the Ryan Republican Budget.

1. The Republican budget enacts a drastic, unspecified 19 percent cut in non-defense discretionary programs that help the middle class and help our economy grow.

The House Budget resolution includes a $1.060 trillion cut in non-defense discretionary spending, below the levels to which both Democrats and Republicans agreed in the Budget Control Act.  We did the math, and a $1.060 trillion cut to discretionary programs – as called for in the Republican budget – would amount to a 19 percent cut in non-defense discretionary spending.  By comparison, the cuts proposed in the House Budget resolution would be three times as great as the cuts required by the sequester and because of the lack of detail in the resolution, we are left to assume that they would be applied in the same arbitrary, across the board, manner.  The President carefully described the impact of those cuts if they were distributed across the board, and noted that protecting some places would require even deeper cuts in other places.

House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan’s office responded that considering the cut across-the-board wasn’t fair because “the House Budget Committee made dozens of specific assumptions to justify our numbers, and we made these assumptions public in the hundreds of pages of text we posted in plain view on the House Budget Committee’s website.”  But if you look at the report, it only includes a list of “illustrative policy options.”  But they’re just that—as you can see on page 30 of that same PDF: “this report offers a range of policy options to help demonstrate how the budget’s fiscal goals could be achieved.  These options are illustrative….”  So it’s not as though the House is taking ownership of these proposals—as President Obama has owned his specific ideas in each of his budgets.

What’s more, even if you look at the specific numbers in the House budget, you see that they aren’t very specific.  A Budget Resolution shows federal spending distributed across different categories of spending.  Most of the categories are specific—things like “Energy” or “Administration of Justice.”  But the House put 85 percent of their cuts into a category called “Allowances” (see page 16 of the same report).  That’s a great big “TBD.”  The 19 percent cut is calculated by taking the level Congress agreed to last summer in the Budget Control Act for non-defense discretionary programs in 2013 and subtracting the proposed $406 billion cap for 2014 in the House Republican Budget.  That’s a $95 billion cut that, when left undistributed, is a 19 percent cut to the 2012 level of services in every non-defense discretionary program.

And even if you were going to give the House Republican Budget credit for the 15% of their domestic discretionary cut which does fall into specific categories, you would have to make deeper cuts in other programs.  For example: the House said they don’t want to cut Veterans Benefits.  When we calculated the percentage cut in non-defense spending, we spread it across the entire discretionary budget, including Veterans programs.  If you took Veterans benefits out of the mix, the cuts to everything else would be a lot bigger.

The bottom line is that when a budget proposes cuts as vast and vague as this budget, the best way to illustrate its impact is to show the effects across the board. The Republican budget’s lack of specifics gives us no other choice.

2. The Republican approach would end Medicare as we know it.

Chairman Ryan’s team also disputes the President’s characterization that House Republican Budget would “end Medicare as we know it.”  But that’s exactly what would result from a plan that would voucherize the Medicare program beginning in 2023 and would reduce deficits only by shifting cost and risk onto America’s seniors.

First, they claim that the “second-lowest-cost private plan” (the benchmark at which Chairman Ryan would set the value of a senior citizen’s Medicare voucher) would provide the same benefits in a more cost-effective way than traditional Medicare.

  • But analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office on this topic in 2011 found something far different:  that private plans cost 39 percent more than traditional Medicare, in part because Medicare enjoys lower administrative costs and better purchasing power.  And the flip side is that, for those limited areas of the country where private plans are cheaper than traditional Medicare, premiums for seniors seeking to stay in traditional Medicare will rise as a result of the bidding program – upwards of 49 to 64 percent on average, according to 2006 CBO study of a similar proposal.  In other words:  In most of the country, private Medicare providers will cost more to deliver the same benefit as traditional Medicare.  And in those few places where that’s not true, the security of the traditional Medicare program will become a lot more expensive for seniors who wish to stay in it. While the exact numbers in Chairman Ryan’s current plan may differ from these previous studies, which had different details and different assumptions, the broad analysis would still apply to his current proposal.

Second, the Ryan team claims that, under their plan, the risk of private plans going up in price faster than the value of the Medicare voucher would not entirely fall on the beneficiary because Congress would be required to act.

  • The Ryan team does not even need to look beyond its own ranks to disprove this one.  According to testimony by House GOP Budget Committee staff, the Ryan budget would cap growth in the value of voucher payments to the rate of GDP growth plus 0.5 percent – a rate below the average annual growth of health care costs.  And when asked what would happen if competitive bids increased faster than that rate, Staff Director Austin Smythe testified: “The premium support payment would be capped at that level” – in other words, if the voucher’s value does not keep up with the cost of private plans, seniors will be expected to pick up the difference, a radical departure from the promise of the current Medicare program. Moreover, there is no way around this conclusion because under the Ryan Medicare plan just about the only cost to the government is what it pays for the voucher, so the only way to hit his Medicare growth rate target is to reduce the voucher and shift costs to seniors.

Third, the Ryan team claims that there will always be one health plan that is fully covered by the voucher and always one plan that costs even less.

