Saturday, March 16, 2013

Illinois Senate Committee Advances Marriage Equality

Marriage Equality sponsor Sen. Heather Steans (D)

With a vote of 9-5, the Illinois Senate Executive Committee just approved the marriage equality bill (Senate Bill 110), just as it had during the lame duck session. Senate President John Cullerton (D) hopes to have the whole chamber vote on the bill on Valentine’s Day next week. With Democratic super-majorities in both chambers, the legislation is expected to advance quite quickly.


View the original article here

Kooky Paul Krugman Calls for 'Death Panels' to Cut Health-Care Costs -- Really!

Last week New York Times economics columnist and liberal hero Paul Krugman actually said "death panels," the critique of Obama-care popularized by Sarah Palin and universally mocked by liberals, while discussing the necessity of cutting health care costs.

On January 30, Krugman spoke at the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue in D.C. (Krugman is out hawking the paperback edition of "End This Depression Now!," his paean to more government spending on infrastructure and other forms of stimulus.) During the Q&A, Breitbart's Joel Griffith noted, Krugman was asked about the rising national debt. A truncated version of his remarks follows:

We’re going to need more revenue, we're going to need, and probably in the end, surely in the end it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well. So again, we won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society we want without some increase in taxes, not a huge one, but some increase on taxes on the middle class, maybe a value-added tax.... And we’re also going to do, really, we're going to have to make decisions about health care, not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. So you know the snarky version I use, which is, I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble, is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this."

This opens Krugman up to charges of hypocrisy, since he called the "death panel" accusation a "smear" in a March 22, 2010 column and an example of the "dishonesty" of Obama-care opponents in a June 29, 2012 column. Does this mean Krugman accepts Sarah Palin's argument that Obama-care's cost containment strategy will require health-care rationing?

Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times. Click here to follow Clay Waters on Twitter.

View the original article here

Notice -- National Emergency with respect to Côte d’Ivoire

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

NOTICE

- - - - - - -

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT

TO THE SITUATION IN OR IN RELATION TO CÔTE D'IVOIRE

On February 7, 2006, by Executive Order 13396, the President declared a national emergency, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire and ordered related measures blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in Côte d'Ivoire. The situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire, which has been addressed by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 1572 of November 15, 2004, and subsequent resolutions, has resulted in the massacre of large numbers of civilians, widespread human rights abuses, significant political violence and unrest, and fatal attacks against international peacekeeping forces.

Since the inauguration of President Alassane Ouattara in May 2011, the Government of Côte d'Ivoire has made progress in advancing democratic freedoms and economic development. While the Government of Côte d'Ivoire and its people continue to make progress towards peace and prosperity, the situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on February 7, 2006, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond February 7, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13396.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President Obama explains that while our economy is headed in the right direction, looming automatic budget cuts will cost jobs and slow down our recovery.

February 05, 2013 12:48 PM EST

Apply today for a chance to join the White House social media team for the State of the Union.

February 05, 2013 10:58 AM EST

We're working towards Petitions 2.0, releasing an API, and inviting a small group to join us on February 22, 2013 for the White House Open Data Day Hackathon.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/4/2013

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/4/2013 | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama The White House Emblem Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

2012: A Year in Photos

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

President Obama greets White House visitors

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Now Is The Time

7 Things You Need to Know

About the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Explore the President's Plan

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

We the People

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Jack Lew Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Download our mobile apps

2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

2012: A Year in Photos

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2012 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh HomeBriefing Room • Press Briefings   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release February 04, 2013 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/4/2013 Aboard Air Force One
En Route Minneapolis, Minnesota

11:58 A.M. EST
 
MR. CARNEY:  I had something at the top here -- oh, I meant to bring back my scarf, Margaret.  It was not -- I'm a Redskins fan.  It was a scarf, actually, I got at the Vancouver Winter Olympics when I was traveling with the Vice President, a purchase of which I am fond.
 
Q    It was too red.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Yes, I wasn't really --  
 
Q    Was it 49er colors?
 
MR. CARNEY:  No, I was -- I like both teams, but I'm a Redskins fan.  My son is sort of also a Redskins fan and kind of decided to go wholeheartedly in support of the Ravens.  So I was happy for Baltimore.  Great town.  And San Francisco has won a lot of Super Bowls.
 
Q    Did the President -- did you talk about it with the President today?

MR. CARNEY:  What's that?
 
Q    The outcome?  Did you talk about it with the President?
 
MR. CARNEY:  He said -- actually, I'm echoing what he said  -- he said, very happy for Baltimore.  It was a very close, good game.  It didn’t look like it was going to be that close.  Lots of novel aspects to it, including the 109 return -- 108-yard kickoff return and the power outage.  But he said he enjoyed it, said it was a good game. 
 
Q    What did he think of the power outage?  Did he comment on it?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Based on the conversation I had with him, the initial response I think that we all had was I hope everyone is okay, it was not a security issue.  And then once that became clear, it was just impatience to get the game going again.
 
Before I take your questions, let me just remind you that today the Senate is expected to take up a bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act.  This bill was introduced by Senator Leahy and a bipartisan group of cosponsors.
 
If there is one issue Congress should be able to agree on it is protecting women from violence.  When three women a day are killed as a result of domestic violence, and one in five have been raped in their lifetimes, we should be long past debate on the need for the Violence Against Women Act.  We urge Congress to pass this critical bill without delay, and then to send it to the President's desk for his signature.
 
Now to your questions. 
 
Q    Jay, do you know when the President is going to send his budget, given that it looks like he's going to miss today's deadline?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have an update on the President's budget.  I mean, I saw a tweet from the Speaker's office.  The President has put forward consistently budgets that achieve what the American people overwhelmingly support, which is balanced deficit reduction, deficit reduction combined with investments in areas of our economy that would help the economy grow and create jobs.  What he hasn't done is submit a highly partisan budget that has no support among the American public.  That, unfortunately, is what House Republicans have consistently passed in the last couple of years. 
 
So hopefully we’ll be able to change that dynamic.  Republicans will agree with the President that we need to continue to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  As you know, the President signed into law nearly $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction, combining spending cuts with revenues and the interest saved from that reduction.  And he's eager to do more.
 
Q    Does he want to submit the budget before or after the State of the Union?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a date for you for when that will happen.
 
Q    Is there a reason why he can't make the deadline?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have anything more for you on it.  The President -- there’s a couple of things to be aware of here that might encourage you to focus on substance over deadlines and things like that. 
 
He has a proposal that the Speaker of the House -- a budget proposal that the Speaker of the House is welcome to take up today or tomorrow, as he might wish, which represents balanced deficit reduction; would achieve, combined with all the deficit reduction signed into law already, achieve the $4 trillion magical target that would put us on a fiscally sustainable path for the rest of the decade.  The President submitted, prior to that, a budget proposal that had within it both the principles of balance and very specific spending cuts and revenue increases that would achieve the balanced deficit reduction we need. 
 
So the President hopes that he will be able to work together with Congress to achieve what's necessary here, which is removing the cloud of crisis, as he said yesterday, from the process of dealing with our finances in Washington; making responsible decisions based on compromise, based on balance, reflecting the will of the American people and the approach they want Washington to take, and ensuring that Washington doesn't inflict wounds on the economy at a time when the economy is poised to grow and create jobs, as it is this year.
 
Q    Jay, on today's event -- not all Democrats are totally behind the President's initiatives.  Would he be willing to jettison aspects of his proposal, such as the assault weapons ban, to gain broader support?  As time passes support is likely to dissipate in any case.
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think you're getting ahead of a process that's still in its relatively early stages.  The President supports, as he long has, the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.  He also strongly supports limits on capacity of ammunition clips, supports and strongly urges Congress to pass a universal background check system.  I think if you look at public opinion on that issue in particular -- and speaking of the Super Bowl, as we were earlier, there was an ad that related to this issue about past NRA support for universal background checks.  And this is something we ought to be able to get done.
 
The President has made clear that he recognizes these are hard.  All of these things are.  If they weren't hard, they would have been done in the past.  But we need to press forward.  And he supports all aspects of the proposals that he outlined a couple weeks ago. 
 
Q    Can you also address the reports of a separate Oval Office being constructed elsewhere on the White House property?  There was a discussion of an entire facility, the chance of moving there to do the President's work while there’s a renovation taking place.  Can you confirm that, talk at all about that?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Renovations and building on the White House grounds is something that's handled by the GSA and I would refer you to them.
 
Q    You know, they haven't actually answered any questions.  That’s why we have been asking you guys for a year. 
 
