Monday, June 10, 2013

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 03/18/2013

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:25 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon.  Thanks for being here.  Welcome back from what I hope was a fabulous weekend.  And I have no announcements to make at the top.  I think you probably saw, if you did not attend, the President’s announcement that he made his nomination for Secretary of the Treasury.  Beyond that, I got nothing.  I’m sorry, Secretary of Labor.  There is a Secretary of the Treasury.  Thanks.  It’s still Sunday.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  What’s the U.S. take on this EU plan with Cyprus that would basically call on Cyprus’s government to raid the personal accounts of its citizens?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would refer you to the Treasury Department.  We’re obviously monitoring the situation right now. Our general proposition is that we believe it’s very important for Europe to take steps necessary, as they have been, to both grow and deal with sovereign debt issues.  But as regards this particular situation, I’d refer you to Cyprus -- beyond saying that we’re monitoring it -- I mean, refer you to Treasury beyond saying that we’re monitoring it.

Q    The markets, the global markets have obviously reacted negatively to this.  Is there any concern, anything you would say to the American people about whether this might ricochet to the U.S. economy?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I’m not going to comment on markets.  You might see if Treasury officials will comment on them.  I would simply say that we have long said that a strong, stable Europe is in the interest of the United States, and that applies broadly to our approach to all of Europe and to all of the eurozone. 

With regards to Cyprus, I would refer you to Treasury except to say that we’re monitoring the situation.

Q    And then I’m wondering if the President had any reaction to Hillary Clinton’s announcement today that she publicly backs gay marriage now.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you that the President believes that any time a public official of stature steps forward to embrace a commitment that he shares to equality for LGBT Americans he thinks it’s a good thing.  And I haven’t spoken with him about Secretary Clinton’s announcement, but I know that that’s what he feels in general when major figures in our society make their views known.  And it’s testimony to how far this country and how quickly this country has traveled, as he has said.

Q    Do you know if she gave the White House any heads-up that she would be making this announcement today?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not aware that she did.  She is obviously a private citizen, and her views are in concert with the President’s, so I’m not aware that she gave any heads-up.

Reuters.  Mr. Mason.

Q    Thank you.  Just to follow up on Cyprus -- and without commenting specifically, if you don’t want to, about what they’re looking at there -- does the U.S. -- would the White House intellectually support the idea of taxing people’s bank accounts for any reason?

MR. CARNEY:  So you’re asking, without commenting on Cyprus -- (laughter.)

Q    It’s my roundabout way of trying to get you to just comment on the overall theme.  I mean, is there any more you can say about that particular piece?

MR. CARNEY:  No, I can’t.  I think that it is the wise course to defer to the Treasury Department and to note only that we are monitoring this closely, as you would imagine, but that our overall approach has been to support a strong, stable Europe because it’s in the interest not just of Europe but in the United States.

Q    Will the President, when he makes further travel later this year -- G8, G20-related trips -- do any specific stops in Europe to discuss not just Cyprus but the EU crisis in general?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I have no specific scheduling announcements to make.  Obviously, the President of the United States participates generally in meetings like the G8 and G20.  And it is certainly the case that international economic issues are top of the agenda also -- often in these meetings and will be again this year.

The situation in Europe and the eurozone has been prominent in the discussions in the past several years that the President has had with his counterparts, and I imagine that will continue to be the case.  But as part of a broader discussion of global economic issues, the need for all economies to take steps to grow, even as they deal with their debt challenges -- as is the approach that this President takes, as you know, which is to ensure that we implement economic policies that ensure economic growth and job creation, expansion of the middle class even as we tackle our deficit and debt challenges.  That’s the sort of balanced approach he supports here. 

But I can’t predict when these summits come around what will be absolutely top of the agenda, but that issue is certainly one that is frequently discussed.

Q    I just one follow-up then on Tom Perez.  There’s already some criticism today from Republicans that Mr. Perez was particularly political in approaching -- in his approach to the law and in aggressively seeking to allow the hiring of illegal workers.  Are these concerns that you think may affect his ability to get Senate confirmation?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President believes that Tom Perez is enormously qualified for this position.  His record is substantial; his resume is full.  As you know, under Tom’s leadership at the Justice Department, the Civil Rights Division has settled the three largest fair lending cases ever on behalf of families targeted by unfair mortgage lending practices.  The division has fought to protect the rights of every American student to achieve the quality education they will need to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  It has dramatically increased the enforcement of human trafficking laws, and stepped up its efforts to ensure our nation’s veterans do not lose their civilian job because they are serving our nation.

Prior to serving in his current role, Tom was the Secretary of Maryland’s Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, which protects consumers and workers through the enforcement of a wide range of consumer rights, workplace safety, and wage and hour laws.  And his record is impressive.  His personal story is remarkable.  You wonder if you’re one of five siblings and you’re the only one who’s not the doctor if you’re the failure in the family, but I think it’s pretty clear that he’s enormously talented and qualified for the position.

Yes, Dan.

Q    Thank you.  I want to go at the Cyprus question again.

Q    Good luck.  (Laughter.)

Q    Well, there have been a lot of positive signs about the trajectory of the U.S. economy.  And I guess, if you can be specific as to what the administration’s concerns are that what’s happening there in Cyprus could potentially stall what is happening here in the U.S.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we have said all along, through the last several years, that we need to address the issues that we can control, and we have done that repeatedly with the policy decisions that this President has made and has implemented.  And that has led to a period of sustained economic growth, although not, in the President’s mind, enough economic growth, which is why we have work to do.  It has led to three years of private sector job creation -- more than 6.3 million private sector jobs created, but not enough.  And that’s why the President believes we need to press on with a jobs and growth agenda that ensures that even as we deal with our deficit and debt challenges, we’re continuing to grow the economy, and to do it in a way that enhances job creation, that strengthens the middle class, that protects seniors, that allows for investments in education, innovation, manufacturing, research and development that underpin our future economic development and growth.

So we take that approach in part because it helps insulate the United States as much as possible in a global economy from the impacts of various events around the world.  But we do live in an international, global economy, which is why the President has engaged so regularly and consistently and aggressively with his counterparts around the world as we emerge from the worst recession since the Great Depression -- a global economic crisis and financial crisis that affected nations around the world.  And we continue to do that. 

Now, I don’t have any specific comment on today’s news, except to say that we have long said that a stable, strong Europe is in the United States’ interest.  And the President will continue to discuss with and coordinate with his counterparts to help in any way we can to help bring that about.

Q    On another issue, Republicans are going through quite a bit of retooling, trying to become more inclusive, pull in a different kind of demographic.  I’m wondering if -- any reaction at all from the President as there’s this big move in reacting to what happened in the 2012 elections.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’ll tell you a couple of things.  First of all, as the President has said, he believes that a strong, two-party system is important in our democracy.  It is also true, as he has noted and the Constitution requires, he will not be running again for office, so his view of this is a little different, probably, than it was a year ago or more.  But I would say, again -- this is not coming from the President, but I think it’s important to note that the best way to increase support with the public for your party is to embrace policies the public supports.  And embracing policies the public does not support or aggressively rejects makes it more difficult to earn the public’s support. 

And when it comes, again, to matters like how we grow our economy and, as we grow our economy, how we deal with our deficit and debt challenges, as I’ve noted frequently, the public overwhelmingly supports a balanced approach to that challenge.  The public does not support -- did not support last year, did not support the year before -- an effort to deal with our deficit challenges by asking seniors to bear the burden through voucherized Medicare; asking families who have to deal with disabled children or parents in nursing homes to bear the burden all so that the wealthiest can enjoy a massive tax break -- a tax cut. 

The Tax Policy Center says the latest Republican budget out of the House would give a $5.7 trillion tax cut.  Even in today’s numbers, that is a load of money, and somebody has got to pay for it.  And there is no way to do it by any tax analysis that's credible without sticking it to the middle class if you believe you can do it in a revenue-neutral way.  The middle class pays.  The wealthy and well-connected benefit.  That's not economic policy that makes sense for the economy.  And it certainly doesn't make sense for the middle class. 

Q    And when can we expect the President to make his March Madness picks?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have an update for you on that, but I’m sure he will be, as so many sports fans will be, paying close attention when he can.  As you know, he’s about to head off on a foreign trip.  But he’ll, I’m sure, catch the news when he can.

