Remarks by the President and Vice President at Meeting of the National Governors Association

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

State Dining Room

11:18 A.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you all.  I tell you what, I didn't know Jack was as good as he is until I heard that rhyme last night.  (Laughter.)  Jack, if you had done that, I’d be introducing you here.  (Laughter.)

Thank you all very, very much.  I’m sorry -- you guys are much more disciplined than the place I lived for 36 years, up on the Hill, and you’re running ahead of schedule.  And so the President is with me, and I want to thank you all for being here.  
We have a lot to work on.  There’s a lot from fixing a broken immigration system to rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, and this new word everybody in America is learning about -- “sequester.”

This town, unlike many of your capitals, is I hope temporarily frozen in -- not indifference but in sort of an intense partisanship, the likes of which in my career I’ve only see the last couple years.  But you know the American people have moved to a different place.  By the way, thanks for being so nice to my wife last night.  I like you a hell of better.  (Laughter.) We disagreed on some things.  

But all kidding aside, I think the American people have moved -- Democrats, Republicans, independents.  They know that the possibilities for this country are immense.  They're no longer traumatized by what was a traumatizing event, the great collapse in 2008.  They're no longer worried, I think, about our economy being overwhelmed either by Europe writ large, the EU, or China somehow swallowing up every bit of innovation that exists in the world.  They're no longer, I think, worried about our economy being overwhelmed beyond our shores.  

And I don't think they're any more -- there’s no -- there’s very little doubt in any circles out there about America’s ability to be in position to lead the world in the 21st century, not only in terms of our foreign policy, our incredible defense establishment, but economically.  I think the American people are ready to get up.  As a civil rights leader, when I was coming up as a kid, said, they're just -- the American people are tired of being tired.  I think they're ready to get up and move.  And you guys know that because it’s happening in your states.  You probably feel it in your fingertips more than most of us do here in Washington.

And as I said, I think they know we’re better positioned than any nation in the world to lead the world.  And that's why I think they're so frustrated by what they see and don't see happening here in Washington.  And I think their frustration is turning into a little bit of anger.

I found an interesting dynamic -- without ruining any of your reputations and picking out any one of you -- but whether it was a Democrat or Republican governor I had been talking to last night and over this past weekend, I heard from several of you, both parties, how do you deal with this going on up here?  How do you deal with the Congress?  No distinction, Democrat or Republican, depending who I was talking to, no distinction about who you’re dealing with -- but how do you deal with this?  Because you guys deal and women deal with legislatures that are split.  Some of you represent a minority party as a governor, yet you get on very well with -- you accomplish things in your home state.  And as I said, I’ve been here long enough -- that's the way it used to work, and I think we can make it work that way again.

But there’s a number of things we have to do immediately, and we may disagree on how to address them, but I don't think anybody disagrees on the need for them to be addressed -- from implementing the Affordable Care Act.  It’s the law.  You all are grappling with that.  Each of you are making different decisions, but you’re grappling with it.  You’re moving and you’re making your own judgments.  

We also have to -- I don't think there’s much disagreement there’s a need for immigration reform.  I’ve not met a governor from the time of implementing the Recovery Act to now who doesn't think that we have do something about our crumbling infrastructure in order to impact on our productivity here in this country -- continue to attract, keep and bring back American business from abroad.  

And there’s very little disagreement on the need to build an education system that has such immense possibilities for our people.

But on most of these issues we’re united by more than what divides us.  All these issues intersect at a place -- the ones I just mentioned and others -- they intersect at a place where both the state and federal governments engage.  So we’re going to have to work together.  They overlap in many cases.  

We’ll have our differences, but we all should agree that the United States has to once again have the highest percentage of college graduates of any nation in the world.  I don't think there’s any disagreement.  Everybody agrees and some of you governors have led the way on early education and the consequences for the prospects of success for our children not only of graduating, but avoiding the criminal justice system.  You’ve all led in knowing that we have to have reform of our high school system so that we -- and not only finding a pathway for people who are going to four-year college and community college but go into the trades.  

So there’s so much agreement that I think we ought to be able to get a fair amount done.  And we should all agree that to grow our economy we have to invest in manufacturing, clean energy, infrastructure, education.  The question is who invests and how much and how -- we’re going to debate that.  But there’s not much disagreement about the need to invest.  