  • But, after 2023, the first year their budget goes into effect, this just isn’t true.  While it is true that every newly eligible senior could choose a plan that was fully covered in that first year, even then that plan generally would not provide many of the benefits that Medicare beneficiaries have enjoyed from traditional Medicare.   And, after 2023, there is no guarantee that any plan – even those geared toward younger and healthier seniors – would be fully covered.  Because the voucher amount would not be based on the actual bids of private providers, but rather on a growth rate capped below the historical and projected growth of health care costs, there is simply no guarantee that the voucher will be able to keep up – with seniors on the hook if it does not.

The House Republican plan’s voucher is based on an spending  target with all of the risk falling on beneficiaries, which is a key reason that led Henry Aaron, one of the co-inventors of premium support, to write “current proposals are not premium support as [former Urban Institute President Robert] Reischauer and I used the term.”

Last, the Ryan team claims that private plans “cherry picking” the healthiest seniors away from traditional Medicare would be prohibited under their reforms because their plan includes risk-adjusting as an extra precaution against doing so.

  • For starters, the House Republican Budget does not provide any details that would allow one to judge if they contained even an attempt at serious regulations.  But even the best intentioned and implemented regulations and risk adjustment procedures would still fall well short of what is needed to prevent an adverse selection spiral from driving healthier seniors out of traditional Medicare and dramatically raising the costs for those who remain.  For example, a 2002 study published by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that if risk-adjustment were 50 percent effective (which is four times the effectiveness of risk adjustment in Medicare today [http://www.medpac.gov/transcripts/RiskAdj_Mar_2012.pdf] according to the non-partisan Medicare Payments Advisory Commission (MedPAC) that advises Congress), 76 percent of seniors would be pushed out of traditional Medicare by the 20th year of the program – effectively ending Medicare as we know it.

3. The Republican budget would mean 19 million Americans lose the health coverage they are already getting under current Medicaid

Finally, Chairman Ryan’s staff is disputing the President’s statement yesterday that the House Republican budget would take away health care for 19 million Americans.  Yet again, the Ryan team is missing the mark with their criticisms.  If anything, the President was conservative in his characterization of the effects of the House Republican Medicaid plan.

The President based his statement on a study by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation.  That study found that, by block granting Medicaid, “the House Budget Plan would lead to . . .  19.4 million people being cut” from the program.

The reason is this:  The House Republican budget plan turns Medicaid into a block grant and indexes it to consumer prices, but without any adjustment for additional beneficiaries or health costs.  So if health care costs continue to rise faster than other prices, or if the aging population results in more elderly Medicaid enrollees, or if a future recession results in Americans losing their jobs and newly qualifying for Medicaid, the block grant structure proposed in Ryan’s budget would prevent the program from expanding to meet those needs.

Over the next decade, this structure would result in $800 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program as it currently exists, 34 percent less funding than is currently projected and a cut so deep that it would be impossible to achieve without denying care to many of the people who rely on Medicaid today.

And that’s just the Ryan plan’s cuts from the existing Medicaid program.

That same Kaiser study also found that the Ryan plan’s repeal of the Affordable Care Act would take away Medicaid coverage from the additional 17 million Americans who are slated to receive it when health reform goes into full effect.  As a result, according to Kaiser, counting the impact of the ACA as well as the block grant, the result would be a cut of 36.4 million enrollees, a reduction of 48 percent.

Jay Carney is the White House Press Secretary.

Campaign Buzz January 10, 2012: Mitt Romney Wins Republican New Hampshire Primary By Large Margin — Ron Paul Places Second

CAMPAIGN 2012

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University. Ms. Goodman has also contributed the overviews, and chronologies in History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 4th edition, edited by Gil Troy, Fred L. Israel, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger to be published by Facts on File, Inc. in late 2011.

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Mitt Romney spoke during his primary night rally with members of his family at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, N.H. More Photos »

IN FOCUS: MITT ROMNEY WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY BY WIDE MARGIN — RON PAUL PLACES SECOND

10:20 AM ET 2:00
County Leaders
Size of Lead
Candidate Votes Percent
Mitt-romney_38
Mitt Romney 96,170 39.3%
Ron-paul_38
Ron Paul 55,903 22.9
Jon-huntsman_38
Jon Huntsman 41,194 16.8
Newt-gingrich_38
Newt Gingrich 23,070 9.4
Rick-santorum_38
Rick Santorum 22,914 9.4
Others_38
Others 5,276 2.2
Full Results » 97% reporting

Mitt Romney projected to win N.H. primary: Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will win the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, according to network projections.

Ron Paul projected to finish second in New Hampshire, AP says: Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) will finish second in New Hampshire’s Republican presidential primary, the Associated Press projects, with former Utah governor Jon Huntsman coming in third. Mitt Romney earlier was projected as winning the contest.