MR. CARNEY:  -- question about construction and renovation.
 
Q    Are there any security reasons why you couldn’t answer those questions?  Or is it just a matter of not --
 
MR. CARNEY:  I'm just not in a position to answer those questions.  I don't have any information to impart about it.  There's been an ongoing process that we've all seen of renovation and stuff on the grounds.  But I'm just -- I would refer you to GSA. 
 
Q    On that front, would you preemptively make a commitment to ongoing open access between the press and the press office regardless of the construction?

MR. CARNEY:  I think there’s no question that we will maintain that commitment.
 
Q    Yesterday, Robert Gibbs said that Chuck Hagel was unimpressive and appeared unprepared.  Does the White House agree with that assessment, or how would you react to it?  And also, has the President reached out to Hagel since the confirmation hearing to talk with him about how he performed?
 
Q    I think the broader point that Robert made -- and it was correct -- is that focusing on this hearing, which was dominated by a rehashing of a debate between Republicans about the Iraq war, misses the overall import of this, which is that Senator Hagel is an enormously qualified, decorated war veteran and two-term Republican senator who will be an excellent Secretary of Defense. 
 
And regardless of reviews of the hearing, both of how Senator Hagel did and how Republican critics comported themselves, the fact is since that hearing, the number of senators who have announced their firm support for Senator Hagel has increased.  And that includes a Republican just yesterday I believe who announced his support. 
 
So we remain confident that Senator Hagel will be confirmed, and confident that he will be an excellent Secretary of Defense.
 
Q    But reacting to the comment itself, what is the White House's reaction to those two specific comments that he was unimpressive and unready --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I think you would have to look at everything that Robert said.  And he made clear that -- I think he pointed to an example of Tim Geithner in the early days of his administration, and, as you know, Tim just left with reviews of his performance that were pretty uniformly positive and deserved. And the issue here is how will an individual do the job, and there’s no question in the President’s mind that Senator Hagel will do the job well. 
 
And look, broadly speaking, the President feels, we feel Senator Hagel did fine and he answered the questions that were asked of him.  The fact of the matter is, as you saw if you watched the hearings, there were exponentially more questions about a war that is over and that the President ended than there were about a war that is ongoing and involves, still, 66,000 American men and women in uniform in Afghanistan.  And I think that reflects an interest in refighting old battles, relitigating debates that were had five years ago -- a debate that was actually the focus of the 2008 campaign and on which I think the American people were quite divisive -- decisive, rather, in their opinion.
 
Q    And has the President reached out to Hagel since it?  Have they spoken?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any phone calls of the President to -- or conversations of the President to relay.  I know that members of the team are in regular conversation with Senator Hagel.
 
Q    Just to follow on something that Mark asked on the assault weapons ban -- I get that the President obviously supports reinstating the ban, and I get that he has acknowledged that it’s going to be difficult, but there is a certain point where you have to deal with reality.  And Senator Reid and several other Democrats -- including Senator Feinstein, who is pushing for an assault weapons ban -- have said this -- either they can't support this at this point, they're not making their public opinion known, or they acknowledge it's very unlikely that it's going to pass.  At what point do you make a decision to put Democrats out there and have to take up a tough vote, or look to do something else that maybe has a better chance of passing, like universal background checks?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the question.  And, again, the President recognizes, and we all recognize, that all the components of this are difficult and face challenges, some perhaps even more than others.  But the President's support is firm and clear.  And we're certainly not going to preemptively alter the President's set of proposals before there is even -- there are even votes scheduled or this debate has been fully joined.
 
So I think it's just premature to start writing off the chances of any piece of this package.  The fact is there is -- for every piece of it, there is, at least by most public opinion polls, majority support.  And we need to have this conversation. The President made clear when he talked about this on several occasions that that conversation should be, and is taking place, not just in the usual corners of the country but all around the country.  And that’s very important, because this is a problem that affects the entire country in different ways and that the entire country needs to express itself on.
 
Q    Jay, have Reid and Obama talked about the prospects for Democratic votes on an assault weapons ban? 
 
MR. CARNEY:  Has who?
 
Q    Have Reid and Obama talked about the prospects for Democratic votes?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t know the context of their conversations about this issue.
 
Q    Jay, to what extent is the President personally talking to any members of Congress about these gun proposals in the week since he announced them?  And secondly, on terms of the timetable, how quickly does he want them to act, and how -- does he feel like they're acting too slowly right now to get this legislation through, to start considering it?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think he made his presentation with the Vice President two weeks ago -- is that correct?  So I wouldn’t accuse anyone of moving too slowly at this point.  It was just two weeks ago. 
 
The fact of the matter is we have two Senators on board Air Force One today and the President will be speaking with them, and he has had conversations with lawmakers and other stakeholders in this discussion, and will continue to have those conversations.
 
Q    Who’s aboard Air Force One?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Senators Franken and Klobuchar.
 
Q    Is anyone else aboard Air Force One who would also be worth noting besides the people we saw board the plane?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I'll take a scan of the aircraft and let you know. 
 
Q    Any advocates -- any gun-rights advocates -- anything like that?  Or vice versa?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don’t -- I saw the two Senators on my way back here.  I'll check and see if there’s anybody else.
 
Q    Are they supporting the full legislative package?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I certainly won't speak for them.
 
Q    Can you preview what the President is doing tomorrow on immigration, the representatives who will be at the White House tomorrow?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I can speak to that.  
 
Q    What the agenda is --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Sure.  I mean, well, just to give you a broader overview that I think demonstrates -- or answers the question that some of you have had about our capacity to keep pressing on both the immigration issue and the gun violence issue, as well as the issue of economy and jobs and deficit reduction, and I can tell you that with regards to immigration reform, the President and his team will continue to highlight the importance of comprehensive immigration reform this week, meeting with key stakeholders, CEOs and law enforcement officials to discuss the benefits from an economic and a security perspective while also underscoring the historic progress that has been made when it comes to securing our nation's borders. 
 
Secretary Napolitano will also travel to inspect border security operations and meet with law enforcement officials in California and Texas.
 
On Tuesday, the President will hold meetings at the White House with labor leaders and progressive leaders as well as, separately, a number of CEOs from across industries to discuss his commitment to getting a bipartisan bill passed in 2013 and how immigration reform fits within his broader agenda for economic growth and competiveness. 
 
And just to provide a little more detail, on Monday and Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano will travel to San Diego and El Paso to tour border security operations on the Southwest border, meet with state and local stakeholders and discuss the department's ongoing efforts to secure the border while facilitating lawful travel and trade.  This trip follows many similar trips the Secretary has made, as you know, including a recent trip to Arizona in December.
 
On Wednesday, following her trip, Secretary Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General Tony West and Director of Domestic Policy Council Cecilia Muñoz will meet with law enforcement officials from across the country to discuss the President's common-sense immigration reform proposal, and to underscore the unprecedented financial and human investment this administration has made in securing our borders and making borders communities safer.
 
So immigration reform will obviously be at the top of the agenda in his meeting with both progressive and labor leaders and CEOs tomorrow.
 
Q    Can you say which CEOs are going to be --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Sorry, I don’t have a manifest.
 
Q    On foreign policy, the Vice President obviously had a series of meetings in Munich over the weekend and I just wanted to follow up on those.  Does the President feel that the Vice President’s overture toward Iran and the response from Iran through the foreign minister have moved the ball at all, and why?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think I’d say a couple of things, which is that, as you know, the P5-plus-1 has proposed concrete dates and a venue ever since early December.  After these initial proposals were not agreed to by Iran, the P5-plus-1's latest proposal is the week of February 25 in Kazakhstan.  It is certainly good to hear that Foreign Minister Salehi finally confirmed this date and location.  We hope the negotiating team from Iran will also confirm their participation.
 
It is time for Iran to come back to the negotiating table as soon as possible so that we can start dealing with substance again, and make concrete progress regarding the international community’s concerns and the nature of the Iranian nuclear program.
 
Q    On Syria, as well -- does the President have any concerns about the opposition leader's outreach that seems to go against what the U.S. is looking for?  And has the President himself had any communication with the Syrian opposition leader? Or just Vice President Biden -- is Vice President Biden the highest official to have that conversation at this point?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I’ll have to check on the second question.  Certainly, Vice President Biden, as you know; Secretary Clinton and others.  But I would take issue with the first.  During the meeting in Munich, the Vice President commended Syrian Opposition Coalition President al-Khatib recent statements expressing openness under certain circumstances to the possibility of negotiations to bring the Syrian people the leadership they deserve.
 
Now, the U.S. position is clear.  It is also the position of the Syrian people.  We support a political resolution to the crisis in Syria.  And as the Syrian people have made clear, Bashar al-Assad has lost all legitimacy to enable a political solution and a democratic transition that meets the aspiration of the Syrian people. 
 
So we will support the Syrian people as they determine which other members of the regime they can work with to facilitate a political transition that leads to a democratic, inclusive and unified Syria, that will protect the rule of law for all citizens and will hold those who have committed atrocities against the Syrian people to account. 
 
The broader point here is support the need for and the efforts towards a political solution.  We have been clear, I think the opposition has been clear, and the Syrian people have been clear that that transition cannot include Assad because he has rendered himself wholly illegitimate in the eyes of the people.
 
Q    The opposition has already put some preconditions on the table that seem to -- that Assad's regime has said they don’t want to deal with.  So how realistic at this point do you think those talks are coming to fruition?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, the point here isn't about Assad’s participation in Syria’s future because there cannot be such participation.  I think the idea that the Assad regime is united and cohesive is belied by what we've seen over weeks and months in terms of defections and other problems that they’ve had as the opposition has gained momentum and won territory in its efforts. 
 
So the fact is there has to be a political solution that cannot include, ultimately, Assad.  And we support the Syrian people's efforts as they determine which members of the regime they can work with to facilitate that transition to a more democratic future for the country.
 
Q    Jay, there’s a report this morning in The New York Times about cyber security and a legal review of the administration that showed broad powers for the President to have a preemptive strike, and I’m wondering if you have any comments on that.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m certainly not in a position to discuss details of classified discussions or documents.  As you know, from early in the administration the President has worked to advance U.S. capabilities to defend against cyber threats, which, in May 2009, he described as, “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.” 
 
Since then, the President has established principles and process for governing cyber operations by the U.S. government in a manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution as well as other applicable laws and policies of the United States and international law.  And that policy employs a whole-of-government approach to cyber activities.  But I certainly -- I can't comment on specifics about classified --
 
Q    Broadly speaking, does the President of the United States have the power to strike preemptively if the U.S. finds evidence of plans for a major cyber attack?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I would have to take that question because I’m not in a position to answer.
 
Q    Thanks, Jay.
 
MR. CARNEY:  That’s it? 
 
Q    Actually I have one more -- on skeet shooting.  Why did the White House --
 
MR. CARNEY:  I was wondering.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    Why did the White House decide to release the skeet shooting photo two days before this trip, particularly when the press corps had requested any photos of skeet shooting days earlier?  And will you now release a list of friends or family or guests with whom the President has skeet shot, since you do that with golf partners?  Thank you. 
 
MR. CARNEY:  Let me say this.  I thought the question was going to be, why did we wait five days.  The fact is the President was asked a question -- did not volunteer, but was asked a question -- about whether or not he had ever shot a weapon.  He answered with the truth, which is that he has enjoyed shooting competitively with friends at Camp David on multiple occasions.  I think it's fair to say that we believed that would have been answer enough. 
 
And when I said from the podium that as a rule we don’t treat his private time at Camp David with friends and family as matters for public consumption, that's the truth, as you know.  But there were persistent questions about this, so we decided to release a photo of the President shooting at Camp David.  The timing of that I think is explained by what I just said.
 
Q    Does he shoot skeet or trap when he shoots?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I'm not an expert, and I don't think he would claim to be either.  What I can tell you is that he has enjoyed competing with friends up there at Camp David.  As you probably know, the President likes competition of all kinds.
 
Q    Is he good?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think he has gotten better.  But here's the thing to understand -- the President has made clear he grew up in Hawaii; he spent time in his life in California and Chicago and Cambridge.  I mean, this is not -- he never pretended to, or suggested that he had grown up as a hunter, or engaging in sports activities with weapons.  He simply said that he had -- and this is the truth -- that he had enjoyed shooting at Camp David.  That's a fact.
 
Q    Has he ever shot a weapon before being President?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I'm not sure of the answer to that question.  I know that he has shot weapons not just at Camp David. 
 
Q    Does he personally own any firearms?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Not that I'm aware of, no.
 
Q    What does that mean?  You know he has shot weapons elsewhere?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I'm just saying this is not -- I don't know in terms of the timing, but I know that he has not --
 
Q    He has -- so skeet shooting at Camp David is not his only experience?
 
MR. CARNEY:  It's not the only time he has shot a weapon.
 
Q    So when were the other times?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don't have any details on that for you.
 
Q    Could you find out?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, the issue here is whether or not the President, in fact, as should have been apparent when he said it, had gone shooting at Camp David.  So we released the photo to demonstrate that.  But I don't have an accounting of all the times that he has shot a weapon for you.
 
Q    Do you know whether he has fired a handgun at a shooting range or something like that, for sport?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don't have any more for you it, guys.
 
Q    Thank you.
 
END
12:25 P.M. EST

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

Blog posts on this issue February 05, 2013 3:00 PM ESTPresident Obama Makes a Statement on the Sequester

President Obama explains that while our economy is headed in the right direction, looming automatic budget cuts will cost jobs and slow down our recovery.

February 05, 2013 12:48 PM ESTAnnouncing the State of the Union White House Social

Apply today for a chance to join the White House social media team for the State of the Union.

February 05, 2013 10:58 AM ESTAnnouncing We the People 2.0 and a White House Hackathon

We're working towards Petitions 2.0, releasing an API, and inviting a small group to join us on February 22, 2013 for the White House Open Data Day Hackathon.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources The White House Emblem En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Mark Boal On Writing ‘Zero Dark Thirty’s Torture Sequence

I continue to believe that Zero Dark Thirty is a much more comprehensively anti-war film than the debate about whether it suggests torture works would indicate. And so I was interested to read Mark Boal talk to Vulture about what it was like to write those sequences, and about how he wanted the emphasis to be on what it was actually like to be in the room when someone was being beaten, waterboarded, and humiliated:

The scene that has been the focal point of all the discussion has been the opening scene of the film, and it was definitely among the hardest to have in my life, let alone include in the script. I’ve had to revisit it over and over again after the film came out, and those torture scenes are incredibly painful. And they’re meant to be! I wanted to show the brutality and inhumanity of the situation, and you see the prisoner’s brain getting scrambled by the pressure and the punishment that’s being put on him. It was a dark and painful place to go as a writer, and I still don’t think I’ve totally shaken it off, to be honest with you.

The story includes scanned pages of the script, which are even more revealing than what Boal says in the interview. Maya’s reactions in that sequence aren’t an acting choice: they’re baked into the script. When she says I’m okay, the script clearly notes that “She’s not.” At one point, “she is on the verge of vomiting.” “The stress and strain on her face is enormous” as she participates in Ammar’s waterboarding—though the movie makes clear that the damage to him is more considerable than it is to her. At the end of the scene? “Dan and Maya exit. They’ve learned nothing.”

I don’t think that Kathryn Bigelow and Boal did themselves any particular favors in the way they’ve talked about Zero Dark Thirty. Describing it as a quasi-journalistic enterprise and insisting on the film’s neutrality may have seemed like a way to provide political cover to it, but refusing to stake out a position left them with essentially nothing to defend but their process as the debate over the movie heated up. Releasing the script and talking about their intentions could have opened up a debate about whether the film lived up to those intentions, a conversation that would have struck me as both politically and artistically useful.


View the original article here

Mormons And Evangelicals To SCOTUS: Ignore Preponderance Of Science On Same-Sex Parenting

A group of religious organizations, including the Mormon Church, Southern Baptist Convention, and National Association of Evangelicals, have submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court arguing it should uphold both the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The briefs, written by Mormon Church lawyer Von Keetch, make similar points to other anti-gay briefs about the inferiority of same-sex couples, but notably tries to brush aside the research that suggests otherwise (HT: Kathleen Perrin):

DOMA BRIEF: Whether the Nation retains the traditional definition of marriage or redefines marriage to include same-sex couples is a social issue with potentially wide-ranging consequences. By their nature, such policy questions cannot be definitively answered by science, professional opinion, or legal reasoning alone. Although we are certainly persuaded by scholarly opinion supporting traditional marriage, the truth is that social science scholars, for instance, disagree about the effects of gay parenting on children. Whatever the ultimate conclusions may be, “nothing in the Constitution requires [government] to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.”

PROP 8 BRIEFAdmittedly, there is an active debate within the social sciences over whether some of these common sense judgments are empirically sound. But “nothing in the Constitution requires California to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.” Lawmakers – including the people of California – are entitled to “act on various unprovable assumptions,” including those that in “the sum of [their] experience” lead them to conclude that traditional marriage and the family structure it supports deserve distinctive legal protection.

In the footnotes, Keetch cites the Mark Regnerus “family structures” study, as well as the simultaneously published meta-analysis by Loren Marks, as evidence of research with a negative conclusion on same-sex parenting. But an internal audit by the publishing journal found Regnerus’ conclusions about same-sex parenting to be “bullshit,” and Marks’ analysis to be “lowbrow” and unworthy of publication. Despite how conservative groups have championed Regnerus’ methods and results, Regnerus himself has admitted that his research was not about gay parenting.

Contrary to what these religious groups claim, there is no debate among social scientists about the capacity of same-sex couples to raise children. In fact, it has already been nine years since the American Psychological Association resolved to support same-sex adoption, and subsequent research continues to confirm that children raised in such households fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. Researchers have objected that other briefs filed in these cases have cited their studies to draw conclusions about same-sex parenting that are not evident from the research.

The language in these particular briefs suggest that the religious groups don’t care what the research says anyway, hence their haste to dismiss it. Given their concern for protecting children, what is more telling is their refusal to acknowledge the two million children already being raised by same-sex couples. Even if the Court chooses to ignore the science that same-sex couples could make equally good parents, it cannot ignore that they already are doing so.


View the original article here

Can Sea Urchins Show Scientists How To Capture Carbon Affordably?

According to a story in Gizmag yesterday, a group of researchers at Newcastle University in the U.K. may have accidentally stumbled on a solution to the problems that have bedeviled carbon capture and sequestration — by studying sea urchins.

“We had set out to understand in detail the carbonic acid reaction, which is what happens when CO2 reacts with water, and needed a catalyst to speed up the process,” Dr. Lidija Šiller, the leader of the team, said in a press release. “At the same time, I was looking at how organisms absorb CO2 into their skeletons and in particular the sea urchin which converts the CO2 to calcium carbonate.”

The use of calcium carbonate to grow shells and other bony parts is a trait urchins share with other marine animals. And when the team examined the urchin larvae, they found a high concentrations of nickel on their exoskeleton. Working off that discovery, they added nickel nanoparticles to their carbonic acid test. The result was the complete removal of the CO2 as it was converted into calcium carbonate.

According to Gaurav Bhaduri, a PhD student in Newcastle University and the lead author of the team’s paper, the methodology they derived — and have now patented — is simpler and much cheaper than the traditional enzyme-based approaches:

“The beauty of a Nickel catalyst is that it carries on working regardless of the pH and because of its magnetic properties it can be re-captured and re-used time and time again. It’s also very cheap – 1,000 times cheaper than the enzyme. And the by-product – the carbonate – is useful and not damaging to the environment.”

The research team developed a process to capture CO2 from waste gas by passing it directly from a chimney top through a water column rich in nickel nanoparticles. The solid calcium carbonate can then be recovered at the bottom of the column.

The researchers say their discovery could provide big CO2 emitters, such as power stations and chemical processing plants, with a cheap way to capture and store their waste CO2 before it is released into the atmosphere.

Every method invented so far to capture or sequester carbon from emitters before it can enter the atmosphere has suffered from difficulties regarding cost, feasibility, and side-effects. Pumping CO2 into the ground, for instance, is difficult, expensive, and carries risks of leakage, water contamination, and even earthquakes. Other processes, like the ones mentioned by Bhaduri, also convert CO2 into calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate through the use of enzymes like carbonic anhydrase. But because of the chemical complexities they’re inefficient and expensive.

Calcium carbonate, which is essentially chalk, is widely used in the building industry to make cement and other materials. It’s even used by hospitals to make plaster casts. So once removed from the Newcastle team’s carbon capture process, the calcium carbonate could potentially be put to other uses.

The discovery certainly isn’t a cure all. The process can’t be fitted to car, so its use is limited to power plants and other major emitters. But Dr. Šiller believes it could someday have a big impact: “It is an effective, cheap solution that could be available world-wide to some of our most polluting industries and have a significant impact on the reduction of atmospheric CO2.”

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

How Offshore Tax Dodging Is Busting State And Federal Budgets

State and local governments lost $39.8 billion last year because corporations and the wealthy shifted profits to offshore tax havens, an amount roughly equal to what they spent on firefighters in 2008, according to a new report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). The federal government lost $150 billion in revenue to the same practices.

Corporations shifting profits to tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands has consequences for both individual taxpayers and America’s small businesses, and it also complicates efforts to reduce the size of the national deficit, a priority of both parties in Washington. The $150 billion lost to offshore tax avoidance at the federal level annually, the report notes, would be more than enough to offset the automatic spending cuts that are set to take place at the beginning of March if Congress does not offset it. Those cuts total $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

“So much of the discussion in the recent fiscal cliff negotiations centered on shared sacrifice,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) said on a conference call announcing the report. “I think that it is important in considering this report and its implications to reflect on that fiscal cliff agreement, because in it, corporations did not contribute a cent to resolving the fiscal cliff.”

The $150 billion lost to tax havens could cover the cost of Pell Grants for 10 million students for the next four years. It is also enough to double federal spending on Head Start and other education programs or pay for every high-speed rail project proposed by state governments in 2009. At the state level, $40 billion lost is enough to boost the number of firefighters back to 2008 levels or to cover the cost of education for 3.7 million children.

“Every dollar hidden abroad means less money for infrastructure, less money for education, less money for the investments that we need to create a strong local business climate for independent small businesses back home,” the Main Street Alliance’s Sam Blair said.

Meanwhile, offshore tax havens make America’s small businesses less competitive with large corporations. A previous PIRG report found that it would cost each small business $2,116 to make up revenue lost to corporate use of offshore tax havens.

Eight states — California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and North Carolina — lost at least $1 billion to offshore tax havens last year. California, a state that has enacted massive budget cuts in recent years, lost $7.1 billion in 2011, while New York and New Jersey each lost more than $4 billion.


View the original article here

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/5/13

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:24 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Thanks for being here.  I was hoping to skip the briefing today, but apparently I'm here to take your questions. 

Julie.

Q    Thank you.  How can the government determine that an American citizen is an imminent threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests without having any kind of specific evidence that that person is planning an immediate -- an attack in the immediate future? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the question, obviously, that you ask relates to some stories out today regarding a document prepared  -- an unclassified document prepared for some members of Congress -- and understandable questions.  And I can just say that this President takes his responsibilities very seriously, and first and foremost, that’s his responsibility, to protect the United States and American citizens.  He also takes his responsibility in conducting the war against al Qaeda as authorized by Congress in a way that is fully consistent with our Constitution and all the applicable laws. 

We have acknowledged, the United States, that sometimes we use remotely piloted aircraft to conduct targeted strikes against specific al Qaeda terrorists in order to prevent attacks on the United States and to save American lives.  We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats, to stop plots, prevent future attacks, and, again, save American lives.  These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise.  The U.S. government takes great care in deciding to pursue an al Qaeda terrorist, to ensure precision and to avoid loss of innocent life. 

As you know, in spite of these stories -- or prior to these stories, this administration, through numerous senior administration officials, including Deputy National Security and Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan, State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh, and former Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson -- have spoken publicly and at length about the U.S. commitment to conducting counterterrorism operations in accordance with all applicable domestic and international law, including the laws of war. 

In March 2012, the Attorney General gave a speech at Northwestern University Law School in which he outlined the legal framework that would apply if it was necessary to take a strike against one of the "small number of U.S. citizens who have decided to commit violent acts against their own country from abroad."  The Attorney General made clear that in taking such a strike, the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations, but that under generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions, U.S. citizenship alone does not make a leader of an enemy force immune from being targeted.

Q    But how can the government decide that there’s an imminent threat if there’s no evidence that an attack is happening in the immediate future?

MR. CARNEY:  As you know, Congress authorized in an authorization of the use of military force all necessary military force to be used in our fight against al Qaeda.  And certainly under that authority, the President acts in the United States' interest to protect the United States and its citizens from al Qaeda. 

The nature of the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates is certainly different from the kinds of conflicts that have involved nations against nations.  But this has been discussed amply, again, in the effort that we have made through our senior administration officials to explain the process that we use, by the officials I named -- by John Brennan in a speech, and he addressed this very issue about “imminent.” 

I would point you to the now-released -- it was not meant for public release, but it's not classified -- the now-released white paper, which goes into some detail on that very issue.

Q    Should the American people be comfortable with the administration's definition of "imminent" if it also means that there is no specific evidence to back that up?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I think that what you have in general with al Qaeda senior leadership is a continuing process of plotting against the United States and American citizens, plotting attacks against the United States and American citizens. I think that’s fairly irrefutable.

What you also have is the authorization for the use of military force by Congress.  You also have a President who is very mindful of the very questions that you are asking and is, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, taking all the necessary steps to ensure that he fulfills his constitutional obligation to protect the United States and its citizens, and does so in a way that comports with our Constitution and with our laws.

Q    Did he sign off on this memo and any classified documents to back it up?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I certainly have no information on any classified documents.  I don’t know the specific process by which this memo was generated.

Yes, Reuters.

Q    Jay, the President’s remarks today -- what sort of package is he talking -- how big a package is he talking about?  What’s the mix between spending cuts and revenue?  Is he going to offer his own package?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you heard from the President a couple of things.  First that he has sought continually with leaders in Congress to achieve broad deficit reduction that would reach the target of $4 trillion over 10 years that would help put our economy on a fiscally sustainable path.  He continues to seek achievement of that goal. 

We have come a long way, or a significant way, towards achievement of that goal -- over $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction through the combined actions that this President has signed into law -- the spending cuts and revenues as well as saving through interest that we’ve achieved thus far. 

The deal that he put forward to Speaker Boehner in December, which, unfortunately, the Speaker walked away from, remains on the table.  The President made that clear.  We are in a situation now where if Congress is not able to or willing to act immediately on this bigger deal -- which would eliminate the sequester entirely as well as achieve all those other important objectives like $4 trillion in deficit reduction, like continued investment in our economy to make sure it continues to create jobs and grow -- we need to not engage in a process where Washington is inflicting a wound on the economy unnecessarily.  And that’s what would happen if the so-called sequester were to be allowed to kick in on March 1st. 

Because we have relatively little time between now and March 1st, the President believes that we ought to -- Congress ought to take action to buy down the sequester in a balanced way -- which we actually just did in December so we know what the model looks like to achieve it.  And he would work with -- we would work with Congress on the composition of that package. 

But the point is, as the President said, leaders in the Senate and the House have committed themselves to a standard budget process, a budget process that we hope would result in -- and produce a package that achieves the kind of further balanced deficit reduction the President talked about, that allows the economy, which is poised to grow and create jobs in 2013, to do just that.

So we should not, while that process is underway, essentially blow it up by permitting the sequester to take effect, the result of which would be hundreds of thousands of people potentially losing jobs and a direct hit to the American economy at a time that we shouldn't be letting Washington do such a thing.

Q    Republicans were talking about closing tax loopholes in lieu of a tax increase on the wealthy.  But you got the tax increase on the wealthy.  Why would they be in any position to support tax -- closing these loopholes now?

MR. CARNEY:  I've heard some folks speaking about this very issue on the Republican side, in search for I think better messaging on the same set of proposals.  The problem is the proposals.  It's not the communication strategy.  And here's why. If it was desirable and achievable last year to raise up to $800 billion in revenue by cutting, eliminating loopholes in our tax code that benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations, by capping deductions that benefit the wealthiest individuals, it can't possibly be the case now that that policy is good policy and that we should instead reduce our deficit further solely by asking the same people that Republican leaders now are insisting they care most about to bear the burden of deficit reduction alone.  It can't be. 

If $800 billion in deficit reduction were achievable through tax reform, raising revenues through tax reform, because those loopholes needed to be closed and because those deductions needed to be capped, because, in our view, hedge fund managers should not be paying at a significantly lower rate than bus drivers or clerical assistants or store managers, that has to be the -- if that was true then, it's got to be true now. 

And what we need to do is continue to cut spending in a responsible way, eliminate or change programs that can and should be eliminated or changed, but also raise revenue through tax reform by doing the very things that, again, outside groups have said we should and must do -- Simpson-Bowles Commission and others -- doing the things that have been identified by the President, by Democrats and Republicans, including the Speaker of the House just a couple of months ago.

Dan.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  Just to follow on drones.  So is there a checklist then that will more narrowly define what "imminent threat" is?  Is there a checklist that will be followed?

MR. CARNEY:  I would point you to a speech by John Brennan where he talked about this issue.  And again, I want to say from the outset, these are important questions and the President takes them very seriously, just as he takes his responsibility to defend the United States and its citizens very seriously. 

Mr. Brennan gave a speech in which he talked about this issue of imminent threat.  I think I just talked in general terms about the nature of the conflict we have with the terrorists who have set as their goal the killing of Americans and attacks on the United States.  And this President and those who work for him are very mindful of the need to fulfill our responsibility to protect the United States and its citizens, and to do so in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and consistent with the laws that apply.  And that is certainly something of great importance to the President.

Q    So the White House doesn't believe that this is vague in any way? 

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would point you to the paper that we've been talking about that generated the stories today, that as a general -- in a general statement of principles on matters related to this, explains some of the legal reasoning that undergirds it. 

There’s no question that in the conflict that we have been engaged in with al Qaeda, that as many more sophisticated observers than I have noted, we have significant challenges because of the nature of the attacks, how they’re planned, who plans them.  But there is no question that senior operational leaders of al Qaeda are continually planning to attack the United States, to attack American citizens.

Under the authorization of Congress in the war against al Qaeda, the authorization to use military force, it is entirely appropriate for the United States to target senior operational leaders of al Qaeda.

Q    Jay, on gun violence --

Q    Jay, not to --

MR. CARNEY:  I’m sorry, I’m taking questions here, thanks.  And I’ll call on others as Dan finishes.

Q    Thanks.  On gun violence, how committed is the President to pushing for the assault weapons ban?  And is this something that he wants to see happen initially or happen later? I mean, it almost seems like this is being separated from some of the -- background checks and some of the other things that the President is pushing for.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think there’s obviously active discussion and debate on Capitol Hill about all the measures that the President put forward in his comprehensive package of common-sense solutions to reduce gun violence, and that includes the need to institute universal background checks.  It includes the need to confirm an ATF director for the first time.  It includes the need to do something about limiting high-capacity ammunition clips and to reinstate an updated assault weapons ban. 

The President supports all these measures.  He made that clear again yesterday in Minneapolis.  He has long supported the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, and looks forward to Congress having a vote and taking action on that issue.  So there’s not -- the package the President put together entirely enjoys his support and he will push for all of it. 

He has said, when asked and in his remarks about this effort, that he understands that these are hard things to achieve. If they weren’t hard, they surely would have been achieved already.  But it is imperative that we commit ourselves to getting this done, to working with Congress, to working with organizations and groups and individuals around the country to raise awareness of the need to act, to raise voices in support of the need to act.  And that’s why the President traveled yesterday on this issue and while he’ll continue -- he and the Vice President and others -- will continue to make the case both here in Washington and around the country.

Jon.

Q    The President strongly opposed the enhanced interrogation techniques --

Q    -- senators are calling for the release of those papers --

MR. CARNEY:  I think I called on Jon. 

Q    Are you going to release those papers that --

MR. CARNEY:  I think I called on Jon.  Go ahead.

Q    The President obviously strongly opposed the enhanced interrogation techniques, so-called, from the Bush administration.  He ended them.  How is dropping -- how does dropping a bomb on an American citizen without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions than something like waterboarding?

MR. CARNEY:  Jon, again, as I said, the questions around this issue are important and the President takes them seriously. He takes his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to protect the United States and its citizens very seriously.  He takes the absolute necessity to conduct our war against al Qaeda and its affiliates in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution and our laws very seriously. 

It is a matter of fact that Congress authorized the use of military force against al Qaeda.  It is a matter of fact that al Qaeda is in a state of war against us and that senior leaders, operational leaders of al Qaeda are continually plotting to attack the United States, plotting to kill American citizens as they did most horrifically on September 11, 2001.

So again I would point you to the speeches that have been given by senior administration officials to the document that we’ve been discussing here, where the reasoning is laid out, and simply make the point that the President understands the gravity of these issues.  That is why he is committed to taking very seriously his responsibilities in this and committed to the kind of process that you’ve seen in an effort to communicate publicly about it, elaborated by senior administration officials on numerous occasions.

Q    But let’s be clear.  This is giving a legal justification for killing American citizens without any trial whatsoever, without any evidence.