And I think we’re all -- I’ve never met a Democrat or Republican who’s been a governor who doesn't think that the American people should have the sense that hard work is going to be rewarded, that there’s a chance that if you work hard, you got an opportunity.  I don't know of any group of men or women who are a better living example of that than all of you sitting in front of me in your own experiences.  

So the question is -- we all use the phrase “move forward in a balanced way” -- when one man’s balance is another man’s imbalance, but that's what we got to talk about.  That's what’s at stake.  But the one thing that I don't think any of you lack is a vision about how great this country can be now that we’re coming back, that we ought to be able to reassert ourselves in a way that we own the 21st century.  And I know the guy I’m about to introduce believes that as strongly as all of you do.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the President -- who’s back with the pastry chef and I’m wondering what he’s doing back there.  (Laughter.)  The President of the United States, my friend, Barack Obama.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)   Thank you.  Thank you, guys.  Please have a seat.  Well, welcome, everybody.  Thanks for being here.  

We all have a lot on our plate, everything from our immigration system to our education system.  As Joe talked about, our goal is to make sure that we can be an effective partner with you.

I want to thank the members of my Cabinet who are here, and members of the administration.  I want to thank Jack and Mary for their leadership of the NGA.  And everybody else, I just want to say thanks to you for being on your best behavior last night.  (Laughter.)  I’m told nothing was broken.  No silverware is missing.  (Laughter.)  I didn’t get any calls from the neighbors about the noise -- although I can’t speak for Joe’s after-party at the Observatory.  I hear that was wild.  (Laughter.)  

Now, I always enjoy this weekend when I have a chance to see the governors.  As leaders, we share responsibility to do whatever we can to help grow our economy and create good middle-class jobs, and open up new doors of opportunity for all of our people.  That’s our true north, our highest priority.  And it’s got to guide every decision that we make at every level.

As I’ve said, we should be asking ourselves three questions every single day:  How do we make America a magnet for good jobs? How do we equip our people with the skills and the training to get those jobs?  And how do we make sure if they get those jobs that their hard work actually pays off?  

As governors, you’re the ones who are on the ground, seeing firsthand every single day what works, what doesn’t work, and that's what makes you so indispensable.  Whatever your party, you ran for office to do everything that you could to make our folks’ lives better.  And one thing I know unites all of us, and all of you -- Democrats and Republicans -- and that is the last thing you want to see is Washington get in the way of progress.  

Unfortunately, in just four days, Congress is poised to allow a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts to kick in that will slow our economy, eliminate good jobs, and leave a lot of folks who are already pretty thinly stretched scrambling to figure out what to do.  

This morning, you received a report outlining exactly how these cuts will harm middle-class families in your states.  Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off.  Tens of thousands of parents will have to deal with finding child care for their children.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.  Tomorrow, for example, I’ll be in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where workers will sit idle when they should be repairing ships, and a carrier sits idle when it should be deploying to the Persian Gulf.  

Now, these impacts will not all be felt on day one.  But rest assured the uncertainty is already having an effect.  Companies are preparing layoff notices.  Families are preparing to cut back on expenses.  And the longer these cuts are in place, the bigger the impact will become.

So while you are in town, I hope that you speak with your congressional delegation and remind them in no uncertain terms exactly what is at stake and exactly who is at risk.  Because here’s the thing -- these cuts do not have to happen.  Congress can turn them off any time with just a little bit of compromise. To do so, Democrats like me need to acknowledge that we’re going to have to make modest reforms in Medicare if we want the program there for future generations and if we hope to maintain our ability to invest in critical things like education, research and infrastructure.

I’ve made that commitment.  It’s reflected in proposals I made last year and the year before that, and will be reflected in my budget, and I stand by those commitments to make the reforms for smart spending cuts.  

But we also need Republicans to adopt the same approach to tax reform that Speaker Boehner championed just two months ago.  Under our concept of tax reform, nobody’s rates would go up, but we’d be able to reduce the deficit by making some tough, smart spending cuts and getting rid of wasteful tax loopholes that benefit the well-off and the well-connected.  