Romney Wins New Hampshire G.O.P. Primary, Projections Show: Mitt Romney has won the New Hampshire Republican primary, projections show, achieving a sweep of the first two critical contests in the 2012 presidential race and boosting his chances at becoming his party’s nominee this fall.
The New York Times and other news organizations declared Mr. Romney the winner in the race just moments after the polls closed at 8 p.m. Eastern time, based on exit polls and early returns. The margin of his victory and the order of those behind him remain uncertain until more votes are counted.
Mr. Romney barely won Iowa’s caucuses a week ago, besting Rick Santorum by a mere eight votes out of more than one hundred thousand cast.
Mr. Romney’s second White House bid had been premised from the beginning on the idea that he could win in New Hampshire, a state he has all-but adopted as his own in the years since Senator John McCain dashed his hopes here…. – NYT, 1-10-12

“The president has run out of ideas. Now, he’s running out of excuses. And tonight, we’re asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire and make 2012 the year he runs out of time.” — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

“We have had a victory for the cause of liberty tonight.” — Rep. Ron Paul

“I say third place is a ticket to ride.” —former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman

“We have an opportunity to be the true conservative, the true conservative who can go out and do what’s necessary, not just to win this race— and we can win this race— but to be the conservative who understands that, at the foundation of our country, are institutions that are crucial for us to be a successful nation, families, families that are bonded together as the foundation, that instill virtue and faith in our children, to build strong communities and build a great nation from the bottom up.” — former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum

“We have an opportunity, I think, to unify the country around a message of jobs, economic growth and very dramatic programs.” — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

“We’ve had enough of sending our kids and our money around the world to be the policemen of the world. It’s the time to bring them home.” — Ron Paul

“I believe that it will take someone who is capable of debating Barack Obama face to face, delivering the conservative message, winning the argument in order to overcome his billion-dollar machine.” — Newt Gingrich

“Thank you New Hampshire, tonight we made history! Tonight we celebrate; tomorrow we go back to work and take our message to South Carolina.” — Mitt Romney

  • BREAKING NEWS: CBS News projects Mitt Romney wins NH primary: CBS News projects Mitt Romney has won the New Hampshire Republican primary. They are basing their projection on early voting results, combined with exit polling data…. – WGME, 1-10-12
  • Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire Republican primary: Mitt Romney won New Hampshire’s Republican presidential primary on Tuesday, giving the former Massachusetts governor a sweep of the first two critical tests in the GOP nominating contest…. – WaPo, 1-10-12
  • ‘We made history': Mitt Romney claims clear victory in New Hampshire primary – video: The GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney criticised Barack Obama in his victory speech at a primary night rally in Manchester, as the former Massachusetts governor vowed to get America working again. Ron Paul finished second in New Hampshire, with former Utah governor Jon Huntsman a disappointing third…. – The Guardian, 1-10-12
  • Romney wins NH primary; Paul in 2nd and Huntsman 3rd: Republican front-runner Mitt Romney captured the nation’s first primary election Tuesday, easily rebuffing aggressive attacks by a host of challengers…. – USA Today, 1-10-12
  • NH exit poll shows Romney forged broad GOP coalition, seen as best opponent: Mitt Romney performed strongly among conservatives and won decisive backing from voters worried about the economy and eager to vanquish President Barack Obama in this fall’s elections, propelling him to victory in Tuesday’s New Hampshire … – WaPo, 1-10-12
  • New Hampshire puts Romney in driver’s seat: Mitt Romney got virtually everything he needed out of the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night. He won a will move decisive victory that put him in a dominant position to win the Republican presidential nomination, and he on to South … – WaPo, 1-10-12
  • Mitt Romney: ‘Tonight we made history': The only suspense at Mitt Romney’s headquarters on primary night was just how big his margin of victory in New Hampshire would be. The polls hadn’t even closed when the former Massachusetts Governor’s team began lining up the youthful … – LAT, 1-10-12
  • Reactions at the New Hampshire primary: Reactions at the New Hampshire primary: ___ “The president has run out of ideas. Now, he’s running out of excuses. And tonight, we’re asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire and make 2012 the year he runs out of … – WaPo, 1-10-12
  • Santorum returns to the back of the pack in New Hampshire: What a difference a week and 1300 miles make: Rick Santorum, the Sleeveless Wonder who nearly took the Iowa caucuses out from under Mitt Romney, Tuesday came crashing back to Earth, as he was projected to finish fourth or fifth in New Hampshire… – LAT, 1-10-12
  • Biden tells New Hampshire Democrats that Obama will support the middle class: Targeting the Republican frontrunner, Vice President Joe Biden told New Hampshire Democrats on Tuesday that President Barack Obama would be an advocate for the middle class, casting Mitt Romney as someone who would side with the wealthy. … – WaPo, 1-10-12
  • Analysis: Mitt Romney’s victories will force his rivals to make crucial decision: Mitt Romney’s back-to-back victories in Iowa and New Hampshire will force his weak-but-still-standing GOP rivals to make a crucial decision: Keep eviscerating the man that many see as the inevitable nominee or temper their criticisms and … WaPo, 1-10-12
  • Paul says he’s ‘nibbling’ at Romney’s heels: Ron Paul took the stage in New Hampshire tonight to chants of “President Paul,” as he celebrated his second-place showing in the nation’s first primary. “We’re nibbling at his heels,” Paul said about primary winner Mitt Romney…. – USA Today, 1-10-12