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would point you to the ample judicial precedent for the idea that someone who takes up arms against the United States in a war against the United States is an enemy, and therefore could be targeted accordingly.  That’s I think established in a number of cases, and I’m not even a lawyer and I’m aware of that.

So having said that, the issues here are important and the President recognizes that.  And that’s why he takes these responsibilities so seriously.  That’s why he has authorized various senior administration officials to discuss publicly these issues the way that they have, and why I believe that process will continue.

Q    What do you say to the ACLU that calls this a profoundly disturbing document because it gives broad power without checks, without balances?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would point you to the legal reasoning behind what we are talking about here, and recognize that these are weighty matters that are all about the balancing of imperatives here, the need to defend the United States, defend American citizens against senior al Qaeda officials and affiliated actors who are engaged continually in an effort to attack the United States and American citizens. 

So, again, you won’t get a debate with me about whether these are significant matters that merit discussion.  But I think you’ve seen in the way that this President has approached them the seriousness with which he takes all of his responsibilities on this.

Q    Well, what about -- just one more -- what about the drone strike that killed the 16-year-old son of Awlaki.  Does he meet that definition of a senior operational leader as outlined in the white paper?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Jon, I’m not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred.  What I can talk to you about is the general principle that had been discussed by senior administration officials, the acknowledgement that we’ve made about actions taken in countries like Yemen and Somalia, and the overriding fact that senior operational leaders of al Qaeda have, without question, engaged in plots against the United States and engaged in plots designed to kill Americans, often many, many Americans. 

And that’s a reality that a Commander-in-Chief has to confront as part of his constitutional responsibility.  And therefore, it is, this President believes, important that we address it in a way that acknowledges those constitutional responsibilities and the responsibility to carry out our war against al Qaeda in a way that is consistent with our values and our laws and our Constitution.

Q    What about some kind of review?  I mean, you're taking away a U.S. citizen's due process.  And nobody is questioning particularly this President's good intentions, but you're establishing a precedent which will last beyond this administration.  You're pointing to various legal decisions to back it up, but doesn’t it deserve a broader debate and a broader court hearing?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t know about a specific suggestion like that.  I can tell you that the administration has -- and I think this is demonstrated by the public comments of senior administration officials on this matter -- reviewed these issues -- I think that’s demonstrated by the so-called white paper that was published today -- and is continually reviewing these matters.  How that process moves forward from here I'm not going to speculate.  But, again, going back to what I've said before, we understand that these are weighty matters, that these are serious issues, and they deserve the kind of considered approach that this President has taken to them.

Q    Shouldn’t it be considered beyond the executive branch, is what I'm asking.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not going to speculate about how these issues or matters might be considered in the future.  What I can tell you is that, internally, they have been reviewed and considered with great care and deliberation.

Q    On the sequester, is the President asking Congress to do exactly what he suggested to the Speaker last fall?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, I want to congratulate those who have taken the bait in a communications effort -- you know that you've lost the argument when you start relying on a complete misinterpretation of a quote that everybody knows is wrong as the basis of an argument, which is, the President, when he said that, was talking -- you're talking about vetoing -- would never -- "I would veto this?"

Q    No.  I'm just asking if -- (laughter) --

MR. CARNEY:  Tell me then what you're talking about.  (Laughter.)  Because I think that’s what you are talking --

Q    Apparently it's the answer you wanted to give, but it's not the question.  (Laughter.)   

MR. CARNEY:  Let's see what you're talking about, Bill, because I have my suspicions. 

Q    All right.  The President and the Speaker discussed how to do this last fall.  Is that what the President is asking?

MR. CARNEY:  Discuss how to do what?

Q    Discuss how to reduce spending.

MR. CARNEY:  If you're asking me is the President's plan from -- you mean last December?

Q    Yes.

MR. CARNEY:  Okay.  Absolutely.  He made very clear here that the President believes that -- and encourages the Speaker of the House and Republican leaders in Congress to take up the remaining portions of the proposal that he put before the Speaker that the Speaker walked away from. 

Q    So that’s what he wants?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, you were sitting right here.  You heard the President talk about how he would be delighted if Congress were to act on that right away.  Because there are only a few weeks before the sequester kicks in, he also doesn’t want -- if it's not possible for Congress to do that, he doesn’t want to have the sequester kick in right at a time when leaders in Congress are committed, from both parties, to a budget process that will obviously extend beyond March 1st, and which will hopefully produce a budget that achieves the kind of balanced deficit reduction that this President supports, that Democrats and Republicans and independents support, that bipartisan commissions support.

So his point today was the big deal, if you will, remains what he seeks.  We have an imminent deadline when it comes to the sequester kicking in, and we certainly oppose suggestions by some that as a political tool we should allow the sequester to kick in; that for political advantage, it would be okay to have tens and thousands or hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their jobs because of these across-the-board indiscriminate cuts in defense and nondefense spending.  We shouldn’t do that, because we should not inflict harm on the economy right when it's in a position to grow and create jobs.

So we should act responsibly in a balanced way to buy down the deficit, just as we did as part of the fiscal cliff deal -- the sort of unremarked-upon part of the fiscal cliff deal at the end of the year to allow Congress the time and space necessary to move forward with this budget process, which the President hopes, as a part of a return to sort of normalcy, if you will, and the way that we deal with these matters, will produce something that represents balance and the principles that he has espoused for so long.

Q    One more.  Israeli television says the President will visit there on March 20.

MR. CARNEY:  That’s a statement.  Do you have a question?

Q    Yes.  (Laughter.)  Will he?

MR. CARNEY:  When the President spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu on January 28th, they discussed a visit by the President to Israel in the spring.  The start of the President's second term and the formation of a new Israeli government offer the opportunity to reaffirm the deep and enduring bonds between the United States and Israel, and to discuss the way forward on a broad range of issues of mutual concern, including of course Iran and Syria.  Additional details about the trip, including the dates of travel, will be released at a later time.

Q    Jay, following on the sequester, what I wonder is if you could flesh out for us, though, what specifically the President is calling for.  We remember what was on the table in December.  Some of that was acted on, some of it wasn't.  But, for example, I seem to remember the President saying something like he'd be willing to do $350 billion in Medicare cuts -- because you were referring back to his previous budget.  In this case, you only need about $85 billion to shut off the sequester.  So my question is --

MR. CARNEY:  You need far more than that.  The sequester is $1.2 trillion. 

Q    I think for the short-term, though.

MR. CARNEY:  Right, so the President --

Q    And the President is talking about $85 billion in the short term.

MR. CARNEY:  So I just want to be clear, and that is that the deal the President offered Speaker Boehner, which many of you reported on, that represented meeting Republicans at least halfway when it came to revenues as well as spending cuts, that represented some very tough choices on entitlement reforms, remains on the table in its entirety. 

Q    But please spell that out.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, it's been spelled out.  I'm happy to give you more details. 

Q    Unchained CPI, Social Security -- what's on the table?

MR. CARNEY:  Everything that was in that plan is available today to the Republicans, including the additional $600 billion in revenue that was part of the President's proposal.  And that revenue could be achieved through tax reform.  And that means eliminating -- closing loopholes that give tax advantages to the wealthy and to corporations that average Americans and average businesses don't have.  They give the ability of hedge fund managers and others who enjoy the benefit of paying tax on their income through the carried interest rule that allows them to pay a much lower percentage of tax on their income than, say, most average Americans.  So that should be closed.

So there's the subsidies to oil and gas companies.  There's the subsidies to corporate jet owners.  These are the kinds of things that can account for -- there's the cap on deductions, limiting it to 28 percent.  These are proposals that are, on paper, part of the President's plan. 

And if we were to move forward and try to achieve all of the remaining deficit reduction that would hit that $4 trillion target, that would far exceed what's necessary to eliminate the sequester and it would put us -- because included in the President's package are targeted measures to invest in our economy and help it grow and create jobs -- that would put us on a fiscally sustainable path and allow us to grow more and create jobs faster.

Q    Thank you for answering that.  And a follow would be then, that $600 billion you referred to, mostly you referred to deductions and capping things --

MR. CARNEY:  Tax reform.

Q    Tax reform.  So are you closing the door on new tax rate increases as part of this?  Is it just deductions?

MR. CARNEY:  The President was asked this on Sunday.  I think it was much discussed at the end of the year when we were doing the fiscal cliff negotiations.  The President sought and achieved a return to the Clinton-era rates, a top marginal rate of 39.6 percent for top earners, for millionaires and billionaires.  In the deal that was reached with Congress on the fiscal cliff, that set the threshold at $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families.  That's a significant accomplishment that helps achieve the revenue that has contributed to the deficit reduction that we talked about, the $2.5 trillion.

Q    But he wanted $250,000.

MR. CARNEY:  There's no question that that was part of the deal that was reached in the fiscal cliff.  Going forward, we can -- if you're telling me, if you're announcing to me that Republicans want to revisit tax rates, that would be an interesting --

Q    Do you want to?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President answered this question very clearly.  Are you telling me you didn't watch the Super Bowl?  But the President answered this question.  I think we answered it frequently at the end of the year.  The point is there is still revenue that must be achieved as part of a balanced package through tax reform. 

And that's a principle not only that the President has articulated, it's a principle that Speaker Boehner articulated at the end of the year.  And as I was saying earlier, it can't possibly be that the reforms to our tax code that were good and desirable then are somehow not worth doing now, that we shouldn't close those loopholes that allow corporations and wealthy individuals to take advantage of the tax code in a way that average folks can't. 

We need to reform our tax code in a way that makes it fairer and better, and that allows us to raise some additional revenue combined with spending cuts that achieve the kind of deficit reduction we need.

Q    So last thing -- when he was talking about the March 1st deadline and the reason why we need a short-term solution is that Congress may not get a budget done by March 1st, a broader budget, so you've got to deal with the sequester separately.  You've got the March 1 deadline on that.  Why didn't he meet the deadline for submitting his own budget then?  And when will we see --

MR. CARNEY:  Part of what the President has talked about just in recent days is that we need to get beyond this situation where we are governing, especially with regards to our fiscal and economic matters, in a state of constant crisis, under a cloud of crisis.  And as you saw with the nail-biting negotiations over the fiscal cliff, with the machinations over whether or not we would entertain default, that's what we've been doing.  And that has certainly distracted from the process of producing --

Q    So why not submit a budget and calm the markets and say, here's the plan?

MR. CARNEY:  I think I'm answering your question -- that  because of these things, we are delayed in producing a budget.  But, Ed, let's be clear.  The President produced a budget that achieves the kind of balanced deficit reduction that everyone has called for, that the American people support.  Republicans produced a budget in the House that contains no balance and asked -- if it were ever to become law, even though it's not supported by the American people -- that would have asked seniors and other Americans to bear the burden solely of deficit reduction while eliminating Medicare as we know it.  Not a great idea.

The President, again, in his negotiations with the Speaker of the House put forward a broad $4 trillion deficit reduction package that remains available -- the parts that haven't been acted on -- to the Speaker right now. 

So when it comes to specific plans -- again, we had this debate at the end of the year -- the specificity attached to the President’s proposal to Speaker Boehner is considerable compared to what we saw in return.  Specificity is there.  It remains available to be acted on.

What the President was announcing today is, given that we have this imminent deadline, given the unfortunate reluctance of the Speaker and others to act on that proposal at least right now, we should not allow the sequester to kick in and threaten the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans and deliver a blow to the economy right when we can't afford it.

Kristen.

Q    Jay, thanks.  A group of bipartisan senators, 11 of them wrote a letter to the President asking him to release all of the Justice Department memos relating to the subject of a suspected al Qaeda leader who might be a U.S. citizen as well.  Will President Obama release those memos?

MR. CARNEY:  I just have nothing for you on alleged memos regarding potentially classified matters.

Q    So you can't tell us whether you're going to release --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I just don't have anything for you on that.

Q    Can you address the broader question of transparency?  The President has obviously talked a lot about the importance of transparency, and here you have a document being leaked, senators calling for more information.  Is this transparency?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, what I would say is that, as I’ve been saying, with regards to this matter and the issues around it, the President has made clear, as reflected in the statements by and speeches by senior administration officials, that we need to inform the public and explain to the public and to you the process that we’re undertaking and the reasoning behind it.  And the white paper that was provided to some members of Congress -- it is unclassified, it’s been released -- is part of that process.  And since it is out there, you should read it.  I think it’s a click away.

Q    It was leaked.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, it was an unclassified document provided to, as I understand it, members of Congress with a particular oversight responsibility on these issues. 

The fact is -- and I encourage you to go back to look the speeches by the Attorney General, by John Brennan, remarks by Jeh Johnson and by Harold Koh on these matters, and I think they provide a pretty voluminous accounting of matters that are treated here with great deliberation and seriousness.

Q    I want to just shift to immigration quickly, Jay.  After the President’s meeting this morning with progressive and labor leaders, some of them came out of the meeting and said that they want -- they don't want to see a path to citizenship be contingent on border security.  Is that a line in the sand that the President is willing to draw as well?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President has addressed this.  What we -- and I have.  When it comes to border security, the President’s record is extremely strong.  And as we’ve said, the goals that were set out by Senator McCain and others that needed to be -- that they believe needed to be met in terms of border security in order to pursue comprehensive immigration reform, while we do not agree that we needed to do it first before we move forward -- the President thought we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform when he was senator, he thought we should have passed it in 2010 -- the fact of the matter is close to all of those goals, if not all of those goals, have been met because of the President’s commitment to enhanced border security. 

And I won’t go through it again because I think I’ve provided a substantial amount of numerical evidence to that.  Senator McCain himself has said in recent days that there’s been enormous strides made when it comes to border security.  So that's a fact.  And the President’s -- among the President’s four principles in moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform is that we have to continue to take steps to enhance our border security.

I’m not going to prejudge and he’s not going to prejudge what the Senate comes up with in this bipartisan effort to produce comprehensive immigration reform.  What is clear is that the President’s commitment to border security has been amply demonstrated and is backed up by hard, cold facts.

It is also true that he remains, as part of the comprehensive immigration reform process, committed to increasing our border security further.  But when we talk about comprehensive immigration reform, we’re talking about a whole package that moves as a whole.  And that includes a clear path to citizenship for people who are affected here.  So those are the President’s principles.  I’m not going to rule in or out things in legislation that doesn't yet exist.

Julianna.

Q    Thanks.  On the sequester, the package that the President is talking about to temporarily delay it, does that need to meet the definition of balance?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes.

Q    Could that be spending cuts alone?

MR. CARNEY:  Balance.

Q    Because he was talking of spending cuts and tax reform, but tax reform is a --

MR. CARNEY:  Tax reform that generates revenue.

Q    -- tall order in the next month.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, when we talk about -- going to Ed’s question -- about the size of a temporary buy-down, there are certainly means available to achieve balance.  That includes cuts and revenue that would not be that complicated.  So we would look forward -- the principle of balance applies in all things when this -- as far as the President is concerned when we approach reducing our deficit because it can't be the right way to go in December and not the right way to go in February or March.

Q    And that’s a priority over letting the sequester go into effect?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President doesn't believe that we should ask our seniors, or families who have children with disabilities, or folks who are trying to send their kids to school, that they should bear the burden of deficit reduction alone.  So a proposal that says we'll solve this problem temporarily or for the long term, either way, just by asking those folks to bear the burden is not one the President would support.

Q    And on John Brennan's confirmation hearing -- does the White House believe that they're going to be smooth sailing?  Or do you expect to see the same sort of resistance as Senator Hagel?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me start with Senator Hagel.  I think that we've seen since his hearing an increase in the number of senators who have come out publicly to say that they will vote to confirm him.  We've seen Senator McCain say, I believe yesterday, that he would oppose what would be essentially an unprecedented attempt to filibuster that nomination, and that is certainly appreciated.  So we see momentum behind Senator Hagel's nomination.  The President believes that he will be confirmed, and looks forward to having him serve as Secretary of Defense. 

When it comes to John Brennan, that process obviously has not started, as far as hearings go.  But, again, the President selected John Brennan because he knows from his experience working with him here in the White House that he would be an excellent director of Central Intelligence, and we believe that he will be confirmed.

Q    Does the President believe that there are any areas that should be off limits in the confirmation hearings, such as unauthorized -- renditions?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, setting aside what -- from the President here, I think that everyone involved in public hearings understands that the discussion of classified issues -- I'm not saying that issue can't be discussed, but classified matters is not a -- discussing classified matters in public hearings, generally not an appropriate thing to do or a legal thing to do.

But I'm sure that there will be -- the Senate will fulfill its responsibility here.  This is a process that’s important, and the President believes that Mr. Brennan will answer the senators' questions ably and that he will be confirmed.

Yes.  Welcome.

Q    Thank you.  Two quick things.  On Israel, the Jerusalem Post is apparently reporting he's also going to go to the West Bank, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.  Without obviously giving us dates and things, can you at least confirm the nature of the other countries he's going to be visiting?