I know that sometimes folks in Congress think that compromise is a bad word.  They figure they’ll pay a higher price at the polls for working with the other side than they will for standing pat or engaging in obstructionism.  But, as governors, some of you with legislators controlled by the other party, you know that compromise is essential to getting things done.  And so is prioritizing, making smart choices.  

That’s how Governor O’Malley in Maryland put his state on track to all but eliminate his deficit while keeping tuition down and making Maryland’s public schools among the best in America five years running.  That’s how Governor Haslam balanced his budget last year in Tennessee while still investing in key areas like education for Tennessee’s kids.  Like the rest of us, they know we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.  Cutting alone is not an economic policy.  We’ve got to make the tough, smart choices to cut what we don’t need so that we can invest in the things that we do need.  

Let me highlight two examples of what we do need.  The first is infrastructure.  This didn’t used to be a partisan issue. I don’t know when exactly that happened.  It should be a no-brainer.  Businesses are not going to set up shop in places where roads and bridges and ports and schools are falling apart.  They’re going to open their doors wherever they can connect the best transportation and communications networks to their businesses and to their customers.  

And that’s why I proposed what we’re calling “fix-it-first” -- I talked about this in my State of the Union address -- to put people to work right now on urgent repairs like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country.  And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the entire burden, I also proposed a partnership to rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most -- modern ports to move our goods, modern pipelines to withstand a storm, modern schools that are worthy of our children.

I know that some people in Congress reflexively oppose any idea that I put forward, even if it’s an idea that they once supported, but rebuilding infrastructure is not my idea.  It’s everybody’s idea.  It’s what built this country.  Governor Kitzhaber, a Democrat in Oregon, has made clean-energy infrastructure a top priority.  Governor Brownback of Kansas, a Republican, has been fighting to upgrade water infrastructure there.  

And folks who think spending really is our biggest problem should be more concerned than anybody about improving our infrastructure right now.  We're talking about deferred maintenance here.  We know we're going to have to spend the money.  And the longer we wait, the more it’s going to cost.  That is a fact.  I think Matt Mead, a Republican, put it pretty well in Wyoming’s state address.  He said failing to maintain our roads “is not a plan for being fiscally conservative.”  Well, what's true in Wyoming is true all across the United States.  

And we could be putting folks back to work right now.  We know contractors are begging for work.  They’ll come in on time, under budget, which never happens.   And we could make a whole lot of progress right now on things that we know we're going to have to do at some point.  This is like fixing the roof or repairing a boiler that's broken.  It will save us money in the long term.   

I know that one of the biggest hurdles that you face when it comes to fixing infrastructure is red tape.  And oftentimes, that comes out of Washington with regulations.  In my first term, we started to take some steps to address that.  And we’ve shaved months -- in some cases, even years -- off the timeline of infrastructure projects across America.

So today, I’m accelerating that effort.  We’re setting up regional teams that will focus on some of the unique needs each of you have in various parts of the country.  We’re going to help the Pacific Northwest move faster on renewable energy projects.  We’re going to help the Northeast Corridor move faster on high-speed rail service.  We’re going to help the Midwest and other states, like Colorado, move faster on projects that help farmers deal with worsening drought.  We’re going to help states like North Dakota and South Dakota and Montana move faster on oil and gas production.  All of these projects will get more Americans back to work faster.  And we can do even more if we can get Congress to act.    

The second priority that I want to talk about is education  -- and in particular, education that starts at the earliest age. I want to partner with each of you to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America.  

Now, this is an area where we've already seen great bipartisan work at the state level.  I was just in Governor Deal’s state to highlight this issue because Georgia has made it a priority to educate our youngest kids.  And in the school district where I visited in Decatur, Georgia, you're already seeing closing of the achievement gap.  Kids who are poor are leveling up.  And everybody is seeing real improvement, because it's high-quality, early childhood education.

Study after study shows that the sooner children begin to learn in these high-quality settings, the better he or she does down the road, and we all end up saving money.  Unfortunately, today fewer than three in 10 four-year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program.  Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week in additional income for these kinds of preschool programs.  And poor kids, who need it most, lack access.  And that lack of access can shadow them for the rest of their lives.  We all pay a price for that.  