Campaign Buzz October 22, 2011: Republican Bobby Jindal Reelected Governor of Louisiana in State Gubernatorial Election

Campaign Buzz October 22, 2011: Republican Bobby Jindal Reelected Governor of Louisiana in State Gubernatorial Election

CAMPAIGN BUZZ

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University. Ms. Goodman has also contributed the overviews, and chronologies in History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 4th edition, edited by Gil Troy, Fred L. Israel, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger to be published by Facts on File, Inc. in late 2011.

CAMPAIGN BUZZ

Gov. Bobby Jindal re-elected

Gov. Bobby Jindal re-elected

Saturday, October 22, 2011 10:07 PM

MICHAEL DeMOCKER / THE TIMES-PICAYUNE Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal thanks supporters during his re-election victory party at the Renaissance Hotel in Baton Rouge on Saturday, October 22, 2011.

GOVERNORSHIPS CANMPAIGNS & ELECTIONS: LOUISIANA REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR BOBBY JINDAL WINS RE-ELECTION

Louisiana Gov. Jindal declares victory in election: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, seen as a rising star in the Republican Party, declared victory Saturday in his state’s gubernatorial election.
“You’ve chosen to give me another four years as your governor,” he told supporters less than an hour after polls closed. “We’ve got a lot more work to do over these next four years.”
Jindal had been viewed as a potential vice presidential contender in 2012 but has said he would serve out his term if re-elected…. – Reuters, 10-22-11

Gov. Bobby Jindal re-elected in landslide: Gov. Bobby Jindal rolled to easy re-election Saturday, defeating nine little-known and under-financed candidates in a record-setting landslide. Jindal’s total was hovering 68 percent on a day when turnout was considerably lighter than the 46.6 percent who voted in the 2007 statewide race, then the smallest turnout in the open gubernatorial primary era.
The outcome was so overwhelming that Jindal was able to deliver his victory speech a little more than 45 minutes after polls closed at 8 p.m…. – The Times-Picayune, 10-22-11

“Every time I run for governor the LSU Tigers win the national championship. I’m not putting any pressure on them. I’m just saying.
I am truly humbled, honored by the privilege you have bestowed on me.
Louisiana has made great strides in the last four years. Louisiana is on the move. Anything that happened wasn’t something I did. It was something we did as a state. … I mean all of us. I truly believe our best days are ahead of us. We’ve got a lot more work to do the next four years. I truly believe our best days are ahead of us. We’ve got a lot more work to do the next four years.” — Gov. Bobby Jindal

  • Jindal Wins Second Term as Governor of Louisiana: Gov. Bobby Jindal easily coasted to a second term on Saturday, winning in a landslide after failing to attract any well-known or deep-pocketed opposition. Mr. Jindal, 40, a Republican, overwhelmed nine competitors in the race…. – AP, 10-22-11
  • Jindal poised to claim re-election win in Louisiana governor’s race: Bobby Jindal appeared poised for victory Saturday night, as early results looked promising for his re-election bid to a second term as Louisiana’s Republican governor. “You’ve chosen me to be your governor,” Jindal told supporters Saturday … – CNN, 10-22-11
  • Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wins reelection: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) was easily reelected to a second term on Saturday avoiding a November runoff. Jindal was winning nearly 70 percent of the vote, according to the Associated Press, leading teacher Tara Hollis (D) among others. … – WaPo, 10-22-11
  • Louisiana Gov. Jindal wins re-election easily: Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has easily coasted to a second term, winning in a landslide election after failing to attract any well-known or deep-pocketed opposition.
    The 40-year-old son of immigrants from India overwhelmed nine competitors in the open primary Saturday. In Louisiana, a candidate wins the race outright if he or she receives more than 50 percent of the vote…. – CBS News, 10-22-11
  • As polls open in Louisiana, Jindal seen as shoo-in: Voters headed to the polls on Saturday in Louisiana, where Republican Governor Bobby Jindal was expected to easily win reelection without having to compete in a run-off vote. Polls were due to stay open until 8 pm, when Louisiana voters … – Reuters, 10-22-11
  • Jindal likely to win second term in Louisiana: Louisiana voters head to the polls Saturday in the state’s gubernatorial primary, an election Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal is widely expected to win. The state holds a nonpartisan blanket primary…. – CNN International, 10-22-11
  • Louisiana voters to wade through lengthy ballot: While Gov. Bobby Jindal is expected to coast to an easy re-election, lawmakers across the state are in tight contests with term-limited folks seeking to keep themselves in office by switching jobs and others long gone from the Legislature trying to … – WWL First News, 10-22-11
  • More candidates explain why they should be Governor: The race for governor includes nine candidates who are all trying to unseat current governor Bobby Jindal. In a recent poll those candidates combined getting less than ten percent. That compared to Jindal’s near 60 percent. … – WVLA-TV, 10-21-11
  • What’s on the ballot in Saturday’s elections: Despite a low-key contest for governor, the last few days of the fall campaign have picked up, and a higher than expected number of early votes cast may mean higher turnout Saturday for state and local elections…. – WWL, 10-20-11