Q    He’ll have a lot of time on the plane to work his brackets.  (Laughter.)

Q    Jay, going back to the question about Hillary Clinton and her endorsement of gay marriage, there seems to be continued support, growing support for this.  Republicans even today, as Dan mentioned, did, in fact, say they have to appeal more to gay voters.  What is it going to take -- why does the President not promote now -- why does now not promote federal legislation to make gay marriage legal nationwide instead of going state by state?

Q    I think the President addressed this, and I would refer you to his words, his views on this matter, his views on the decision to file a brief in the Proposition 8 case, his views about how that brief addressed the question the Court was asking, but that on the broader principle, in his view, as to whether or not a state could present a reason to discriminate against LGBT Americans that was constitutional, he could not imagine it.  But again, the brief filed responded to the case at hand. 

So I’m not going to get ahead of the President, but I would encourage you to look at his remarks on that matter.

Yes, Mr. Rosen, welcome.

Q    Good to be back, Jay.  Thank you.  Two subjects, if I may.  First, on the Perez nomination, this nomination comes shortly after the issuance of a report by the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General, which touched on Assistant Attorney General Perez’s conduct.  I’m paraphrasing the report, but faithfully.  (Laughter.)  It states that the investigators did not find that Mr. Perez misled them but that his testimony before them did not capture the essence of the matters under investigation, and that by the common understandings of the English language, he should have known better, in essence.  That’s the thrust of the report.  Was this report a factor for the President in his decision to nominate Perez?  Did anyone read this report before nominating him?

MR. CARNEY:  You can be sure that in any nomination process, all the necessary background research is done.  And I would say that the criticism in the Inspector General report, as you noted, of the Civil Rights Division -- well, as you didn’t note, but I will -- largely predated Tom Perez and even this administration. In fact, the report concluded that in the wake of the improper hiring practices that took place in the previous administration, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez restored nonpartisan, merit-based hiring to the Civil Rights Division. 

The Inspector General concluded that voting rights enforcement decisions made by leadership were not due to improper racial or political considerations.  After a number of past incidents of harassment of voting section career staff based on perceived political affiliation, mostly occurring between 2004 and 2007, the Inspector General reported that Mr. Perez has taken a number of steps to foster a more collegial and professional workplace.  That’s from page 133 in the report.

The Inspector General report found that the Civil Rights Division handled the new Black Panther case -- I’m beating you to the punch here -- that they handled it properly.  The OPR “conducted an investigation of the new Black Panther party case, and issued a report dated March 17th, 2011, which found that the attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately in the exercise of their supervisory duties.”  And I could continue with the quotation.

So the President --

Q    Are you reading -- you were reading?

MR. CARNEY:  I am.  Isn’t that amazing?  (Laughter.)  Yes, I’m reading from a report, James.  And I think the --

Q    Could you address the part of the report that I brought up then?

MR. CARNEY:  Which is?

Q    Which is that the investigators found that Perez did not intentionally mislead them but that by the plain understanding of the English language, he should have testified in a way that captured the essence of the matters under investigation and that he did not do so.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the operative sentence is the first part, which is Mr. Perez did not mislead, and that was the finding of the report.

Q    Different subject, if I may.  I checked for this in recent briefings and didn’t find that it had been addressed, at least on camera.  Does the White House take a position on whether the various lawmakers who have been seeking access to the Benghazi survivors should, in fact, have that access?

MR. CARNEY:  As I said on your air the other day, the White House is certainly not preventing anybody from having access to any of the survivors of the Benghazi attack.  I think it’s worth noting that government employees -- in this case, some of them in highly sensitive positions -- have responsibilities that existed before and exist after an attack like that.  But investigation is ongoing.  Cooperation with and briefing of members of Congress continues in the investigation, as appropriate, and has been in keeping with the incredible amount of cooperation we have provided to Congress, and all of their inquiries with regard to the Benghazi matter.

So I’m not sure what else to say about this.  I know that some general assertions had been made.  But the fact of the matter is it’s under investigation and certainly nobody at the White House is preventing anybody from talking to anyone.

Q    One last question, if I may.  When I traveled with Secretary Kerry earlier this month, I had a chance to interview him overseas, and I asked him when we will hear from the Benghazi survivors.  And Secretary Kerry disclosed for the first time publicly that he, in fact, had gone to Walter Reed and met with one of the survivors himself.  To your knowledge, has President Obama made any effort to meet with or speak with any of the Benghazi survivors himself?

MR. CARNEY:  We don’t talk specifics in terms of the President’s visits to Walter Reed.  I can --

Q    Or elsewhere?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have anything for you on that.  I don’t know the answer to that question.

Yes.

Q    Jay, according to a recent poll taken in Israel, 10 percent of Israelis view President Obama favorably.  What type of reception is he expecting?  And what’s his message going to be to the people there to try to change that perception of him?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President will visit Israel with a message about the enduring relationship between the United States and Israel, about the unshakeable commitment the United States has to Israel’s security -- a commitment that is measured not just in the amount of assistance, but in the strong bonds that our people share. 

When it comes to this administration’s commitment to Israel’s security, I think I could point you to comments by Prime Minister Netanyahu, by Ehud Barak, and others who have offered their opinions about the fact that no previous administration has done so much for Israel’s security as this administration has.  And the President will certainly talk about that.

He looks forward to speaking about the future of the relationship, especially with Israeli youth.  This is, as you know, just an incredible country that has this ancient history and yet a vibrant democracy and a vibrant economy, especially an economy that is innovative and filled with entrepreneurs.  And the President will certainly look to highlight that.  And I can tell you he’s very much looking forward to this trip.  He’s looking forward to his meetings with Israeli leaders, as well as Palestinian leaders and the King of Jordan.  So I think it’s going to be a very important and worthwhile trip.

Q    According to some foreign policy experts with whom we’ve spoken, they’ve said that the best that the President can hope for in this trip is to really convince the Israeli people that he stands with them, that he is on their side.  Is that a fair assessment?  And if not, what are his other expectations?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that he, again, looks -- I think I would answer it the way I just did.  He looks forward to this trip.  He looks forward to engaging with Israeli leaders, as well as Israeli youth and other Israelis to talk about the U.S.-Israeli relationship, to talk about Israeli security and our commitment to Israel’s security.

The fact of the matter is when it comes to our relationship and this President’s commitment to the security of Israel, I would -- you don't have to take our word for it or his word for it.  I would point you, again, to statements made by prominent Israeli leaders about the nature of that commitment, which is as firm and strong as it has ever been.

Q    And one on immigration, Jay.  The RNC report also called for Republicans to embrace comprehensive immigration reform.  Does that, in any way, impact, move the efforts to get immigration reform passed forward?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't know that that does.  What moves it forward is what we continue to see as encouraging progress in the Senate with the so-called Group of Eight.  It’s an important reminder that even as we deal with other challenges like our budget and deficit issues, that there is a broader agenda, an agenda that is shared not just by the President but others who believe we need to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform.  We need to move forward on measures to reduce gun violence.  We need to move forward on investments infrastructure and education. 

And those trains, if you will, keep moving in a positive direction.  And it is worth noting that there are signs of continued progress from Gang of Eight on comprehensive immigration reform.  The President, as he has said in the past, believes that's very important and will continue to encourage that progress and look forward to the development of and passage of a bipartisan bill that he hopes he will be able to sign, because that's good for the country.

Q    Has he identified a specific deadline by which he would like to see legislation proposed, and if not, that he will put forward --

MR. CARNEY:  We have not identified a deadline.  The President has said that he sees no obstacle in moving quickly.  And he has encouraged the Congress to move quickly, the Senate in particular to move quickly. And there has been steady progress.  The tripwire, if you will, is more about whether or not that progress is seen to have slowed or stopped.  And that has not happened.  In fact, the opposite is true; it seems to be continuing.  And that is viewed here by the President and the rest of us as very positive.

Q    Jay, if the President's commitment to Israel is the unshakeable commitment of the U.S. to Israeli security and that's the message he wants to bring, why is he not speaking to the Knesset, as every other U.S. President recently has done?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President will be meeting with Israeli leaders and will be giving a speech that will be covered by all of the Israeli media to Israeli youth.  And I think that's entirely appropriate to the idea that --

Q    Why can't he do both?