Every dollar we invest in early childhood education can save more than seven dollars later on -- boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing incidents of violent crime.  

And again, I'm not the first person to focus on this. Governor Bentley has made this a priority in Alabama.  Governor Snyder is making it a priority in Michigan.  Governor Tomblin has made this a priority in West Virginia.  Even in a time of tight budgets, Republicans and Democrats are focused on high-quality early childhood education.  We want to make sure that we can be an effective partner in that process.

We should be able to do that for every child, everywhere -- Democrat, Republican, blue state, red state -- it shouldn't matter.  All of us want our kids to grow up more likely to read and write and do math at grade level, to graduate high school, hold a job, and form more stable families of their own.  That will be better for every state.  That will be better for this country.  That's what high-quality early childhood education can deliver.  And I hope that you're willing to partner with us to make that happen.

Let me just close with this.  There are always going to be areas where we have some genuine disagreement, here in Washington and in your respective states.  But there are more areas where we can do a lot more cooperating than I think we've seen over the last several years.  To do that, though, this town has to get past its obsession with focusing on the next election instead of the next generation.

All of us are elected officials.  All of us are concerned about our politics, both in our own party’s as well as the other party’s.  But at some point, we've got to do some governing.  And certainly what we can't do is keep careening from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis.  As I said in the State of the Union, the American people have worked hard and long to dig themselves out of one crisis; they don't need us creating another one.  And unfortunately, that's what we've been seeing too much out there.

The American people are out there every single day, meeting their responsibilities, giving it their all to provide for their families and their communities.  A lot of you are doing the same things in your respective states.  Well, we need that same kind of attitude here in Washington.  At the very least, the American people have a right to expect that from their representatives.  

And so I look forward to working with all of you not just to strengthen our economy for the short term, but also to reignite what has always been the central premise of America’s economic engine, and that is that we build a strong, growing, thriving middle class where if you work hard in this country, no matter who you are, what you look like, you can make it; you can succeed.  That's our goal, and I know that's the goal of all of you as well.  
So I look forward to our partnering.  And with that, what I want to do is clear out the press so we can take some questions. (Applause.)

END
11:40 A.M. EST

President Obama is on hand for the unveiling of the new Rosa Parks statue in the U.S. Capitol

February 27, 2013 12:00 PM EST

To mark African American History Month, as well as the 150th anniversary of the year the Emancipation Proclamation, we talked with White House Curator Bill Allman about a painting called Watch Meeting--Dec. 31st 1862--Waiting for the Hour that hangs near the Oval Office in the West Wing.

President Obama strongly believes we need to replace the arbitrary cuts known as the sequester with balanced deficit reduction, and today he was at a shipyard in Newport News, VA to talk about what failing to do so will mean for middle class families.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Remarks by the First Lady and Dr. Jill Biden to National Governors Association

The White House

Office of the First Lady

State Dining Room

10:40 A.M. EST

DR. BIDEN:  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Thank you, David, for that kind introduction.  And thank you all for coming this morning.  It was great to see you all last night.  And wasn’t Audra McDonald incredible?  (Applause.)  

So we’re delighted to have you here at the White House again this morning.  And the last time we were together, Michelle and I talked to you about one of our top priorities of our initiative Joining Forces, which I’m sure you all know about, which is our way to honor and support our troops, veterans and military families.

And we talked about one of the top concerns that we hear about from military spouses wherever we go, and that's professional licensing.  So I’m sure you remember this from last year, many of you do who were here.  

And our nation’s military spouses move 10 times more than their civilian counterparts, and 35 percent of those spouses have jobs that require a professional license.  So they're our teachers, our nurses, our social workers.  And we heard from a teacher -- this is just one of the instances -- who had 10 years' experience in her specialty in one state, and then when she moved to another state, she had to wait because the exam only took place twice a year.  So she lost a lot of time and actually a lot of income because she had to wait.  And then we met a nurse who moved 10 times during her husband’s service and needed to go through a different and complicated process every time she moved.  

So these are just a few of the countless stories we’ve heard that illustrate what a challenge license portability really is for our military spouses.

Back in February of last year when we met with you, only 11 states had pro-spouse legislation.  So the First Lady and I asked you for your help, and you’ve stepped up.  Yes.  (Applause.)  And you stepped up because you appreciate how much our military families do for our country every single day.  And just last month, Arkansas became the 28th state to pass legislation.  