Full Text Campaign Buzz October 14, 2011: GOP Presidential Candidate Gov. Rick Perry’s Speech on “Energizing American Jobs and Security” Plan

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

POLITICAL QUOTES & SPEECHES

Gov. Perry’s “Energizing American Jobs and Security” Plan Will Spark 1.2 Million Jobs, Reduce Dependence on Hostile Foreign Oil

Source: RickPerry.org, 10-14-11

As President Obama kills domestic jobs through aggressive regulations, Perry plan adds 1.2 million American jobs through safe and aggressive energy exploration at home

Gov. Rick Perry today unveiled his Energizing American Jobs and Security plan to spark 1.2 million American jobs, while reducing our nation’s dependence on energy from nations hostile to the U.S. Most of the plan can be implemented through executive branch action, without Congressional action and free of Washington gridlock. Gov. Perry announced his plan at the United States Steel Mon Valley Irvin Plant.

Gov. Perry’s full plan can be viewed at http://www.rickperry.org/energizing-american-jobs-html.

“This American jobs plan is based on a simple premise: Make what Americans buy, buy what Americans make, and sell it to the world,” said Gov. Perry. “We are standing atop the next American economic boom – energy – and the quickest way to give our economy a shot in the arm is to deploy American ingenuity to tap American energy. But we can only do that if environmental bureaucrats are told to stand down.”

Gov. Perry’s Energizing American Jobs and Security plan is the first part of a broader package of economic reforms that he will present to the American people in the coming days. It will create jobs in every sector, reduce our nation’s dependence on hostile foreign oil, revitalize manufacturing and help contain the cost of electricity and fuel.

First, Gov. Perry will open several American energy fields for exploration that are currently limited, including those in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the Mountain West region and the Northeast Marcellus Shale. These actions will generate billions of dollars in royalty payments that will help pay down our nation’s skyrocketing deficit. Perry also supports the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that will transport Canadian oil to U.S. coastal refineries.

The governor also noted the importance of having the states more involved in energy exploration, including decisions to not pursue development in certain valuable areas such as the Everglades or Yellowstone National Park. However, such instances should represent the exception, not the rule.

Second, the governor’s plan will eliminate activist regulations that are on the books and under consideration by the Obama Administration, which are estimated to destroy up to 2.4 million American jobs and add $127 billion in costs to electric providers and consumers. President Rick Perry will call for immediate review of such rules and implementation of cost-benefit analyses to determine their impact on American employers and the environment.

“If we face the facts, we know that none of these rules were needed to reduce emissions of the six principal pollutants by 50 percent since 1980,” Gov. Perry said. “And they are not needed now, especially as our economy hangs in a fragile balance between recovery and recession.”

The governor will also specifically remove the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which was provided under a controversial ruling by a federal court without the approval of Congress.

Third, Gov. Perry pledged to work with Congress to dismantle the EPA in its current state and rebuild a scaled down agency focused on regional and cross-state issues, providing scientific research, environmental analysis and cost-comparison studies to support state environmental organizations. He said, “I reject the notion that Washington is more committed to environmental stewardship than state and local officials who must live with the consequences of their own environmental policies.”

Lastly, Gov. Perry will level the playing field among all energy producers, working with Congress to phase out direct subsidies and tax credits that distort the energy marketplace. He will however preserve tax incentives for research and development. Gov. Perry will also put an end to the Obama Administration’s agenda-driven hostility toward coal and natural gas, which provide roughly two-thirds of American electricity, noting that technologies in place today and currently under development can ensure cleaner development of conventional sources.

“I do not accept the false choice that we must pick between energy and the environment,” the governor said. “It is time for a balanced, pro-American, pro-jobs energy policy.

“The choice in this election is between two very different visions for our country. When it comes to energy, the president would kill domestic jobs through aggressive regulations, while I would create 1.2 million American jobs through safe and aggressive energy exploration at home. President Obama would keep us more dependent on hostile sources of foreign energy, while my plan would make us more secure by tapping America’s true energy potential. The president’s energy policies are driven by the concerns of activists in his party, while my policies are driven by the concerns of American workers without jobs.”

Gov. Perry concluded, “It’s time to end the over-regulation, excess litigation, and bureaucratic intimidation. Let’s get back to what works to get America working again: Make what Americans buy, buy what Americans make, and sell it to the world.”

Gov. Perry has a proven record of upholding responsible energy production while protecting both jobs and the environment. Rick Perry’s Texas is the nation’s number one job creator and number one energy producer, while successfully cleaning the air. Texas has reduced NOX emissions by 58 percent and ozone by 27 percent since 2000, more than any other state.