MR. CARNEY:  I can tell you that that report is, at least in part, incorrect.  The President will --

Q    We got one country wrong?  (Laughter.) 

MR. CARNEY:  -- also travel -- well, I mean, but that shouldn’t be the standard, right, get it half right?

Q    So Israel is right?

Q    Any more? 

MR. CARNEY:  Were you not here?  I confirmed a question earlier that the President will --

Q    Not March?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not confirming dates here.  We'll have more information about dates later.  The President will also travel to the West Bank and Jordan to continue his close work with Palestinian Authority officials and Jordanian officials on bilateral and regional issues of mutual interest. 

So there’s going to be a little correction on that report I guess. 

Q    And then one other thing on the transparency question involving the white paper and the memo.  Seeing as how you’ve cited repeatedly today the extent to which administration officials have gone out and talked about the principles, and now you're have a 15-page white paper that kind of lays out the legal arguments, what is the administration's argument against releasing some form of the actual memos, perhaps -- if nothing else, a redacted form that -- since you already have now released both in written and verbal form much of the arguments that undergird them?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the discussions that you’ve seen in public, including in the white paper, have to do with general principles that are applied on this important matter.  Without going into the alleged existence of any particular memo or action, I can say that what we cannot do is discuss classified operations.  It would compromise what tend to be called sources and methods, and would do harm to our national security interests.

The fact of the matter is that the white paper that we’ve discussed was provided -- was developed and produced in an unclassified manner precisely so that those general principles could be spelled out and elaborated -- and I would refer you to Justice as well on this.  But that’s precisely why a document like that would be produced.

Q    But you will release the white paper?  You’ve pointed us to it several times.

MR. CARNEY:  I think it’s out there.  It’s online. 

Q    From you?  From you?

MR. CARNEY:  No, no -- I think it was a news organization that Kristen works for has put it out online.

Q    You’ve repeatedly pointed to it, referred to it.

MR. CARNEY:  I’m just saying that that document was produced by the administration, provided not for public release but provided to senators who have jurisdiction on these issues last year and for the very purposes of consideration that we’ve been discussing here.  And the reason why I can talk about it openly and refer you to it is because it is an unclassified document.

Q    But we request that you put it out, Jay.

MR. CARNEY:  Put what out?

Q    The white paper you’ve referred to dozens of times.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I’ll take the question.  I’m sure the Justice Department can also take this question.  It is out there online.

Q    Not the same thing.  It’s not.

MR. CARNEY:  I take your point.

Ari.

Q    You said that U.S. citizenship alone does not make a leader of an enemy force immune from being targeted.  Talk about U.S. citizenship plus residency.  Why does the U.S. believe it’s legal to kill Americans abroad but not to kill Americans at home without judicial process?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would point you to the ample material here both in spoken presentations by senior administration officials as well as the much discussed white paper.  I’m not a lawyer and these are the kinds of things that are probably best expressed and explained by lawyers.  My understanding, for what it’s worth --

Q    How would that --

MR. CARNEY:  Thank you for your interruption.  But there are issues here about, again, that have been discussed and are out there about feasibility of capture that I think are pertinent to that very question.

Q    So it’s not --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not a lawyer -- and maybe you are.  I bet you are --

Q    I’m not.  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  But you’d make a very good one.  (Laughter.)   So I can’t -- it’s not appropriate for me --

Q    But it sounds like you’re saying there’s no constitutional distinction; it’s just that capture is feasible in the U.S. and it may not be feasible abroad.

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would look at the reasoning that underpins what we’ve been talking about here, again, available in the presentations made by senior administration officials that got far less attention than this story at the time -- even collectively less attention and fewer questions, even though they were public speeches given, in some cases, before journalists.  And it talked about just these issues -- and also the document that we’ve been discussing, which is available.

Q    But doesn’t it stand to reason that if imminence is one of the major tests, a plot in the United States conducted by a terrorist leader in the United States would be more imminent than something abroad?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, I think I've addressed this in terms of the general reasoning here and I would point you to the sources that I've just talked about.

Q    Jay, on immigration, the President met with labor leaders this morning and has business CEOs coming in later today. And I'm wondering to the extent he thinks a deal might be possible between both sides in the debate on a temporary worker program.  I mean, does he think that's realistic?  Is he trying to help make that happen?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think we've discussed this before or I've been asked about it before.  The President will obviously look forward to working with Congress, the Senate, as it produces legislation -- and the House, if it produces legislation on this matter, and will consider as part of the comprehensive deal efforts to address that question.  I don't have any disposition in particular to provide to you about it.  We're looking to Congress to deliberate on that issue.

Yes.  Tara, how are you?

Q    Fine, thanks.  On the sequester, when you agreed to the two-month extension as part of the fiscal cliff deal, sort of the rationalization for the short-term nature of that was to give Congress and the White House time to come up with a solution.  You're now asking for another short-term extension.  Was there anything, any attempt in the last couple weeks to come up with a solution if you made a determination that would not happen by March 1st?  And to speak to your point, you said here that the government can't run on a short-term extension and the President has said that.  Now that you're asking for the second short-term extension or fix, how are the two -- the action and the statements consistent?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, there's no question, as the President made clear when he came out here, that the preferred course of action is to resolve this by accepting what the President put forward, which is a compromise solution that achieves the big deal, the $4 trillion total in deficit reduction, in a balanced way, that would allow our economy to grow and to continue to create jobs, but would also, by reducing our deficits significantly, put us on a fiscally sustainable path. 

It would do it in a way that would protect seniors and middle-class families, and not ask them to bear the sole burden of the need to reduce our deficit.  It would do it in a way that asks folks to play by the same rules, that says we should close loopholes in our tax code that allow wealthy individuals or corporations to enjoy tax benefits that average folks and average businesses don't enjoy.

So it remains and has been the President's preferred course. What he has also said is -- as recently as 40 minutes ago -- that if Congress won't act on the bigger deal or can't in the time before the sequester is scheduled to kick in, we need to take action, Congress needs to take action to make sure the sequester doesn't kick in. 

Because far from being a useful political tool in someone's back pocket, the sequester, if allowed to kick in, threatens the livelihoods of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans.  It would do harm to middle-class families around the country.  And there’s no reason to allow it to take effect when we can agree, as we did in December, or January 1st, to buy down the sequester for a period of time to give Congress the time and space to do what it has now, in the interim, agreed to do, which is pursue a budget process that the President hopes will result in further balanced deficit reduction along the lines that he's proposed.

Q    But were there any serious attempts to do it in this two-month --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, there was certainly a hope that in the wake of what you all wrote was -- well, I won't go there -- but in the wake of the fiscal cliff deal that produced the result that it did, that there might be a greater willingness in the near term to embrace the kind of reasonable compromise the President put forward; that, again, numerically, factually, represented the President coming halfway towards Republicans, the President making some very tough decisions and leading the Democrats on those issues when it comes to entitlement reforms and spending cuts; and that maybe there would be a willingness to grab hold of that opportunity, perhaps to achieve the significant deficit reduction in a bipartisan way, claim victory for everyone here in that effort, and then move on to other issues.

That hasn't happened yet.  However, the Congress has decided to move forward with a budget process that has the potential of allowing the kind of action to take place here when it comes to these matters that removes the constant state of crisis, removes the cloud of crisis that we've had over our head for so long.  And the President is encouraged by that.  So we should buy down the sequester so that we don’t create chaos in our economy right as we're trying to do something bigger and better.

Q    Jay, is the release of the memo a threat to national security? 

MR. CARNEY:  I'm sorry?

Q    Is the release of this memo a threat to national security?

MR. CARNEY:  Which memo?

Q    The drone -- switching topics -- (laughter) -- I mean, sorry, the release of the DOJ white paper?

MR. CARNEY:  No.  No. 

Q    What's that?

MR. CARNEY:  No, it was provided -- it's an unclassified document.

Q    So you don’t -- even though it was unclassified, the fact that it's out there is --

MR. CARNEY:  It wasn't designed for public release, but it's an unclassified document.

Q    Okay.

MR. CARNEY:  Thanks, guys.

END   
2:16 P.M. EST

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President Obama explains that while our economy is headed in the right direction, looming automatic budget cuts will cost jobs and slow down our recovery.

February 05, 2013 12:48 PM EST

Apply today for a chance to join the White House social media team for the State of the Union.

February 05, 2013 10:58 AM EST

We're working towards Petitions 2.0, releasing an API, and inviting a small group to join us on February 22, 2013 for the White House Open Data Day Hackathon.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here