In just one year we’ve made tremendous progress, and the First Lady and I are really appreciative of your efforts.  But there’s still more to do.  Right now we’re thankful that we have 13 more states that already have introduced legislation and are headed in the right direction.  So if your state has a small active-duty population, you might think that this issue may not impact you, but every state has a National Guard or Reserve.  And with so many families -- military families transitioning out of the military now and in the next few years, they’ll be focused on finding good jobs, good schools and good communities, whether there is a military base nearby or not.

So for the sake of our military families, it’s important that all 50 states get this done.  And passing these laws is just the first step.  We hope all of you will reach out to your bases and your National Guard and Reserve communities, talk with the military spouses -- I’m sure many of you already do this already -- and make sure that these laws are working for our military families.

So thank you for helping ease the burden for our military spouses and you’ve all done so much in all of your states.  So again, thank you for all that you’ve done already.

And now I’d like to introduce someone who has been working tirelessly for military families, someone who would like to tell you about our next effort.  You didn't think you were coming here without an ask, right?  (Laughter.)  So to make sure that all of our military families have good family -- good family-supporting jobs, so I’d like to introduce our First Lady, Michelle Obama.  (Applause.)

MRS. OBAMA:  Thanks so much.  (Applause.)  Thank you all.  Good morning.  Thank you.  I hope you all got some rest after last night.  We had a good time -- little tired.  (Laughter.)  If you noticed, I stayed up a little bit later -- (laughter) -- a little bit longer than I had anticipated, but it was well worth it.  But it's good to have you back this morning.

I want to thank Jill, once again, for that introduction, but more importantly for being such a tremendous partner on our Joining Forces initiative.  She's brought her level of passion and focus to this.  We could not be where we are without somebody like Jill who knows these issues, who lives them as a Blue Star mom every day.  So I want to thank her.  But I also want to echo -- absolutely.  (Applause.)  

And to echo Jill, I want to start by thanking all of you for the incredible work that you have done on the effort of spousal licensing.  I mean, it's truly a tremendous effort to go from 11 states to all but 13 states having gotten that done.  And as I was talking to Governor Christie and others, this isn't an issue that people don’t want to work on, it's just a matter of governors being aware of what's going on in their states.  And the truth is, is that once you know, so many of you have stepped up because we all want the best for our troops, our veterans, and for their families.

Your leadership has been truly phenomenal, and it just goes to show the power that states and governors have to make a difference for our troops, veterans and our families.  But, like Jill said, our work here is far from finished.  And I'm not just talking about licensing for our military spouses, I'm also talking about supporting our men and women in uniform as more and more of them make that transition back to civilian life.  

And as my husband announced during the State of the Union address, 34,000 troops are going to be coming home from Afghanistan in the next year.  And that -- yes, that’s a good thing.  (Applause.)  And that war will be over by the end of 2014.  So in the coming years, more than 1 million servicemembers -- 1 million of them -- will make the transition to civilian life.  I mean, just think about that impact -- a million men and women hanging up their uniform, trying to figure out what's next, and doing everything they can to make that change as seamless as possible for all of their families.

So the fact is that while this time of war may be ending, the truth is that our responsibilities to our troops and their families will really just be ramping up.  And that’s what I want to talk with you all about today -- how we can fulfill what is perhaps our most pressing responsibility to our troops.  And that is to make sure that when they come home after serving and stepping up on our behalf, that they can find a job -- and not just any job, but a good job, the kind of job that they can raise their families on.  Now, some of this work has already begun.  Last summer, my husband created a taskforce to help our servicemembers obtain the national certification that they need to help fill high-demand civilian jobs starting with the manufacturing industry.  

And today, we are excited to announce that we’re expanding this effort to the state level to focus on the health care and transportation industries.  So the idea is simple.  Many of you are working on these issues already.  If a servicemember has spent years treating wounded troops in a military hospital, they shouldn’t have to then spend thousands of dollars to get back into the classroom and study things that they've already learned just to get the same kind of job in the civilian world.  We want to make it easier for those who served as medics or drivers in the military to get new jobs as paramedics and nurses and physician assistants or truck drivers.

And since the credentials and licenses for those jobs are issued through the states, that means that all of you as America's governors have a very unique responsibility and opportunity to address this issue.  We know that right now our men and women in uniform face all kinds of obstacles before they can put their skills to use at home.  These men and women have spent thousands of hours in combat zones, saving lives amid explosions and gunfire.  They've driven armored vehicles thousands of miles on dangerous roads lined with IEDs.  Yet, back here at home they can't get hired to drive a semi or serve as an EMT.

So take the example of Maria Aliftiras.  She spent eight years as a medic in the Army Reserves -- eight years.  But when she left the Reserves, she had to take 1,200 hours of courses and clinical work to get her civilian paramedics license.  And she said that hundreds of those hours, about half of the coursework she had to take, was spent reviewing skills she had already mastered.  

And then there is former Navy Corpsman Eric Smith, who was once in charge of a 20-bed intensive care unit in San Diego.  After that, he served two tours in Iraq as a combat medic for a Marine infantry unit.  But when he came home, he couldn't get hired in a medical clinic.  So he had to take up odd jobs.  He had to serve as a bartender, do some day work.  And at one point, he even had to sign up to be a test patient for a drug study just to make enough money to get by.  And as he put it -- and these are his words -- he said, "In the civilian world, my military education and training did not translate because I didn't have a piece of paper saying that it did."  So we all have to think about that.  Because of a piece of paper, because our credentialing processes don't adequately reflect the skills and expertise our troops have gained serving this country, putting their lives on the line -- troops like Petty Officer Smith end up tending bar instead of saving lives.

But, fortunately, again, all of you have the power to make this right.  As we have seen on the spousal licensing issue, there are a number of ways that you as governors can help put our troops back to work without lowering a single professional standard in your states, because that's something we talked about.  This is not about lowering standards.  We've done this for our troops with manufacturing skills, and hundreds of them have earned advanced certifications already.  So now it’s time to get them back to work in the medical and transportation fields as well, and to do it right away.

So our goal is that by the end of 2015 -- we’ve got another goal, 2015 -- we want all 50 states to have taken legislative or executive action to help our troops get the credentials they need.  And that means that our troops will be taken care of no matter what state they decide to call home, which is why on the spousal licensing issue it is so important to get the rest of those 13.  We don’t want our men and women -- and their families -- in uniforms and veterans to be limited to where they can live because not all states are onboard.

Now, we know that every state is different and that what works beautifully in one state might not work as easily in another, so we’ve given you all packets like we did a year ago that lay out, step by step, all kinds of options for what each of your states could do on this issue.  And in your packet you’ll also get some tips and also some success stories from states like Oklahoma, Colorado, where Governors Fallin and Hickenlooper have taken important steps to ease the credentialing burden on their veterans in their states.  So we have some wonderful models already out there.  

And I want to emphasize that today will not be the last time that you hear from Jill and me on this issue, because with everything that involves our troops, veterans, and families, we will be working to help support you in whatever way we can along the way.  And we have a couple of folks here today who can help with whatever you need.  We have Todd Veazie, who is here, who’s the new Executive Director for Joining Forces.  Todd is right there.  We have Frank DiGiovanni, who is with the DOD.  Frank, would you stand so that they can see you as well?  

They are here and ready to answer any questions, to provide any follow-up that you may need.  Put them in contact with whoever they should be talking to in your states.  And, more importantly, we’re also going to be talking to your spouses about this, which is really the key -- (laughter) -- because we’re going to make sure they nag you until this happens in your state.  It’s what we’re doing at lunch.

DR. BIDEN:  Yes, that’s right.

MRS. OBAMA:  We also have members of the American Legion here today as well, because they’re behind this effort 100 percent.  And we are so grateful that they’ll be spreading the word about all of this throughout their state and local chapters across the country.  

But in the end, all of you are the ones who can make the biggest difference for our troops on this issue.  So we need you.  We need you to champion these credentialing issues right from the governor’s mansion.  We need you to find allies and supporters in your state legislators.  We need you to galvanize and involve the media in this effort in every way that you can as well.  

Because what we do know is that when you do all that -- what you know as well as Jill and I have seen that people step up.  You see that this is one of those issues, as we talked about at dinner, that everyone can get behind.  That’s the beauty of it.  You’re not going to have to twist many arms to make this happen.  People on both sides of the aisle will start lining up to help on this issue because they know like you and I know that if we do this, we’re not just upholding our values and honoring our troops -- we’ll also be lowering the unemployment rate.  We’ll be improving our health care system.  We’re going to be boosting economic growth in this country through these efforts.

And most importantly, we’re going to be strengthening our country not just for now but for the years ahead.  And in the end, that’s really what Joining Forces is all about.  It’s not just about supporting our heroes while they’re on the battlefield.  It’s about standing with them in these times; standing with them and their families when they come home.  When they come, it’s a forever commitment, because we know that they don’t stop serving this country when their military service ends.  That is the beauty of our servicemembers.  They keep on going.  

We know that they are the next generation of leaders all over the place -- in our businesses, in our hospitals, in our schools.  They are the key resources that will put this country on the track and keep it on the track of greatness.  So we don’t just owe it to them to get issues like this right.  We owe it to our communities and we owe it to our country.  That’s how we will continue to grow our economy, lift up our families, and create even greater opportunities for generations to come.

So today, I want to once again thank you all.  Thank you for everything you do as leaders in your states.  Thank you for the sacrifices that you and your families make to do these jobs.  And thank you for everything that you have done and will continue to do for our men and women in uniform and their families.  And Jill and I look forward to working with you all in the years to come.

So again, thank you.  God bless.  I hope you have a productive day.  And we’ll be following up.  (Laughter.)  Take care.  (Applause.)  

END
11:08 A.M. EST

President Obama is on hand for the unveiling of the new Rosa Parks statue in the U.S. Capitol

February 27, 2013 12:00 PM EST

To mark African American History Month, as well as the 150th anniversary of the year the Emancipation Proclamation, we talked with White House Curator Bill Allman about a painting called Watch Meeting--Dec. 31st 1862--Waiting for the Hour that hangs near the Oval Office in the West Wing.

President Obama strongly believes we need to replace the arbitrary cuts known as the sequester with balanced deficit reduction, and today he was at a shipyard in Newport News, VA to talk about what failing to do so will mean for middle class families.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Motion Picture Association of America CEO Christopher Dodd On Why Movies Matter

On Friday, Motion Picture Association of America president and CEO Christopher Dodd took the stage at the National Press Club to talk about his first several years on the job. It was an interesting talk less because of policy issues that Dodd focused on, or that he discussed during the question-and-answer period, but because of the way he talked about movies, and what they’ve come to mean to him as art during his almost two years at the association. In arguing for movies’ unifying role in a politically divided country, and movies and television as key tools of cultural diplomacy, Dodd’s talk raised some fascinating questions for me about how we approach and analyze movies, and what levels of responsibility we want to assign an art form that claims that potential impact.

Dodd admitted that before coming to the MPAA, “As a father of two very young children, 7, now almost 8, and 11, my movie selections were limited.” But as he’s reconnected with the product that his member companies produce, Dodd made an argument that both serves to burnish the reputation of those companies, and potentially exposes them to higher standards than your average producer of widgets.

“They tell stories, stories that help us make sense of our world and ourselves…Consider the focus on racism in To Kill A Mockingbird or Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” Dodd said. “The best movies ground us in common values and ideals. America’s a big place, as we all know, with red states and blue states…But gathered together in a darkened theater, regardless of our differences, we become, in spite of our differences, one place.”

The ability of movies to achieve that unity or provoke that kind of thought doesn’t mean that all movies have to meet that aspirational standard. But it does suggest that movies that do aim to tackle big ideas deserve to be taken seriously, which means being examined critically. Often, debates over accuracy get dismissed as nit-picking, which if the only question at stake is whether a movie is a literal translation of historical events or not, is potentially fair. But the questions of why and when movies choose to diverge from the historical record is can be rich ones, particularly when those questions happen in the realm of character interpretation, as in the presentation of President Lincoln’s attitudes toward black Americans in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln. As a critic who writes about the politics of entertainment, it’s been exciting to see academics, policy reporters, and political commentators enter the debates around Lincoln, Argo, Django Unchained, and Zero Dark Thirty because their desire to play on this turf is a reaffirmation of the idea that gives life to my career, even if I’m not always thrilled about how these arguments have functioned. The battles over how to interpret Zero Dark Thirty , for example, seem to me to have narrowed down to debates about whether the film is an accurate transcription of a murky historical record, rather than exploring the more revealing questions of how the script and directing choices shape the movie’s message about the immorality of torture, and why Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow felt compelled to portray the movie as an unbiased piece of reportage in the first place. That latter choice in particular says as much about the state of our debate about the use of torture as the movie itself.

If we’re going to take film seriously on the grounds that it has a unique power to influence audiences, we need to examine how well it does at getting audiences to do interpretive work—and leaving them space in which to do it—to open themselves up to new ideas, and to inhabit new perspectives. The blunt statements of opinion writing or cable news appearances, or the clear conclusion-drawing of long-form journalism aren’t necessarily the things that serve those goals well in film, where an indirect approach may lead otherwise-resistant audiences to a point they might not have accepted when presented bluntly, and manifestos can make characters seem like strawmen, rather than flesh-and-blood humans.

The prospect of using those tools abroad also invites consideration not just of movies’ content when they’re initially written and shot, but what sort of adjustments might be necessary and acceptable in order to get American movies distributed abroad. Asked about China, both a major emerging market for American movies—10 new movie screens come on line every day there—and a place with an extremely restrictive state-run approval board for film, Dodd emphasized the importance of getting American films there even if it means filmmakers have to participate in a less than democratic process that the voluntary ratings system in the United States was designed to avoid. “The idea that we can show and demonstrate who we are in a place like China, I think should be welcomed,” he said. “They deserve to see what we’re making.” The issue then becomes what they’re seeing, whether it’s a depiction of the democratic process in Lincoln, or simply what emerges as viable product in a capitalist market for movies. And while I don’t expect the basic project of seeking expanded access to the Chinese market will go away, I do imagine that the debate over the terms on which that access seems acceptable will only become sharper and more public as different versions of films show up in different markets, and streaming, licit or otherwise, makes it easier for audiences to see how what they’re getting varies from what’s available to other audiences.

And in discussing Life of Pi, Ang Lee’s Academy Award-nominated adaptation of Yann Martel’s novel, Dodd made what I think is an interesting point about the use of special effects, with potentially further-reaching implications than he intended. “Creating scenes of a boy and a live, man-eating Bengal tiger on a lifeboat would be awkward, to say the least,” Dodd said. “Twelve years ago, technology had not yet caught up with his vision. Last year, it did.” Now, it’s true that special effects have always been used to conjure to life scenarios that couldn’t possibly come to pass, whether it’s an army of Orcs or spaceships running a blockade. But often, those special effects have been used to take us away from our own world, to galaxies a long time ago and far, far away, rather than to create situations using ingredients from our own world in improbable juxtaposition. Special effects work doesn’t always have to be about something grand. They can be turned to intimate purposes, too—something Lee in particular has always been quite good at—and it’s worth remembering the small things you can do with any particular artistic tool, not just the biggest, most baroque applications.

Dodd, and other advocates for the industry, are trying to convince audiences in an age of streaming that movies must be seen on the big screen precisely because they’re spectacular. But based on his remarks at the Press Club, I wonder if Dodd might have an even better pitch in the call for communal experience. As television starts to behave more like the movies, with viewers watching shows entirely at their own pace, whether they’re streaming a show the day after it airs on Hulu, watching an episode in the week that follows off their DVR, or marathoning a program after it’s off the air on Netflix—or all at once when it’s released as an entire season—the movies could pitch themselves as the thing you have to see, if not all together, at least on their opening weekend, to be able to participate in the debate that follows. And if movies are among the most powerful pop-cultural tools that allow us to debate who we are and what we stand for, here and abroad, Dodd and his counterparts should be able to sell a particular urgency, at least to some viewers. Whether you’re off to see Daniel Day-Lewis conjure Abraham Lincoln from the grave, or gape at the spectacle of American capitalism that The Avengers represents, that vision of being together in a darkened room is just as important as the size of the screen or the scale of the spectacle projected on it.

View the original article here