A summary of Gov. Perry’s “Energizing America: Jobs and Security” plan can be viewed at http://www.rickperry.org/energizing-american-jobs-and-security-summary and the full plan can be viewed at http://www.rickperry.org/energizing-american-jobs-html.

To view the governor’s remarks, please visit http://www.rickperry.org/news/pittsburg-gov-rick-perrys-full-remarks-on-energizing-american-jobs/.

 

Pittsburgh: Gov. Rick Perry’s Full Remarks on Energizing American Jobs

October 14, 2011 – U.S. Steel Mon Valley Irvin Plant, Pittsburgh

Thank you for joining me today. I want to say a special thanks to Jim Garraux and the men and women of US Steel for having us here today. It is great to be on the outskirts of Pittsburgh, a city built on the work, hopes and dreams of blue-collar American workers.

The central issue facing Americans is a lack of jobs.

Fourteen million Americans are without work. One in six Americans cannot find a full-time job.  Forty-five million Americans are on food stamps. And 48 percent of American households have at least one resident receiving government benefits.

Though our president has labeled Americans as soft, I believe our people have toughed it out the best they can. But they are looking for leadership and optimism, which are all too rare in Washington today.

What I am proposing today is the first part of an economic growth package that will rebuild the engine of American prosperity.

The plan I present this morning, Energizing American Jobs and Security, will kick-start economic growth and create 1.2 million jobs.

It can be implemented quicker and free of Washington gridlock because it doesn’t require congressional action. Through a series of executive orders, and other executive actions, we will begin the process of creating jobs soon after the inauguration of a new president.

There is, of course, an important role for Congress to play. And in a matter of days I will offer to the American people a broader package of economic reforms that I will take to Congress when I am elected President. My complete economic growth package will tackle tax reform, entitlement reform and real spending reductions in order to address our growing debt crisis.

But today I offer a plan that will create more than a million good, American jobs across every sector of the economy and enhance our national security, and the best news is it can be set in motion in my first 100 days.

My plan is based on this simple premise: Make what Americans buy, buy what Americans make, and sell it to the world.

We are standing atop the next American economic boom…energy.

The quickest way to give our economy a shot in the arm is to deploy American ingenuity to tap American energy. But we can only do that if environmental bureaucrats are told to stand down.

My plan will break the grip of dependence we have today on foreign oil from hostile nations like Venezuela and unstable nations in the Middle East to grow jobs and our economy at home.

America has proven but untapped supplies of natural gas, oil and coal. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal with 25 percent of the world’s supply. Our country contains up to 134 billion barrels of oil and nearly 1.2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas.

We have the resources we need to fuel our cars, our homes and our power plants. They can be found in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky throughout the American West and, of course, Alaska.

But President Obama and his over-reaching Environmental Protection Agency won’t allow American businesses and American labor to draw on even a fraction of this domestic energy from reserves on government-owned lands.

On one hand, the Obama Administration opposes fossil fuel development at home, and then on the other hand encourages countries like Brazil to drill offshore and sell it to American consumers, creating foreign jobs and foreign profits

That’s wrong. That’s hypocritical. That’s unfair. America should not be, and when I am president will not be, held hostage by foreign oil and federal bureaucrats.

The American economy should not be beaten into the ground when greater energy independence and lower energy costs lie right under American soil.

My plan will create jobs in every sector, revitalize manufacturing, and contain the cost of electricity and fuel through four concrete actions.

First, we will open several American oil and gas fields for exploration that are currently off limits because of political considerations. The current administration has restricted exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and the mid-Atlantic.

In the Gulf of Mexico, the median time for review of permits for combined deepwater exploration and development has increased 400 percent, while deepwater exploration and development plan approvals have dropped by nearly 80 percent.

The Department of Interior has stopped off-shore exploration off the coast of Virginia over the objections of the Virginia congressional delegation, which has passed a bill in the House to achieve the will of their people. That bill is also supported by their Democratic senators, Webb and Warner.

With a series of executive orders and other executive actions, I will authorize the following:

I will work to open up Alaska’s abundant resources to oil and gas exploration, including the ANWR Coastal Plain and the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. In this one instance, we will need congressional authorization. But it is worth it when you consider we will create 120,000 jobs.

We will initiate off-shore exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off the northern and western coasts of Alaska. This will create 55,000 jobs.

We will resume pre-Obama levels of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and create another 230,000 jobs.

I will support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to take Canadian Crude to coastal refineries, which would create 20,000 direct jobs for American workers.

We will begin tapping the energy potential of the American West, opening up federal and private lands for exploration in states like Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Colorado and Utah. Collectively, our western states have the potential to produce 1.3 million barrels of oil per day by 2020 and contain 87 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

They can produce more energy than what we import from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela and Russia combined!

And right here in Pennsylvania, and across the state line in West Virginia and Ohio, we will tap the full potential of the Marcellus Shale and create another 250, 000 jobs by getting the EPA out of the way.  While Marcellus shale is today’s opportunity, the deeper Utica shale formations offer equally vast potential with more jobs over the horizon for Pennsylvania and its neighbors.