MR. CARNEY:  The notion that Israel's security is of concern only to members of the Knesset I think would be challenged by pretty much every Israeli over the age of five or six.

Q    I didn’t say that.  I said why can't he do both?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we're doing a lot.  The schedule is very packed, I can tell you, with meetings and events and a speech.  So it's going to be, we think, a trip that will reflect the President's commitment to Israel's security and to Israel's future, as well as his commitment to --

Q    Well, sure, but --

MR. CARNEY:  Bill, I'm just telling you -- we chose, the President chose to --

Q    Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to Congress.  Why doesn't the President speak to the Knesset?

MR. CARNEY:  We're speaking to -- the President will speak to all of the Israeli people in front of an audience of young Israelis who have it within their hands the power to shape Israel's future.  And he thinks that's entirely appropriate.  And he will be meeting with Israeli leaders and government officials, of course.  And the President's I think message will be heard by Israelis who are both members of the Knesset and who are not.

Yes, sir.  Yes, Jon.

Q    As the President heads in one direction, there’s -- the other side of the world there are some very provocative actions and comments and statements being made by the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un.  Has the President been in contact with his allies, with his support system over there in Japan, et cetera -- in South Korea, as well as China, regarding the latest comments and the latest actions, including the rescinding of the Armistice during the 60th anniversary of that taking place?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you that the President is very focused on this issue, and that his senior national security team is focused on this issue.  As you know, with U.S. leadership at the United Nations Security Council, a resolution sanctioning North Korea passed unanimously with Russian and Chinese support  -- a not insignificant occurrence.  The fact of the matter is we remain committed to ensuring peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.  And this means deterring North Korean aggression, protecting our allies, and the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

The United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state, nor will we stand by while it seeks to develop a nuclear-armed missile that can target the United States.  We obviously, as you know, made an announcement recently about developments in our missile defense program that reflects what we consider the increased threat from North Korea.  And we continue to work with all of our allies and partners on this issue to pressure and isolate North Korea, to make clear to North Korea what its options are and how it needs to proceed in order to rejoin the community of nations.  And our position is quite firm on that.

Mr. Nakamura, haven’t seen you in a while.  Welcome.

Q    Hey, Jay.  I’ve been out.  Thanks for having me back.

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.  (Laughter.)  The door is always open.

Q    Thank you.  Two questions on immigration.  Number one --

MR. CARNEY:  As long as you have your pass.

Q    Yes, the -- bright red.  (Applause.)  Two questions on immigration.  The Gang of Eight talks in the Senate on the immigration bill, I know that there’s a general sense that the senators are potentially looking to make changes to the way the family visas are allocated, maybe to put a little less emphasis on family connections and more of an emphasis on work skills.  Philosophically speaking, does the White House think that sort of a rebalancing of those priorities is necessary, is the right way to go?  I think right now, two-thirds of the visas given are for family reasons, and only 14 percent for employment reasons.  Republicans are saying we need to do more for the economy, this is a way to prioritize, because there is a huge backlog.  Is that the right way to go?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t want to judge the bill or the work of the Group of Eight before it has emerged.  And --

Q    Just philosophically, I mean.  Is that the right way?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, philosophically, the President thinks both are important.  I would point you to his blueprint for his views on these issues.  And it is obviously important to ensure that people from abroad who are coming -- young people from abroad who are coming and getting educated here with engineering degrees and the like, who have an interest in starting businesses or contributing to the American economy here, should be welcome to do that here, and that’s the President’s view.  But it is also obviously important that family relationships be honored, and I think that an approach that takes both into account is one the President would support.  But I don’t want to judge an outcome here when it’s just in train, if you will, not -- it's not a completed effort.

Q    One other related question, or tangentially related.  The Chamber of Commerce came out last week and said that they were -- they felt that the negotiations with the AFL-CIO on immigration, as asked by the Senate and the White House to maybe come to an agreement on a guest worker program, had bogged down.  The Chamber says that they’ve asked for 400,000 new visas for guest workers, brand-new visas, and that the Chamber responded -- or that the AFL-CIO responded but with maybe a much lower figure of 10,000.  Forget figures for a second.  Does the President -- is the President and the White House concerned about where those negotiations stand?  Do they think they can still come to an agreement?  And where do you all stand on a guest worker program that was not included, like, in your principles, and the President, as you know, in 2007, as a Senator, voted to sunset such a bill, or such a program?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I appreciate the question.  As we’ve said, we hope that the Senate will work on the issue of guest workers and we have noted the discussions that the Chamber and labor have had.  Again, this is -- I think in general we are seeing positive progress when it comes to the overall effort towards producing a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and there’s no question that there are issues and challenges that remain for those who are working it out.  But I don’t want to prejudge an outcome when we’re not there yet. 

Q    Is the White House involved?  The Chamber seemed to indicate that it was mostly the Senate making the decision -- helping negotiate that and making decisions on their bill.  Is the White House involved with the Chamber and the AFL-CIO in a really active way?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any role to elucidate here for the White House in that effort.  I can tell you that we believe that the Senate can address this.  Our broader principles have been laid out in the President’s blueprint, and as you know, the President has prepared, if progress stalls in the Senate, to move forward with putting his own bill on the table.  His hope is that progress continues. 

And we believe, based on the evidence and the reporting of you and others, that that progress does continue, that there does seem to be at this stage real interest by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate on finding a negotiated solution to this big challenge that could produce bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation.  And that would be a very welcome development, and we hope that's where it heads.

Sure, Mara.

Q    So you are not against a guest worker program?  You're for --

MR. CARNEY:  Right, we’ve said that we --

Q    You’re for one?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we’re -- I don't -- I mean, what I’ve said in the past is that this is being worked on, and we hope it will be worked on in the Senate.  It was not included in our blueprint, as others have noted in their questions, but we would look to the Senate and outside groups to work on this issue.

Q    Okay, but just because it wasn’t in your blueprint, that doesn't mean you're against it?

MR. CARNEY:  Correct.

Q    Okay.  And against a program that would be permanent, not sunsetted?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't want to -- you’re talking about things that haven’t been decided.  I’m not going to draw lines about what has to be in the bill.  What I would point you to is our blueprint.  And on this issue, I would point you to the work being done by the Senate and others on it.

April.

Q    Jay, the Republicans have come out with a plan for outreach.  They’re spending $10 million for outreach, particularly for the black community.  Does the Democratic Party, particularly this White House, feel that it has to vie for the black vote?

MR. CARNEY:  Absolutely.  I would say that as a principle that the President had when he was running for election is one that I think everybody who runs for office should have, which is that you have to make a case for your election with every voter.  Now, I’m not -- that's sort of out my territory, but that's certainly reflecting the President’s views from the past.  He himself obviously is not running again.

For questions about the counterpart to the RNC, the DNC, what their view is, I would refer you to the DNC.

Q    And with current issues, particularly as it comes to Cabinet posts that are up for the new nominations or appointments, is there concern in this White House from the community?  Have you been talking to the African American community about the lack of black appointments in this Cabinet for this second term so far?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can’t speak to others, and you could direct your questions to others in the White House who do that kind of outreach.  I would only say what I’ve said in the past, April, which is that this President is committed to diversity.  He believes that diversity is valuable because it enhances the decision-making process in the Cabinet, and it’s important within his senior staff for the same reason.  And the President is obviously continuing to make personnel announcements, both for his Cabinet and other positions, as he did today, and that process is not finished yet.

Q    So you said the process is not finished -- are you leaving the door open to say there could be an African American appointed to a Cabinet post before it’s --

MR. CARNEY:  I’m simply noting that posts that will be empty have not all been filled.

Donovan.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Vice President Biden in Italy this morning made some comments about the Mideast peace process, and he said that when the President goes to Israel, he will be delivering the message that the U.S. plans to be “very engaged” in the peace process.  And I know you have said that really the focus is on the Palestinians and the Israelis sitting together and having direct one-on-one talks.  Can you describe a little bit what the White House really expects its role to be going forward in the process?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, obviously the United States has been -- under this President and previously -- an important player in the process that has sought as its end goal peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  And that is true in this administration.

The President’s view and our policy is built around the notion that on the issues that divide them, Israelis and Palestinians need to have direct, face-to-face negotiations.  That doesn’t mean that we have no role -- far from it -- but it does mean that neither we nor others can negotiate those issues on behalf of the Israelis and Palestinians, and hope to reach a solution.  The Israelis and Palestinians have to sit down together and have face-to-face negotiations. 

And it is why we have made so clear that with regards to either side, unilateral actions that make returning to direct negotiations more difficult are, in our view, unhealthy and unproductive to the process -- unhelpful and unproductive the process.  But certainly we have and will continue to be engaged in the Middle East peace process.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Jay, Syrian main opposition is meeting today in Istanbul, Turkey to form an interim government and select a Prime Minister.  Do you have a message to them?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I haven’t gotten anything specific.  With regards to that meeting, I can tell you that we support the Syrian opposition.  We have recognized the Syrian Opposition Coalition.  And we continue to work with our partners to provide both humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people and non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition.

We believe strongly that Syria’s future will -- has to be without President Assad; that he has blood on his hands, and he is in no way to be a part of Syria’s future, as the Syrian people have decided.  And we’ve seen increasingly, albeit too slowly, signs of progress by the opposition and erosion of the regime’s position. 

It is absolutely the United States’ position that, working together with our partners on this issue, we will continue to support the opposition, support the Syrian people, pressure and isolate the Assad regime to help bring about the day that Syrians can chart their own future, a more democratic and prosperous future.

Yes, sir.  Voice of America.

Q    Thank you.  Jay, there are two messages out of Israel today.  One was some remarks by Netanyahu seeming to hold out a hand to Palestinians.  The other one was a remark by the Housing Minister saying that they intend to go ahead with the current pace of settlement building.  I mean, is that kind of -- is that a helpful thing to have on the eve of the President’s visit?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t have anything specific on that particular announcement, except what our general position is, is that unilateral actions that make it more difficult to engage -- to resume face-to-face negotiations, direct negotiations, are not things that we view favorably.  And that was true of unilateral efforts at the United Nations by the Palestinians, and it’s been true of actions by the Israelis. 

It is in our view and it’s the position of the Israeli leadership that a two-state solution is the preferred goal here for both Israelis and Palestinians, and that all of us who are party to that process, but in particular the Israelis and Palestinians, ought to take steps that enhance the prospect of progress.  But beyond that, I haven’t gotten any specific reaction.

David.

Q    Jay, have you heard anything about attempted hack of the Justice Department website?  And do you have any comment on it?

MR. CARNEY:  No, I haven’t neither heard of it and therefore I do not have comment on it.

Q    One question from Colorado.

MR. CARNEY:  From Colorado, sure.

Q    All right.  I wanted to follow up on this young woman’s question about the high unemployment out in places like Colorado, all around the country, especially in the minority communities -- exceptionally high unemployment.  And when there is government workers who may be furloughed, millions of Americans unemployed, and family budgets that have been cut, how does the President justify lavish vacations and a golf trip to Florida at taxpayer expense?  And does he plan to cut back on his travel?

MR. CARNEY:  I can tell you that this President is focused every day on policies that create economic growth and help advance job creation.  We have presided over the past three years over an economy that’s produced over 6.3 million private sector jobs, and we have more work to do.  And this President’s number-one priority is growth and job creation.  When you come to --

Q    But it’s not working in the minority communities.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the fact is unemployment has come down.  It has not come down nearly enough.  And what we need to do is embrace policies that advance job creation, make secure the middle class, and create ladders of opportunity for those who aspire to the middle class.  We certainly do not need to embrace economic policies that shift the entire burden of deficit reduction onto senior citizens, middle-class families, Medicaid recipients.  The proposal coming out of the House would slash Medicaid by a third. 

Q    But it doesn’t affect inner-city jobs.

MR. CARNEY:  It doesn’t?  You don’t think it does?

Q    No.

MR. CARNEY:  People who depend on Medicaid to help take care of their kids who are disabled.  People who depend on Medicaid to take care of their parents who are in nursing homes.  People who are not in the middle class but aspire to it, who depend directly on Medicaid.  I think you need to examine what the Medicaid program actually does.

Q    Jay, could you just respond to what Speaker Boehner said over the weekend on ABC News?  He was asked if revenues are still on the table, and he said the President got his tax hikes on the 1st of January; there’s not going to be any more talk about revenues.  I’m paraphrasing that, too, but also again faithfully.

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.  No, no, you are.  I appreciate the question.  And this will be -- I should go.  I’ll let you guys go.  But here’s what we’ve seen.  We’ve seen some positive comments from Republican lawmakers, especially in the Senate, about the idea that they could go along with a balanced approach to deficit reduction -- a balanced approach that the President has embraced, that Democrats in the Senate have put forward, that bipartisan commissions have suggested is the right way to go, and which the American people overwhelmingly support.

There’s been some interesting reporting about Republican views on the budget in the House and how a number of them, including Chairman Ryan and John Boehner said last year, that the people will decide in the election in the fall which course we ought to take, whether it ought to be the House Republican approach to the economy and budgets and deficits, or the President’s approach.  I don't think it’s a mystery what the results of that election were.

But here’s the thing:  The President believes there’s an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation when it comes to deficit reduction.  It is wholly unacceptable, not just to him but to the vast majority of the American people, to say that the well-off and well-connected should not have to do any more, that only senior citizens, middle-class families, people trying to send their kids to college, people trying to take care of parents in nursing homes, they bear the burden.  And you know what?  In addition to bearing the burden, they're going to pay for more tax cuts for the well-off and well-connected. 

Q    But didn't he get his tax cuts on the 1st of January?

MR. CARNEY:  The President put forward a proposal that includes revenue that was far exceeded, obviously -- or exceeded the roughly $600 billion that came with the rate increase for those making $400,000 or $450,000 a year.  Now, that may affect some folks, especially in the front row, but it does not affect the vast majority of the American people who had their tax cuts extended permanently.

It is absolutely the case that the President believes what John Boehner said last December.  There are ample loopholes that we could close that benefit the wealthy and well-connected.  There are substantial tax provisions, special provisions for those who have lobbyists, that we can limit or eliminate, and that by doing so that we can produce revenue that helps reduce our deficit.  It is an entirely conservative position that we should close the loopholes that John Boehner says we should close; we should cap the deductions that John Boehner supposedly says we should cap, although we never see specifics; and use that revenue towards deficit reduction as opposed to tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and the well-connected. 

That's a very conservative position.  Let's embrace a balanced approach that includes entitlement reform and savings from it, tax reform and savings from it -- put it together, reduce our deficit, hit or exceed that $4-trillion target, and do the right thing by not just the economy in a macro sense, but for individual middle-class families across the country.  That's the President's belief. 

Q    Is the charm offensive over?

MR. CARNEY:  Absolutely not.  (Laughter.)  The President will continue to engage with members of Congress.  Look, you cited John Boehner.  I think others have cited Senator Corker.  The fact of the matter is there are Republicans who go along with the notion supported by the vast majority of the American people, including a majority of self-identified Republicans, that we can move forward on deficit reduction in a balanced way.  And that includes tough choices for Republicans as well as tough choices for Democrats. 

Thanks, guys.

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

The Affordable Care Act brings an end to some of the worst insurance industry practices that have kept affordable health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans, especially when they needed it most. Under the health care law, consumers can be confident that their insurance will protect them if they get sick and their families won’t be crushed by medical bills.

President Obama Hosts a Celebration of Women's History Month at the White House

The President vowed that he and his entire administration will do everything they can to ensure equality and opportunity for all women.

President Obama sends best wishes to the Iranian people as they celebrate Nowruz. In his video message, the President speaks directly to the people and leaders of Iran about the opportunity to begin a new relationship between our two countries.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

UPDATE 1-FDA reviewers say Titan drug dose may be insufficient

(Updates with additional FDA review comment, background)

March 19 (Reuters) - Titan Pharmaceuticals Inc's experimental drug to treat opioid addiction was shown to be more effective than placebo in a clinical trial, but patients' response suggested that the proposed dosage might be too low, reviewers for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in documents published on Tuesday.

The commentary was published on the FDA's website ahead of an advisory panel meeting to be held on Thursday and sent the company's stock down 42 percent to $1.19 in over-the counter trading.

The reviewers said they would ask the advisory panel whether Titan should explore dosing further before the product is approved.

The drug, Probuphine, is a long-acting version of buprenorphine, a drug sold by Britain's Reckitt-Benckiser Group Plc under the brand names Subutex and Suboxone.

Unlike Subutex and Suboxone, which are dissolved daily under the tongue, Titan's drug is implanted under the skin of the upper arm during a 10-15 minute office procedure and delivers a continuous supply of buprenorphine for six months.

"Overall, the response was not what one might hope for, given that the product ensures compliance with the medication for six months," the reviewers said. "It prompts speculation that the dose is simply not high enough."

While the safety of Probuphine appears largely in keeping that of other buprenorphine products it presents an additional safety concern, reviewers said. It must be implanted, potentially leading to surgery-related complications. The reviewers said the product is in some ways similar to Norplant, an implantable, progestin-releasing contraceptive which is no longer marketed in the United States.

Even though insertion and removal of Norplant was performed by trained health-care providers, there were cases of implantation and removal-related of complications, some with disabling consequences, the reviewers said. They will ask the advisory committee whether it believes the company has adequately addressed these concerns under its proposed risk mitigation plan and whether the drug's benefit is enough to outweigh the potential risks.

In December, Titan licensed the U.S. and Canadian rights to Probuphine to Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, a company owned by the venture capital firm Apple Tree Partners. Titan received an up-front payment of $15.75 million and will receive up to $50 million if Probuphine is approved.

(Reporting by Toni Clarke in Washington; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Alden Bentley)

((toni.clarke@thomsonreuters.com)(617-856-4340)(Reuters

Messaging: toni.clarke.reuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: FDA TITAN/


View the original article here

User:Ovenkirk7


View the original article here

German hospitals group Sana rules out large mergers

* Sana CEO says large deals complex, offer little synergies

* Says Sana owners would not sell

FRANKFURT, March 18 (Reuters) - A new round of attempted M&A in Germany's private hospital sector is unlikely because such deals are complex and offer limited scope for synergies, the head of one of the main four hospital groups said.

Michael Philippi, chief executive of unlisted Sana Kliniken AG, the fourth-largest private-sector hospitals operator in Germany, said transformative "leaps" were not likely in the foreseeable future.

"Changes are not to be expected for now," he told Reuters.

Last year, rival hospital group Fresenius tried and failed to fully take over Rhoen-Klinikum , after another competitor Asklepios bought a stake that blocked the deal which would have combined the industry's two largest players by sales.

The Fresenius/Rhoen-Klinikum deal attracted a lot of interest from international hedge funds, who placed bets on a renewed bid for Rhoen by Fresenius.

Prior to the Fresenius/Rhoen situation, Sana had considered merging with Rhoen but had abandoned the plans.

Philippi told Reuters large combinations in the hospitals sector were often too complex to handle.

"The question is which large mergers do really work? It's not something that just falls into place."

Synergies were limited because central administrative expenses were relatively insignificant, he said.

He also ruled out a sale of Sana, which is owned by 31 medical insurance groups including units of Allianz and Munich Re .

For them, Sana is a long-term, strategic investment that has become even more attractive amid the low interest rates of alternative low-risk investments, he said.

(Reporting by Andreas Kroener, Frank Siebelt and Ludwig Burger. Editing by Jane Merriman)

((ludwig.burger@thomsonreuters.com)(+49 69 7565 1311)(Reuters Messaging: ludwig.burger.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: SANA HOSPITALS/


View the original article here

The Morning Pride: March 19, 2013

Welcome to The Morning Pride, ThinkProgress LGBT’s daily round-up of the latest in LGBT policy, politics, and some culture too! Here’s what we’re reading this morning, but please let us know what stories you’re following as well. Follow us all day on Twitter at @TPEquality.

Katie Herzig

- The Vermont House of Representatives has approved a bill that would require out-of-state companies to offer equal healthcare benefits to same-sex couples.

- The video posted online promoting the National Organization for Marriage’s march next week has been pulled from YouTube because the artist whose music NOM used, Katie Herzig, supports marriage equality and filed a copyright claim.

- The ACLU has warned a school to stop discriminating against its LGBT students, including censoring announcements for its Gay-Straight Alliance and imposing an anti-trans dress policy for prom.

- Folk singer Michelle Shocked told a San Francisco concert crowd that “God hates fags” and now she’s losing gigs.

- Richard O’Brien, who wrote the the Rocky Horror Show way back in the day, has been taking estrogen for about 10 years and identifies as “30 percent woman.”

- Female UFC fighters are concerned about having to go up against Fallon Fox because she’s transgender, fearing she might have unfair advantages from her male development earlier in life.

- Who doesn’t love a sweet flash mob wedding proposal? This one’s from Brazil:


View the original article here

Economics Lecture Thirteen

(Difference between revisions)This lecture is review of the course, in preparation of the final exam.  A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:This lecture is the final review for this course, in preparation for the final exam.  A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:{{cquote|My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly ....  Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics"Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard.  Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem. which are taught [in college].}}{{cquote|My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly ....  Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics"Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard.  Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem. which are taught [in college].}}Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), and comments:Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), plus tips about each concept:|cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) || 10% || FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output and remember that ATC=AFC+AVC; know when a firm should shut down|cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) || 10% || FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output.  Remember that ATC=AFC+AVC, and know when a firm should shut down.|Government policy || 10% || ''unbiased'': price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss;
''biased'': several pollution questions and the Lorenz curve (see discussion below)|Government policy || 10% || price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss; but beware of CLEP questions designed to make government regulation appear beneficial, as in reducing pollution|Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) || 10% || key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital|Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) || 10% || key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital|Perfect Competition || 6% || costs and profits and price are lowest for this market: P=MC=ATC and "economic profits" are squeezed to zero. If price falls, shut down in short run when PMC. P>ATC.  |Monopoly || 4% || the firm sets its price above marginal cost, but not higher than where MR=MC; economic profits are greater than zero; economic rent exists. P>MC. P>ATC.  |Demand Curve || 4% || what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand|Demand Curve || 4% || what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand|MC || 4% || marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition.  For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC|MC || 4% || marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition.  For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC|Public Goods || 3% || know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good|Public Goods || 3% || know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good without paying for it.|Returns to Scale || 2% || think Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think a restaurant for decreasing returns to scale|Returns to Scale || 2% || think of Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think of a kitchen for decreasing returns to scale ("too many cooks spoil the broth")|Consumer Surplus || 2% || what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost|Consumer Surplus || 2% || what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost|Imperfect Competition || 2% || P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively '''in'''efficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC|Imperfect Competition || 2% || P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively '''in'''efficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC|Utility || 2% || Overall satisfaction.  Recall our problem about hiking and reading? Marginal utility is your next bit of utility.  Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility.|Utility || 2% || overall satisfaction; recall our problem about hiking and reading. Marginal utility is your next bit of utility.  Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility.|Cross-Price Elasticity || 2% || Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a ''different'' good|Cross-Price Elasticity || 2% || Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a ''different'' good|Cartel || 1% || an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does|Cartel || 1% || an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does|Price discrimination || 1% || charging different prices for the good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own price|Price discrimination || 1% || charging different prices for the exact same good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own priceSome important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law.  The reason is bias.  For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much!  Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good.Some important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law.  The reason is exam bias.  For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much!  Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good.But other than bias in the selection of question, the CLEP exam does not have bias in its answers.  The rare exceptions are a few questions about government regulation.  For these few questions, the CLEP exam pretends that government regulation can make a market ''more'' efficient.  This is untrue, as proven by the Coase theorem, but the CLEP exam writers want people to think that government can somehow improve on the free market.But other than bias in the selection of question, the CLEP exam does not have bias in its answers.  The rare exceptions are one or two questions about government regulation.  For these few questions, the CLEP exam may pretend that government regulation can make a market ''more'' efficient.  That is untrue, as proven by the Coase theorem, but the CLEP exam writers want people to think that government can somehow improve on the free market.=== Exam Bias Concerning Regulation and Efficiency====== Exam Bias Concerning Regulation and Efficiency===

Economics Lectures - [1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14]

This lecture is the final review for this course, in preparation for the final exam. A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:

My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly .... Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics[1] which are taught [in college].

Let's begin this lecture by summarizing the percentages the CLEP exam devoted to particular topics. This will help organize the material we have covered in this course. Our online final exam next week will use a similar distribution in topics as the CLEP exam, but without over-emphasizing government policy as the CLEP exam does.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), plus tips about each concept:

cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output. Remember that ATC=AFC+AVC, and know when a firm should shut down. price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss; but beware of CLEP questions designed to make government regulation appear beneficial, as in reducing pollution Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital costs and profits and price are lowest for this type of market. P=MC=ATC and "economic profits" are squeezed to zero. If price falls, shut down in short run when PMC. P>ATC. what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand marginal revenue is the increase in total revenue due to selling one more unit; profit maximized where MR=MC marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition. For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good without paying for it. think of Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think of a kitchen for decreasing returns to scale ("too many cooks spoil the broth") what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost nation with lower production costs should do what it does best only a few firms, like two gas stations at an intersection far away from any others; usually one Nash Equilibrium-type exam question P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively inefficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC overall satisfaction; recall our problem about hiking and reading. Marginal utility is your next bit of utility. Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility. Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a different good keep in mind that "economic costs" include opportunity costs in addition to actual out-of-pocket (accounting) costs think ketchup with french fries in the long run all costs are variable and can be minimized; short and long run mentioned in 20% of questions, to distinguish between quick changes and permanent ones two types: positive (music in an open-air park) and negative (pollution) when income goes up, demand for an inferior good or service goes down (e.g., demand for bankruptcy services) substitution and income effects increase in price means less demand because public uses substitutes (substitution effect of price increase) and becomes poorer (income effect of price increase) an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does charging different prices for the exact same good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own price

Some important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law. The reason is exam bias. For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much! Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good.

But other than bias in the selection of question, the CLEP exam does not have bias in its answers. The rare exceptions are one or two questions about government regulation. For these few questions, the CLEP exam may pretend that government regulation can make a market more efficient. That is untrue, as proven by the Coase theorem, but the CLEP exam writers want people to think that government can somehow improve on the free market.

There are only two or three questions (out of nearly 100) on the CLEP exam that have biased answers. They concern regulation and efficiency. You can expect to see one or two CLEP questions where the correct answer is to support government regulation against pollution. The best way to think about pollution is in terms of its "negative externality," but the CLEP exam writers cast the issue in terms of an efficient use of resources. Under this view, pollution is inefficient because it results in inefficient harm to the environment. Laws against pollution supposedly increase efficiency by preventing harm to the "resource" of the environment. These regulations that prohibit pollution cause less output but supposedly ensure a more efficient use of environmental resources.

While most of us support a cleaner environment, efficiency is usually associated with greater output, not less output. Government regulations almost never improve efficiency; the free market does that best without government interference. That said, you can pick up one or two easy points on the CLEP exam by assuming that environmental regulation increases efficiency by protecting the "resource" of the environment for its better uses.

When companies are allowed to pollute without paying for it, their marginal cost (MC) is artificially lower than it should be. These companies are avoiding the cost of their own pollution. A lower MC means they will produce more goods than if their MC were higher. The term “marginal social cost” is used by economists to represent the true cost of their activities, including the cost of their pollution. Because companies produce more than they would if they had to pay for the cost of their pollution, some consider this to be inefficient. On the CLEP exam, it takes regulation to make it efficient by preventing the companies from putting out the pollution.

Outside the topic of government regulation, there are no biased answers. Do not choose one answer instead of another for reasons of bias except in one or two rare cases.

In areas unrelated to pollution, government establishes price floors, supports and ceilings. Do we all recall the differences? Price “ceilings” (or controls) are the easiest: the government says that the good cannot be sold for a higher price. Just as you cannot reach above your ceiling, the price is prohibited from rising above the ceiling that the government sets for it. It would be requiring gas to be sold for no more than $1.50, for example. The quantity supplied will decrease (move down the supply curve), while the quantity demanded will increase (move up the demand curve). Shortages result.

What is a price floor? Just the opposite of a ceiling. We cannot reach below the floor, and a price floor prevents the price from falling below a certain level. It would be a government law that prohibited milk from selling for less than $2 a gallon, for example. It would be intended to help the suppliers, such as dairy farmers. What happens when government imposes a price floor? There is a surplus of the good, as supply exceeds demand.

Now, how about a price support? That occurs when the government buys large quantities of good, such food, at prices higher than the competitive equilibrium. The government does this to “support” a higher price, instead of passing a law to require a higher price. A price support is designed to help the firms producing the goods, such as farmers. The rationale is that farmers are politically important and that pure competition is too brutal on their business and their lives, and also that foreign countries engage in the same practices. The effect of a “price support” is similar to a price floor: it creates a surplus of the good when the support is above the equilibrium price

When government regulates labor, the analysis is similar to its regulation of price. A “price floor” is created by the minimum wage: the buyer (an employer) must pay at least a certain amount for a service (labor). The minimum wage creates an oversupply of the service: too many workers. Not all of them will be able to obtain jobs at a wage higher than equilibrium. Unemployment results from a minimum wage that is higher than the equilibrium wage.

As always, be sure you fully understand the question before you answer it, and use common sense and logic. In fact, many of the questions can be answered correctly with basic reasoning skills.

Let's put our knowledge from this course to good use in studying for our final exam, and preparing for the CLEP exam. We maximize our utility by scoring as high as possible on these exams. To do so, we need to maximize our marginal utility in allocating our time towards the exam topics listed above. If we spend all our studying time on "price discrimination," which is only 1% of the exam, then we are not maximizing our marginal utility and will not reach our full potential.

This is similar to our homework problem earlier in the course about maximizing our marginal utility with respect to hiking and reading. This time, however, the decision each student must make is which topic to focus on first in the above list, and how much time to spend on it before moving on to another topic in the list. The answer may be different for each student.

This same challenge in optimizing strategy could be expressed as a problem of "allocative efficency": allocating resources (time and information) in the most efficient way. Just as efficiency is essential to successful businesses, efficiency is also important to becoming a successful student. Spending your time efficiently in preparing for the final exam, and preparing for the CLEP, is crucial to your ability to do well on them. Look at the above list of topics and how often they appear, and ask yourself: where should you focus first in order to pick up the most points in the shortest amount of time?

Should you simply start reviewing at the top of the list and work your way down to the bottom? That strategy has the advantage of focusing on the most important topics first. If you run out of time in reviewing, then you will miss only the less important topics. But you might improve further on that strategy by moving more quickly through topics that you already understand well. Alternative, there may be topics that you find too difficult to understand, and you might give up some points there in order to focus better on topics where you can pick up more points.

For the rest of this class this lecture will focus on topics which might provide the greatest marginal increase in your exam scores. This takes into consideration the topics we have already reviewed (you have the materials for those), and avoids duplication of that review. You, however, may decide for yourself that you can benefit most from reviewing those prior topics.

Your instructor emphasizes studying strategy for a reason. The biggest reason why some students do not succeed is a lack of effort. But the second biggest reason is poor studying and test-taking strategies, like a football team that runs ill-advised plays. Education, like business and perhaps even life itself, rewards good strategies and punishes misguided ones.

For many students, the most additional points can be obtained by reviewing the "Inputs to a Firm" category. It will be on 10% of the questions on the final exam and the CLEP exam. That's a significant chunk of these exams. Without review, these questions look hard and are easy to miss. But with some extra preparation, you should be able to answer nearly all of them correctly. In maximizing your score and making the best use of your time, this category may result in the biggest increase in correct answers with the least amount of effort. That's what maximizing marginal utility is all about.

Accordingly, in economic terms, the greatest marginal utility from studying for the exam is probably obtaining by focusing on this topic first. We've already covered the other two topics comprising 10% apiece of the exam (cost measures and government regulation), so there may not be many more points to pick up there. Realize that you will probably get some exam questions right without additional studying, and other questions you may get wrong no matter how much you study. But in this category of "inputs to a firm," you can pick up some points that you would otherwise miss. Let's review it now.

Questions about inputs to a firm focus on what a firm will do with its inputs (usually labor, but sometimes capital) in order to maximize its profits. The questions usually concern the following:

impact of improvement in technology on the production by a firm adjusting inputs to minimize the overall cost at a constant level of output the effect of minimum wage on the competition for labor comparing the cost of an input (usually labor) relative to the additional revenue that results why a firm's "demand for labor" is called a "derived demand" what causes an increase in demand for labor the relation between hiring additional workers and the marginal cost calculating overall costs (total cost and average variable cost) based on wages

Review the above list now. How many of the above 8 topics do you know well enough to answer a question about them correctly? Let's briefly review each of these concepts so you can maximize your score on this big part of the exam.

1. "the impact of an improvement in technology on the production by a firm"

If technology improves, as in helpful new inventions or advances in communication (like the internet), then this helps shift the Production Possibilities Frontier (Curve) outward. A firm can produce more output now. So an improvement in technology enables a firm to increase its output or its supply to the market.

2. "adjusting inputs to minimize the overall cost at a constant level of output"

How does a firm adjust its inputs (e.g., workers or equipment) so that it has reached the lowest possible overall cost? By making sure that he is getting the most "bang for his buck" for each input. In other words, the firm makes sure that each input is producing the most marginal product per dollar spent on that input. If one worker is producing more than another worker, and both are being paid the same, then the owner has not lowered his costs to a minimum. He could fire the lazy worker and hire a part-time worker like his good one, and then produce the same output at less cost. Summarizing the above, the firm minimizes its overall costs by making sure the marginal product per cost for each input is equal. If one input (e.g., one worker) is producing more marginal product per cost than another, then the overall costs are not minimized. The unproductive worker is wasting the firm's money.

3. "the effect of the minimum wage on the competition for labor"

Increasing the minimum wage has the effect of increasing unemployment. Workers who have jobs make more money when the minimum wage is increased, but firms can afford to hire fewer people. The number of the unemployed (the people who cannot get jobs) increases when the minimum wage is increased. Also, although this will never be asked on a CLEP exam, raising the minimum wage causes more high school students to drop out and pursue jobs rather than stay in school, which would enable them to obtain higher-paying jobs in the future. Sometimes the CLEP exam will twist the question about minimum wage to obscure its harmful effect, by asking what happens when the labor supply increases when there already is a minimum wage. This makes it look like the fault is an increase in the labor supply rather than the minimum wage law. The correct answer is the same in both cases: unemployment increases.

4. "comparing the cost of an input (usually labor) relative to the additional revenue that results"

This type of question probes how a firm increases its inputs in relation to the additional revenue that results from such an increase. The key here is to be very careful and very logical. A firm will increase an input (such as labor) until the value of the marginal product of that input equals the marginal cost of that input. Read that sentence over and over until you understand it. It simply means that the firm will equate the marginal cost of the additional input (such as an additional worker) to the marginal revenue that the additional input produces. Often students miss this type of question because they are not careful to compare dollars to dollars. If you have the marginal cost in terms of dollars (such as a wage rage for the additional worker), then you need to equate it to the marginal value of the marginal product of the labor (value is in dollar units), not the marginal product itself (which is a unit quantity).

5. "why a firm's "demand for labor" is called a "derived demand"

This is an easy point to pick up on an exam. A firm's demand for an input (such as labor) is called a "derived demand" because it depends on the demand for the goods produced by that input. For example, a restaurant's demand for waitresses is entirely dependent on the public's demand to be served at the restaurant. If there is no public demand to be waited on at the restaurant, then the restaurant (the firm) has no demand for waitresses!

6. "what causes an increase in demand for labor"

This is another easy issue, similar to the prior one above. If the public demand for the product of the labor increases, then there is an increase in demand for the labor itself. If more people want to eat McDonald's hamburgers, then there is more demand for workers to make McDonald's hamburgers. How do we know when the demand by the public for the product of certain labor increases? When the price of the good or service produced by the labor increases. When that price goes up, then there is an increase in demand for the workers who make that good or service.

7. "the relation between hiring additional workers and the marginal cost"

This is a more challenging issue that requires two steps rather than one in order to answer correctly. Marginal cost is additional cost to a firm for making one more unit. It is measured in dollars, not in units. Making sure you have the right measure (dollars or units) for your answer will help you reduce mistakes. The answer for any question about marginal cost must be in dollars (or cents) per unit. Accordingly, if you are told how many additional units are produced by each additional worker, then calculating the marginal cost requires dividing the cost of the additional worker by the additional number of units he produces. The more units an additional worker produces, the lower the marginal cost that results from adding that worker. Example: suppose a firm hires Tom and sees the output increase by 20 units, and then hires Mary at the same wage and sees the output increase by 15 units. When is the marginal cost of the firm the lowest? After it hires Tom, but before it hires Mary. That's because the marginal cost of hiring Tom is his wages divided by 20, while the marginal cost of hiring Mary is the same wage divided by 15. A wage divided by 20 is less than the same wage divided by 15, so the marginal cost to the firm after hiring Tom is less than after hiring Mary.

8. "calculating overall costs (total cost and average variable cost) based on wages"

The key here is simply to be careful in doing the calculations, and then double-check your answer. You need to be sure you are using the correct level of output before you calculate the total cost (TC) and average variable cost (AVC) at that level of output. To find the total cost, add the fixed cost (FC) to the labor cost (total wages times the number of workers), for a given level of output. Then, to find the average variable cost, find the total variable cost (TVC=TC-FC) and divide by that level of output. Example: a firm can produce 100 units with 5 workers and 200 units with 10 workers. Its fixed cost is $50 and its wage rate is $20 per worker. What is its total cost and average variable cost to produce 100 units? Answer: note first that the question asks about the costs at 100 units in output, not 200 units. Total cost at 100 units is the fixed cost ($50) plus the labor cost ($20 times 5 workers, or $100), for a total of $150. The average variable cost is the total cost ($150) minus the fixed cost ($50), divided by the output (100), for a total of $1 per unit.

Master the above eight issues, and you'll convert 10% of the exam from wrong answers to correct ones. That could enable you to earn college credit.

You instructor wonders what topic will maximize our marginal utility next. About 20% of the exam is devoted to questions about different types of markets, ranging from the most advantageous for the public (perfect competition) to the least advantageous (monopoly). That's a large chunk of questions, and with some extra review here we can probably convert wrong answers to right ones.

The key to answering these questions correctly is to realize that the more competition there is, the lower the price of the goods and services and the lower the profits for the firms. Some of these questions are special cases and should simply be memorized: a cartel is an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) its prices, and an oligopoly is an industry where just a few firms dominate the market. When given a grid about where an oligopoly ends up selling its goods (its Nash Equilibrium), the answer is always symmetric (all firms sell at the same price) and usually not the highest price that a monopoly could sell at.

The monopoly questions look harder than they really are. The monopolist sets his price higher than marginal cost, which would be the optimal price from the standpoint of the public (or government). Instead, the monopolist price sets his price where marginal revenue equals marginal cost (MR=MC). If shown a graph, you may have to find the quantity where MR=MC, and then find the corresponding price on the demand curve. Note that a monopolist has no supply curve, because a supply curve represents many firms in an industry and a monopolist is the only firm in the industry.

There can be general questions about these markets. A perfectly competitive market uses resources in a perfectly efficient way. At the other end of the spectrum, a monopoly uses resources the least efficiently of all. Its high pricing causes a huge social loss ("deadweight loss") by eliminating consumer surplus. The monopoly reduces output in order to cause a scarcity that increases the price to an artificially high level. This is bad for everyone, except the owner of the monopoly, who enriches himself. This is how Bill Gates became the wealthiest person in the world.

Here is a puzzle to leave you with. What is the impact on quantity of a price ceiling in a competitive industry compared to a price ceiling in a monopoly? In which one (competitive v. monopoly) might a clever price ceiling actually increase quantity? Think about it, and learn to ask yourself questions like this in order to master economics. The answer is in this footnote.[2]

Be sure to spend time on the review sections in the prior lectures for more information about this and other topics on the exams.

A public good is a good which is nonexcludable and nondepletable. The first condition means that it is impossible to exclude consumers from partaking in the good, and the second condition means that one consumer's consumption of the good does not prevent others from consuming it.

Explained another way, a public good is available to all such that consumption by one person does not reduce its availability to others. An example of a public good is national defense, as it protects everyone and its benefits to one person does not diminish its benefits to others.

Other examples of public goods are law enforcement (protection by the police), public fireworks, clear air, street lights, radio and television transmissions, lighthouses, and some inventions. Some of these examples, such as lighthouses, are contested as to whether they must be a public good, as it is possible to charge ships port fees to pay for them. Also, while radio and television transmissions are available to all to receive them, it does cost money to buy radios and television sets, so these are not truly public goods either.

Liberals like to emphasize the concept of public goods on exams in order to support the argument for more government. Under this view public goods represent market failure and the need for government services supported by taxes.

Good test-taking techniques are particularly important to doing well on an economics exam. Simple questions are often intentionally disguised as something more complicated. It is easy to become confused and misguided in analyzing economic issues. 99% of the public would say that we would be better off if Congress put a price ceiling or cap on gasoline at $1 a gallon. It takes a bit more thought to realize that massive shortages would result, and we would all have to waste hours each week waiting in line for gasoline. Some who really need gas in hurry, such as people trying to take someone to a hospital, may not be able to obtain gas in time.

The ability to eliminate wrong answers can help. Let’s try the elimination technique on these questions:

Question: Consider the poverty-level of income for a family of four in America. Which of the following can be said about how the government defines this specific income level?

(A) It helps determine who is eligible for Social Security benefits. (B) It decreases when there is an increase in welfare benefits. (C) It proves that 50% of Americans live in poverty. (D) It is determined by tripling the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet by three. (E) Government does not adjust this number due to changes in the cost of living (inflation).

Virtually none of you would know the answer to this question at first glance. The question is not really appropriate for a microeconomics exam, but CLEP asks it anyway. Questions about poverty, gaps between the rich and poor, and government programs are always favorites among liberal educators. You will see many more questions about these issues than about the invisible hand or the creation of wealth.

So what do we do when faced with this question? Simply give up? Move to the next question and hope it is easier? Blindly guess at an answer? None of the above.

We can narrow the choices, and thereby reduce our risk of error, by eliminating wrong answers. Basic economic principles (or common sense) serve as our guide.

Let’s start with choice (C). Think about it: is half of our nation living in poverty? What would that mean for elections? Who would pay to run government? If we called half of us "poor", then what word would be use for the really poor? Choice (C) can't be true. Using common sense, we can eliminate this answer.

Let’s turn to choice (E). Why wouldn’t it be adjusted? Poverty must be relative to the cost of living. If the cost of living doubled, then the numbers in poverty would increase greatly. But failure to adjust for the cost of living would miss that effect. Again, common sense leads us to eliminate this answer.

Next we can turn to choice (A). That doesn't work either, because everyone who pays into Social Security has a right to receive benefits when they grow old, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. “Social security” is not “security only if you’re poor.” We can eliminate this choice.

We’re left with only two possibilities: (B) and (D). Realize that has increased our odds of choosing the right answer to 50% now. If you took the CLEP and at least narrowed every difficult question down to two choices, then you would likely pass the test. How do we next make our best choice among these final two options?

Option (D) seems to have the right amount of detail, and fits the question well grammatically. In contrast, Option (B) does not fit the question as well or make as much sense (definition of what the poverty level is should not change based on distributing some benefits). Even if you had no idea between (B) and (D), (D) is a better fit. It’s our best guess. (D), indeed, is correct.

It helps to choose an answer that gives the most meaning to the purpose of the question. The purpose of this question is to ask about how poverty-level income is calculated. Answer (D) most directly furthers that goal. It makes for a good guess if you did not otherwise know. You won’t always be able to guess the right answers, but by increasing your chances you can significantly increase your overall score.

Let’s try one more CLEP-inspired question, this time relating to labor:

Question: Assume a perfectly competitive market for both inputs and output. If capital is fixed and the price for the output increases, then a firm in the short run will increase its production by which of the following ways:

(A) increase capital until P=MR (B) increase labor until the value of the marginal product for workers equals the wage rate (C) increase capital until its average product equals the price of the additional capital (D) increase labor until its marginal product equals the wage rate (E) increase labor until the ratio of the price of the output to labor's marginal product equals the wage rate

This type of question benefits from being reread. “Capital is fixed,” according to the question. So capital cannot be increased. Answers (A) and (C) can be eliminated that easily. Sounds too obvious, but many students miss this. They fail to read and understand the question.

Only labor can be increased, which is possible under answers (B), (D) and (E). We've improved our odds of success to a 33% chance. Those are good odds on a difficult question like this. But we can improve our chances even more.

(B) and (D) look similar so let’s turn to (E) first. The “marginal product of labor” is the additional units (“product”) produced due to an additional unit of labor. Remember “MP”? The term does not include “revenue” or “price”, so it only gives you the quantity. We need to multiply that quantity by product price to obtain revenue, what the firm owner cares the most about. Choice (E) makes no sense by dividing terms that should be multiplied together. We can eliminate it.

Back to (B) and (D). The only difference between the two is the term “value of” in (B). Think about what “marginal product” is. It is a quantity, not a dollar amount. Yet we are comparing it to “wage rate,” which would be in dollars. We need to insert “value of” to convert a quantity into equivalent dollars. (B) is must be the correct choice because it compares dollars to dollars, while choice (D) does not.

The key to good test-taking, particularly on economics exams, is to make sure you fully understand each question before trying to answer it.

You have all learned a great deal of material in this course, information that will help you the rest of your lives. The insights and powerful concepts covered by this course can yield greater and greater benefits the more you think about them. Every week I see still something new and helpful in concepts taught in this course. Many students say that this is the best course they took from me, among other helpful courses. Use this course for your benefit.

If there is one unifying theme to this course, then I suggest it is summarized in Jesus's Parable of the Talents. Be productive, and God can multiply the benefits of your work. If you reach out, if you do more, if you make good use of your time, if you maximize your efficiency, if you consider the opportunity costs, and if you increase your output, then you give God more to work with. But if you bury your talents in the ground or if you are like the tree that does not bear fruit, then you give God less for His purpose.

Carpe diem. And be the good that drives out the bad as we discussed in connection with Gresham's Law.

Read this lecture and study for the final exam, which will be the first week in June. It will be 30 multiple-choice questions, similar in format to the quizzes.

? "Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard. Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem.? A price ceiling is a maximum price limitation, just as a real ceiling limits the height. A perfectly competitive industry is already selling at its maximum output, so a price ceiling can't help there. But a monopoly increases its price by reducing its output. If a price ceiling is imposed against a monopoly, then it must reduce its price and increase its output, for the benefit of the public.

View the original article here

UPDATE 1-BDR Pharma seeks India licence for Bristol-Myers drug

* India's BDR Pharma seeks compulsory licence on cancer drug dasatinib

* BDR Pharma offers to sell generic dasatinib at 8,100 rupees/month

(Adds details, quote) By Kaustubh Kulkarni

MUMBAI, March 18 (Reuters) - BDR Pharmaceuticals has applied to India's patent office for a compulsory licence to sell a generic version of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co's cancer drug dasatinib, a BDR executive said on Monday.

Under a global Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, countries can issue compulsory licences for certain drugs that are deemed unaffordable to a large section of their populations.

If approved, the compulsory licence would be another setback for global drugmakers in India. German firm Bayer AG lost an appeal earlier this month challenging the first such Indian licence, which was granted to Natco Pharma on cancer drug Nexavar.

Dasatinib is a blood cancer drug sold as Sprycel by Bristol-Myers Squibb and costs about 165,000 rupees ($3,050) for a month's treatment in India.

India's BDR Pharmaceuticals had unsuccessfully sought a voluntary licence from Bristol-Myers Squibb to sell a copycat version, Aravind Badiger, technical director at the Indian firm,

said in an emailed response to a Reuters' query.

Officials at U.S.-based Bristol-Myers Squibb could not immediately be reached by Reuters for comment.

BDR Pharma filed its application seeking a compulsory licence on March 4 and has offered to sell the drug at 8,100 rupees for a month's dose, Badiger said.

"We expect the patent office to respond at the earliest," he said in the email.

Natco Pharma already sells a generic version of dasatinib in India, which is the subject of a legal battle with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Generic drugs account for about 90 percent of India's $13 billion drug market. While India holds promise for global drugmakers facing slower growth in developed markets, big pharmaceutical firms have lost several rulings on intellectual property rights in recent years.

Among those setbacks, India revoked patents granted to Pfizer Inc's cancer drug Sutent, Roche Holding AG's

hepatitis C drug Pegasys and Merck & Co's asthma treatment aerosol suspension formulation. ($1 = 54.17 Indian rupees)

(Editing by Tony Munroe and Charlotte Cooper)

((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: INDIA BDRPHARMA/DRUG


View the original article here