The benefits of the boom in American natural gas production are also demonstrated in manufacturing and production. We see that right here at U.S. Steel’s Mon Valley Works Plant that employs more than three thousand workers, many of whom make the steel products other companies use to develop the Marcellus Shale today.

The face of manufacturing in industrial states has changed rapidly. Natural gas exploration is a game-changer that can bring new opportunities to replace the ones that have been lost. Development of natural gas will create jobs in the supply chain and lead to lower energy costs for manufacturers.

Western Pennsylvania is known for producing great quarterbacks I want Western Pennsylvania to Quarterback a new energy revolution that creates jobs all across America.

Not only will we create jobs by expanding energy exploration, we will use the revenues generated to pay down the deficit.

At the same time, where America has ecological treasures, like the Everglades or Yellowstone National Park, we will not explore for energy.

As we roll back federal control, we seek greater cooperation with the states. And if states oppose energy exploration, we will respect that decision. But these instances represent the exception, not the rule.

It is equally important that we take a second step: eliminate activist regulations already on the books and under consideration by the Obama Administration.

While President Obama has been very public about his newest jobs proposal, behind the scenes the permanent bureaucracy is working to grind the economy to a halt in pursuit of activist regulations. A raft of new rules and foot-dragging by the EPA and Interior Department are killing job creation.

Examples include the Utility Maximum Available Control Technology rule, the Boiler MACT rule, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, the proposed Coal Combustion Residuals regulation and Section 316 (b) of the Clean Water Act.

These new rules alone could destroy up to 2.4 million American jobs by 2020 and add $127 billion in costs to electric providers and consumers. Under my plan, each of these rules would be subject to an immediate review with a cost-benefit analysis to determine the impact on American employers and the environment.

If we face the facts, we know that none of these rules were needed to reduce emissions of the six principal pollutants by 50 percent since 1980. And they are not needed now, especially as our economy hangs in a fragile balance between recovery and recession.

I will take another step important to economic growth: I will stop the EPA’s draconian measures related to the regulation of greenhouse gases.

When you consider that any carbon reduction will be offset by the increase of carbon emissions by developing nations like China and India, the EPA would tie our economy in knots and advantage our global competitors while realizing no global environmental benefits in the process.

The third part of my plan is to reform the bureaucracy, in particular the EPA, so that it focuses on regional and cross-state issues, providing scientific research, as well as environmental analysis and cost-comparison studies to support state environmental organizations. We will return greater regulatory authority to the states to manage air and water quality rather than imposing one-size-fits-all federal rules.

I reject the notion that Washington is more committed to environmental stewardship than state and local officials who must live with the consequences of their own environmental policies.

The fourth component of my plan is to level the competitive playing field among all energy producers.

As the governor of the nation’s leading producer of wind energy, I clearly believe there is an important role for green sources of energy as a part of our generation mix. The fact is, every energy producer receives incentives and subsidies that cost taxpayers and distort the marketplace.

My plan will stop the practice of Washington writing subsidy checks to any and all sectors of the energy industry. It will also stop industry-specific tax credits, phasing out both over a period of time, allowing the market time to adjust.

We will, however, preserve tax incentives for research and development.

We believe the best way to invest in emerging technology is to allow private industry the freedom to develop it. The shocking reality concerning Obama energy policy is high energy prices are not an accident, but intentional.

From an energy secretary who said he wanted European prices for fuel, to a president who said it was necessary to raise the price of electricity, this Administration has intentionally sought to make conventional generation from coal and natural gas more costly, taking more out of the pockets of American families.

And the reason why is they want to drive consumers to green energy. But we don’t produce enough green energy to fill the void, so the result is greater reliance on foreign sources of energy.

Increasing the use of green energy is a laudable goal. We have done it successfully in my state. But we have used renewable sources to expand the energy supply not replace conventional generation.

Natural gas and coal are responsible for roughly two-thirds of the electricity generated in this country. How can we have stable and affordable electricity when federal agencies target America’s top two fuel generation sources for electricity?

Hostility to coal is not confined to this Administration, it has wrongly been targeted by some members of my own party. I take a different view: I welcome the continued development of coal as an important part of job creation in America. Allowing industry to invest in research and development is the best way to pursue clean coal technology.

I do not accept the false choice that we must pick between energy and the environment. It is time for a balanced, pro-American, pro-jobs energy policy.

Technologies in place today, and under development, can ensure cleaner development of conventional sources.

The EPA’s war on American fossil fuel production comes despite the fact they can’t point to a single incident of unsafe hydraulic fracturing of natural gas. If they have their way in shutting down gas and coal production, the Obama legacy will be more than 2.4 million energy jobs lost in oil, gas and coal.

The choice this election is between two very different visions for our country.

When it comes to energy, the President would kill domestic jobs through aggressive regulations, while I would create 1.2 million American jobs through safe and aggressive energy exploration at home.

President Obama would keep us more dependent on hostile sources of foreign energy, while my plan would make us more secure by tapping America’s true energy potential.

His energy policies are driven by the concerns of activists in his party, my policies are driven by the concerns of American workers without jobs.

We must get America working again. A big part of the solution is under our feet and off our coast.

It can be done without being mired in Washington gridlock, because a president has all the authority he needs to rollback intrusive regulations, create energy jobs, and make our nation more secure.

Creating jobs in America is as simple as changing presidents. That is the choice facing Americans.

America needs jobs. America needs energy. America needs a “made in America” energy revolution.

I have the long-time experience and track record of success in this critical area for American jobs and economic growth to create a new wave of American independence – energy independence.

End the over-regulation. End the excess litigation. End the bureaucratic intimidation. Let’s get back to what works to get America working again.

Make what Americans buy, buy what Americans make, and sell it to the world.

Full Text October 15, 2011: President Barack Obama’s Weekly Address at a GM Plant in Detroit, Michigan Highlights the Bipartisan Trades Bill Passed by Congress

POLITICAL SPEECHES & DOCUMENTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 112TH CONGRESS:

From a GM plant in Detroit, President Obama highlights landmark trade agreements which will support American jobs, level the playing field for American workers and help us meet our goal of doubling our exports.

President Barack Obama tapes his Weekly Address
President Barack Obama tapes the weekly address, White House Photo, Chuck Kennedy, 10/14/11

Weekly Address: “Made in America”

Source: WH, 10-15-11

From a GM plant in Detroit, President Obama highlights the landmark trade agreements passed this week which will support tens of thousands of American jobs, level the playing field for American workers, and help us meet our goal of doubling our exports.

Transcript | Download mp4 | Download mp3

POLITICAL QUOTES & SPEECHES

WEEKLY ADDRESS: Working Together to Create Jobs

Speaking to the American people from Detroit, Michigan, President Obama highlighted the landmark trade agreements passed in a bipartisan way this week which will support tens of thousands of American jobs, level the playing field for American workers, and help us meet our goal of doubling our exports.  The President will continue to urge Congress to do more and pass the American Jobs Act so we can grow our economy and create jobs now.  Republicans in Congress will get a chance to support these common-sense measures or explain why they oppose providing tax breaks for working Americans, putting teachers, firefighters, and cops back to work, and repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
October 15, 2011

I’m here in Detroit visiting workers at a GM plant in the heart of a resurgent American auto industry.  And I brought a guest with me – President Lee of South Korea.

We’re here because this week, Congress passed landmark trade agreements with countries like Korea, and assistance for American workers that will be a big win for our economy.

These trade agreements will support tens of thousands of American jobs.  And we’ll sell more Fords, Chevys and Chryslers abroad stamped with three proud words – “Made in America.”

So it was good to see Congress act in a bipartisan way on something that will help create jobs at a time when millions of Americans are out of work and need them now.

But that’s also why it was so disappointing to see Senate Republicans obstruct the American Jobs Act, even though a majority of Senators voted “yes” to advance this jobs bill.

We can’t afford this lack of action.  And there is no reason for it.  Independent economists say that this jobs bill would give the economy a jumpstart and lead to nearly two million new jobs.  Every idea in that jobs bill is the kind of idea both parties have supported in the past.

The majority of the American people support the proposals in this jobs bill.  And they want action from their elected leaders to create jobs and restore some security for the middle class right now.  You deserve to see your hard work and responsibility rewarded – and you certainly deserve to see it reflected in the folks you send to Washington.

But rather than listen to you and put folks back to work, Republicans in the House spent the past couple days picking partisan ideological fights.  They’re seeing if they can roll back clean air and water protections.  They’re stirring up fights over a woman’s right to make her own health care choices.  They’re not focused on the concrete actions that will put people back to work right now.

Well, we’re going to give them another chance.  We’re going to give them another chance to spend more time worrying about your jobs than keeping theirs.

Next week, I’m urging Members of Congress to vote on putting hundreds of thousands of teachers back in the classroom, cops back on the streets, and firefighters back on the job.

And if they vote “no” on that, they’ll have to tell you why.  They’ll have to tell you why teachers in your community don’t deserve a paycheck again.  They’ll have to tell your kids why they don’t deserve to have their teacher back.  They’ll have to tell you why they’re against commonsense proposals that would help families and strengthen our communities right now.

In the coming weeks, we’ll have them vote on the other parts of the jobs bill – putting construction workers back on the job, rebuilding our roads and bridges; providing tax cuts for small businesses that hire our veterans; making sure that middle-class families don’t see a tax hike next year and that the unemployed and our out-of-work youth have a chance to get back in the workforce and earn their piece of the American Dream.

That’s what’s at stake.  Putting people back to work.  Restoring economic security for the middle class.  Rebuilding an economy where hard work is valued and responsibility is rewarded – an economy that’s built to last.  And I’m going to travel all over the country over the next few weeks so that we can remind Congress that’s their job.  Because there’s still time to create jobs and grow our economy right now.  There’s still time for Congress to do the right thing.  We just need to act.

Thank you.

%d bloggers like this: