Press Conference by the President
Press Conference by the President
East Room
8:01 P.M. EST
February 9, 2009
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everybody. Please be seated.
Before I take your questions tonight, I'd like to speak briefly about
the state of our economy and why I believe we need to put this recovery
plan in motion as soon as possible.
I took a trip to Elkhart, Indiana today. Elkhart is a place that has
lost jobs faster than anywhere else in America. In one year, the
unemployment rate went from 4.7 percent to 15.3 percent. Companies that
have sustained this community for years are shedding jobs at an
alarming speed, and the people who've lost them have no idea what to do
or who to turn to. They can't pay their bills and they've stopped
spending money. And because they've stopped spending money, more
businesses have been forced to lay off more workers. In fact, local TV
stations have started running public service announcements that tell
people where to find food banks, even as the food banks don't have
enough to meet the demand.
As we speak, similar scenes are playing out in cities and towns across
America. Last Monday more than a thousand men and women stood in line
for 35 firefighter jobs in Miami. Last month our economy lost 598,000
jobs, which is nearly the equivalent of losing every single job in the
state of Maine. And if there's anyone out there who still doesn't
believe this constitutes a full-blown crisis, I suggest speaking to one
of the millions of Americans whose lives have been turned upside down
because they don't know where their next paycheck is coming from.
And that is why the single most important part of this Economic
Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is the fact that it will save or create
up to 4 million jobs -- because that's what America needs most right
now.
It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to
create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the
private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector
so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only
entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It
is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs
lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs.
And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through
Congress is designed to do.
When passed, this plan will ensure that Americans who have lost their
jobs through no fault of their own can receive greater unemployment
benefits and continue their health care coverage. We'll also provide a
$2,500 tax credit to folks who are struggling to pay the costs of their
college tuition, and $1,000 worth of badly needed tax relief to working
and middle class families. These steps will put more money in the
pockets of those Americans who are most likely to spend it, and that
will help break the cycle and get our economy moving.
But as we've learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight
years, tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems --
especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans.
We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it's only helped
lead us to the crisis we face right now.
And that's why we have come together around a plan that combines
hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the middle class with direct
investment in areas like health care, energy, education, and
infrastructure -- investments that will save jobs, create new jobs and
new businesses, and help our economy grow again, now and in the future.
More than 90 percent of the jobs created by this plan will be in the
private sector. They're not going to be make-work jobs, but jobs doing
the work that America desperately needs done, jobs rebuilding our
crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our dangerously deficient dams
and levees so that we don't face another Katrina. They'll be jobs
building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars
that will lower our dependence on foreign oil, and modernizing our
costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and
countless lives.
They'll be jobs creating the 21st century classrooms, libraries, and
labs for millions of children across America. And they'll be the jobs
of firefighters and teachers and police officers that would otherwise
be eliminated if we do not provide states with some relief.
After many weeks of debate and discussion, the plan that ultimately
emerges from Congress must be big enough and bold enough to meet the
size of the economic challenges that we face right now. It's a plan
that is already supported by businesses representing almost every
industry in America; by both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO.
It contains input, ideas, and compromises from both Democrats and
Republicans. It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency
and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online
and see where and how we're spending every dime. What it does not
contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it
has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most
objectionable.
Now, despite all of this, the plan is not perfect. No plan is. I can't
tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we
hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act
will only deepen this crisis as well as the pain felt by millions of
Americans. My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion,
but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency
since the Great Depression, doing a little or nothing at all will
result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater
loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence. Those are deficits
that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe. And I refuse to let that
happen. As long as I hold this office, I will do whatever it takes to
put this economy back on track and put this country back to work.
I want to thank the members of Congress who've worked so hard to move
this plan forward. But I also want to urge all members of Congress to
act without delay in the coming week to resolve their differences and
pass this plan.
We find ourselves in a rare moment where the citizens of our country
and all countries are watching and waiting for us to lead. It's a
responsibility that this generation did not ask for, but one that we
must accept for the future and our children and our grandchildren. And
the strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but
they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to
set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose.
That's the test facing the United States of America in this winter of
our hardship. And it is our duty as leaders and citizens to stay true
to that purpose in the weeks and months ahead. After a day of speaking
with and listening to the fundamentally decent men and women who call
this nation home, I have full faith and confidence that we can do it.
But we're going to have to work together. That's what I intend to
promote in the weeks and days ahead.
And with that, I'll take some of your questions. And let me go to Jennifer Loven, AP.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier today in Indiana, you said
something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis
without action that we would be unable to reverse. Can you talk about
what you know or what you're hearing that would lead you to say that
our recession might be permanent, when others in our history have not?
And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking
down the economy by using dire language like that?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, no -- I think that what I've said is what
other economists have said across the political spectrum, which is that
if you delay acting on an economy of this severity, then you
potentially create a negative spiral that becomes much more difficult
for us to get out of. We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s, where
they did not act boldly and swiftly enough, and as a consequence they
suffered what was called the "lost decade" where essentially for the
entire '90s they did not see any significant economic growth.
So what I'm trying to underscore is what the people in Elkhart already
understand: that this is not your ordinary run-of-the-mill recession.
We are going through the worst economic crisis since the Great
Depression. We've lost now 3.6 million jobs, but what's perhaps even
more disturbing is that almost half of that job loss has taken place
over the last three months, which means that the problems are
accelerating instead of getting better.
Now, what I said in Elkhart today is what I repeat this evening, which
is, I'm absolutely confident that we can solve this problem, but it's
going to require us to take some significant, important steps.
Step number one: We have to pass an economic recovery and reinvestment
plan. And we've made progress. There was a vote this evening that moved
the process forward in the Senate. We already have a House bill that's
passed. I'm hoping over the next several days that the House and the
Senate can reconcile their differences and get that bill on my desk.
There have been criticisms from a bunch of different directions about
this bill, so let me just address a few of them. Some of the criticisms
really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all
in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who
philosophically just think the government has no business interfering
in the marketplace. And in fact there are several who've suggested that
FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting
battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.
Most economists, almost unanimously, recognize that even if
philosophically you're wary of government intervening in the economy,
when you have the kind of problem we have right now -- what started on
Wall Street goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can't get credit,
they start carrying back their investment, they start laying off
workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending -- when you
have that situation, that government is an important element of
introducing some additional demand into the economy. We stand to lose
about $1 trillion worth of demand this year and another trillion next
year. And what that means is you've got this gaping hole in the economy.
That's why the figure that we initially came up with of approximately
$800 billion was put forward. That wasn't just some random number that
I plucked out of a hat. That was Republican and Democratic,
conservative and liberal economists that I spoke to who indicated that
given the magnitude of the crisis and the fact that it's happening
worldwide, it's important for us to have a bill of sufficient size and
scope that we can save or create 4 million jobs. That still means that
you're going to have some net job loss, but at least we can start
slowing the trend and moving it in the right direction.
Now, the recovery and reinvestment package is not the only thing we
have to do -- it's one leg of the stool. We are still going to have to
make sure that we are attracting private capital, get the credit
markets flowing again, because that's the lifeblood of the economy.
And so tomorrow my Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, will be announcing
some very clear and specific plans for how we are going to start
loosening up credit once again. And that means having some transparency
and oversight in the system. It means that we correct some of the
mistakes with TARP that were made earlier, the lack of consistency, the
lack of clarity in terms of how the program was going to move forward.
It means that we condition taxpayer dollars that are being provided to
banks on them showing some restraint when it comes to executive
compensation, not using the money to charter corporate jets when
they're not necessary. It means that we focus on housing and how are we
going to help homeowners that are suffering foreclosure or homeowners
who are still making their mortgage payments, but are seeing their
property values decline.
So there are going to be a whole range of approaches that we have to
take for dealing with the economy. My bottom line is to make sure that
we are saving or creating 4 million jobs, we are making sure that the
financial system is working again, that homeowners are getting some
relief. And I'm happy to get good ideas from across the political
spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won't do is return to
the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix
in the first place, because those theories have been tested and they
have failed. And that's part of what the election in November was all
about.
Okay, Caren Bohan of Reuters.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to shift gears to foreign policy.
What is your strategy for engaging Iran, and when will you start to
implement it? Will your timetable be affected at all by the Iranian
elections? And are you getting any indications that Iran is interested
in a dialogue with the United States?
THE PRESIDENT: I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that
has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but
that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes
to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the
world; that their attacks or their financing of terrorist organizations
like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used
towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon, or their pursuit
of a nuclear weapon -- that all those things create the possibility of
destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests,
but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace. What
I've also said is that we should take an approach with Iran that
employs all of the resources at the United States' disposal, and that
includes diplomacy.
And so my national security team is currently reviewing our existing
Iran policy, looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue,
where we can directly engage with them. And my expectation is in the
coming months we will be looking for openings that can be created where
we can start sitting across the table, face to face, diplomatic
overtures that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction.
There's been a lot of mistrust built up over the years, so it's not
going to happen overnight. And it's important that even as we engage in
this direct diplomacy, we are very clear about certain deep concerns
that we have as a country -- that Iran understands that we find the
funding of terrorist organizations unacceptable; that we're clear about
the fact that a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in the
region that would be profoundly destabilizing.
So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these
conversations, but I think that there's the possibility at least of a
relationship of mutual respect and progress. And I think that if you
look at how we've approached the Middle East, my designation of George
Mitchell as a special envoy to help deal with the Arab-Israeli
situation, some of the interviews that I've given, it indicates the
degree to which we want to do things differently in the region. Now
it's time for Iran to send some signals that it wants to act
differently as well, and recognize that even as it has some rights as a
member of the international community, with those rights come
responsibilities.
Chip Reid.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You have often said that bipartisanship is
extraordinarily important overall, and in the stimulus package. But now
when we ask your advisors about the lack of bipartisanship so far --
zero votes in the House, three in the Senate -- they say, well, it's
not the number of votes that matters, it's the number of jobs that will
be created. Is that a sign that you are moving away, your White House
is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship? And what went
wrong? Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way
Washington works?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I don't think -- I don't think I underestimated it.
I don't think the -- the American people underestimated it. They
understand that there have been a lot of bad habits built up here in
Washington and it's going to take time to break down some of those bad
habits.
You know, when I made a series of overtures to the Republicans -- going
over to meet with both Republican caucuses; you know, putting three
Republicans in my Cabinet, something that is unprecedented; making sure
that they were invited here to the White House to talk about the
economic recovery plan -- all those were not designed simply to get
some short-term votes. They were designed to try to build up some trust
over time. And I think that as I continue to make these overtures, over
time hopefully that will be reciprocated.
But understand the bottom line that I've got right now, which is what's
happening to the people of Elkhart and what's happening across the
country. I can't afford to see Congress play the usual political games.
What we have to do right now is deliver for the American people. So my
bottom line when it comes to the recovery package is, send me a bill
that creates or saves 4 million jobs. Because everybody has to be
possessed with a sense of urgency about putting people back to work,
making sure the folks are staying in their homes and that they can send
their kids to college.
That doesn't negate the continuing efforts that I'm going to make to
listen and engage with my Republican colleagues, and hopefully the tone
that I've taken, which has been consistently civil and respectful, will
pay some dividends over the long term. There are going to be areas
where we disagree, and there are going to be areas where we agree.
As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package in terms of
the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress is
that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their
sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing. Now, if that's
their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then
we're probably not going to make much progress, because I don't think
that's economically sound and I don't think that's what the American
people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.
There are others who recognize that we've got to do a significant
recovery package, but they're concerned about the mix of what's in
there. And if they're sincere about it, then I'm happy to have
conversations about this tax cut versus that tax cut, or this
infrastructure project versus that infrastructure project. But what I
-- what I've been concerned about is some of the language that's been
used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful
government spending, so on and so forth.
First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling
of the national debt, then I just want them to not engage in some
revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now,
and the economic crisis that we have right now.
Number two is that although there are some programs in there that I
think are good policy, some of them aren't job creators. I think it's
perfectly legitimate to say that those programs should be out of this
particular recovery package, and we can deal with them later. But when
they start characterizing this as pork without acknowledging that there
are no earmarks in this package -- something again that was pretty rare
over the last eight years -- then you get a feeling that maybe we're
playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the
American people.
So I'm going to keep on engaging. I hope that as we get the Senate and
the House bills together, that everybody is willing to give a little
bit. I suspect that the package that emerges is not going to be a
hundred percent of what I want. But my bottom line is, are we creating
4 million jobs, and are we laying the foundation for long-term economic
growth. This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments
that I'm hearing.
When people suggest that, what a waste of money to make federal
buildings more energy efficient -- why would that be a waste of money?
We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings, or
weatherizing 2 million American's homes, as was called for in the
package. So that right there creates economic stimulus. And we are
saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2
billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their
pockets, and we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle
East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?
Now, maybe philosophically you just don't think that the federal
government should be involved in energy policy. I happen to disagree
with that. I think that's the reason why we find ourselves importing
more foreign oil now than we did back in the early '70s when OPEC first
formed. And we can have a respectful debate about whether or not we
should be involved in energy policymaking, but don't suggest that
somehow that's wasteful spending. That's exactly what this country
needs.
The same applies when it comes to information technologies in health
care. We know that health care is crippling businesses and making us
less competitive as well as breaking the banks of families all across
America, and part of the reason is we've got the most inefficient
health care system imaginable. We're still using paper -- we're still
filing things in triplicate. Nurses can't read the prescriptions that
doctors have written out. Why wouldn't we want to put that on an
electronic medical record that will reduce error rates, reduce our
long-term cost of health care, and create jobs right now?
Education -- yet another example. The suggestion is why should the
federal government be involved in school construction. Well, I visited
a school down in South Carolina that was built in the 1850s. Kids are
still learning in that school, as best they can. When the railroad --
it's right next to a railroad, and when the train runs by, the whole
building shakes and the teacher has to stop teaching for a while. The
auditorium is completely broken down; they can't use it. So why
wouldn't we want to build state-of-the-art schools with science labs
that are teaching our kids the skills they need for the 21st century,
that will enhance our economy and, by the way, right now will create
jobs?
So we can differ on some of the particulars, but again, the question I
think the American people are asking is, do you just want government to
do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do
something, then we can have a conversation. But doing nothing, that's
not an option from my perspective.
All right. Chuck Todd. Where's Chuck?
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In your opening remarks, you talked about
that if your plan works the way you want it to work, it's going to
increase consumer spending. But isn't consumer spending or overspending
how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their
pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first
before they start spending money into the economy?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I don't think it's accurate to say
that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this
mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other
people's monies based on shaky assets. And because of the enormous
leverage where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on
that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system. That led to
a contraction of credit, which in turn meant businesses couldn't make
payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became
uncertain about the future of the economy, so people started making
decisions accordingly -- reducing investment, initiated layoffs --
which in turn made things worse.
Now, you are making a legitimate point, Chuck, about the fact that our
savings rate has declined and this economy has been driven by consumer
spending for a very long time -- and that's not going to be
sustainable. You know, if all we're doing is spending and we're not
making things, then over time other countries are going to get tired of
lending us money and eventually the party is going to be over. Well, in
fact, the party now is over.
And so the sequence of how we're approaching this is as follows: Our
immediate job is to stop the downward spiral, and that means putting
money into consumers' pockets, it means loosening up credit, it means
putting forward investments that not only employ people immediately but
also lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth. And that, by the
way, is important even if you're a fiscal conservative, because the
biggest problem we're going to have with our federal budget is if we
continue a situation in which there are no tax revenues because
economic growth is plummeting at the same time as we've got more
demands for unemployment insurance, we've got more demands for people
who've lost their health care, more demand for food stamps. That will
put enormous strains on the federal budget as well as the state budget.
So the most important thing we can do for our budget crisis right now
is to make sure that the economy doesn't continue to tank. And that's
why passing the economic recovery plan is the right thing to do, even
though I recognize that it's expensive. Look, I would love not to have
to spend money right now. This notion that somehow I came in here just
ginned up to spend $800 billion, that wasn't -- that wasn't how I
envisioned my presidency beginning. But we have to adapt to existing
circumstances.
Now, what we are going to also have to do is to make sure that as soon
as the economy stabilizes, investment begins again; we're no longer
contracting but we're growing; that our mid-term and long-term budget
is dealt with. And I think the same is true for individual consumers.
Right now they're just trying to figure out, how do I make sure that if
I lose my job, I'm still going to be able to make my mortgage payments.
Or they're worried about how am I going to pay next month's bills. So
they're not engaging in a lot of long-term financial planning.
Once the economy stabilizes and people are less fearful, then I do
think that we're going to have to start thinking about how do we
operate more prudently, because there's no such thing as a free lunch.
So if you want to get -- if you want to buy a house, then putting zero
down and buying a house that is probably not affordable for you in case
something goes wrong, that's something that has to be reconsidered.
So we're going to have to change our bad habits. But right now, the key
is making sure that we pull ourselves out of the economic slump that
we're in.
All right, Julianna Goldman, Bloomberg.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Many experts, from Nouriel Roubini to
Senator Schumer, have said that it will cost the government more than a
trillion dollars to really fix the financial system. During the
campaign you promised the American people that you won't just tell them
what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. Won't the
government need far more than the $350 billion that's remaining in the
financial rescue funds to really solve the credit crisis?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the credit crisis is real and it's not over. We
averted catastrophe by passing the TARP legislation. But as I said
before, because of a lack of clarity and consistency in how it was
applied, a lack of oversight in how the money went out, we didn't get
as big of a bang for the buck as we should have.
My immediate task is making sure that the second half of that money,
$350 billion, is spent properly. That's my first job. Before I even
think about what else I've got to do, my first task is to make sure
that my Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, working with Larry
Summers, my National Economic Advisor, and others, are coming up with
the best possible plan to use this money wisely -- in a way that's
transparent; in a way that provides clear oversight; that we are
conditioning any money that we give to banks on them reducing executive
compensation to reasonable levels; and to make sure that they're not
wasting that money.
We are going to have to work with the banks in an effective way to
clean up their balance sheets so that some trust is restored within the
marketplace, because right now part of the problem is that nobody
really knows what's on the banks' books. Any given bank, they're not
sure what kinds of losses are there. We've got to open things up and
restore some trust.
We also have to deal with the housing issue in a clear and consistent
way. I don't want to preempt my Secretary of the Treasury; he's going
to be laying out these principles in great detail tomorrow. But my
instruction to him has been, let's get this right, let's create a
template in which we're restoring market confidence. And the reason
that's so important is because we don't know yet whether we're going to
need additional money or how much additional money we'll need until
we've seen how successful we are at restoring a sense of confidence in
the marketplace, that the federal government and the Federal Reserve
Bank and the FDIC, working in concert, know what they're doing. That
can make a big difference in terms of whether or not we attract private
capital back into the marketplace.
And ultimately, the government cannot substitute for all the private
capital that has been withdrawn from the system. We've got to restore
confidence so that private capital goes back in.
Jake.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. My question follows Julianna's in content.
The American people have seen hundreds of billions of dollars spent
already, and still the economy continues to free fall. Beyond avoiding
the national catastrophe that you've warned about, once all the legs of
your stool are in place, how can the American people gauge whether or
not your programs are working? Can they -- should they be looking at
the metric of the stock market, home foreclosures, unemployment? What
metric should they use? When? And how will they know if it's working,
or whether or not we need to go to a plan B?
THE PRESIDENT: I think my initial measure of success is creating or
saving 4 million jobs. That's bottom line number one, because if people
are working, then they've got enough confidence to make purchases, to
make investments. Businesses start seeing that consumers are out there
with a little more confidence, and they start making investments, which
means they start hiring workers. So step number one, job creation.
Step number two: Are we seeing the credit markets operate effectively?
I can't tell you how many businesses that I talk to that are successful
businesses, but just can't get credit. Part of the problem in Elkhart,
that I heard about today, was the fact that -- this is the RV capital
of America. You've got a bunch of RV companies that have customers who
want to purchase RVs, but even though their credit is good, they can't
get the loan. Now, the businesses also can't get loans to make payments
to their suppliers. But when they have consumers, consumers can't get
the loans that they need. So normalizing the credit markets is I think
step number two.
Step number three is going to be housing: Have we stabilized the
housing market? Now, the federal government doesn't have complete
control over that, but if our plan is effective, working with the
Federal Reserve Bank, working with the FDIC, I think what we can do is
stem the rate of foreclosure and we can start stabilizing housing
values over time. And the most -- the biggest measure of success is
whether we stop contracting and shedding jobs, and we start growing
again. Now, I don't have a crystal ball, and as I've said, this is an
unprecedented crisis. But my hope is that after a difficult year -- and
this year is going to be a difficult year -- that businesses start
investing again, they start making decisions that, you know, in fact
there's money to be made out there, customers or consumers start
feeling that their jobs are stable and safe, and they start making
purchases again. And if we get things right, then starting next year we
can start seeing some significant improvement.
Ed Henry. Where's Ed, CNN? There he is.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You promised to send more troops to
Afghanistan. And since you've been very clear about a timetable to
withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, I wonder what's
your timetable to withdraw troops eventually from Afghanistan?
And related to that, there's a Pentagon policy that bans media coverage
of the flag-draped coffins from coming in to Dover Air Force Base. And
back in 2004, then-Senator Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead
soldiers to be "snuck back into the country under the cover of night."
You've promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your
government. Will you overturn that policy so the American people can
see the full human cost of war?
THE PRESIDENT: Your question is timely. We got reports that four
American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq today, and obviously
our thoughts and prayers go out to the families. I've said before that
-- you know, people have asked me when did it hit you that you are now
President? And what I told them was the most sobering moment is signing
letters to the families of our fallen heroes. It reminds you of the
responsibilities that you carry in this office and the consequences of
decisions that you make.
Now, with respect to the policy of opening up media to loved ones being
brought back home, we are in the process of reviewing those policies in
conversations with the Department of Defense, so I don't want to give
you an answer now before I've evaluated that review and understand all
the implications involved.
With respect to Afghanistan, this is going to be a big challenge. I
think because of the extraordinary work done by our troops, and some
very good diplomatic work done by Ambassador Crocker in Iraq, we just
saw an election in Iraq that went relatively peacefully. And you get a
sense that the political system is now functioning in a meaningful way.
You do not see that yet in Afghanistan. They've got elections coming
up, but effectively the national government seems very detached from
what's going on in the surrounding community.
In addition, you've got the Taliban and al Qaeda operating in the FATA
and these border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and what we
haven't seen is the kind of concerted effort to root out those safe
havens that would ultimately make our mission successful.
So we are undergoing a thorough-going review. Not only is General
Petraeus now the head of CENTCOM conducting his own review, he's now
working in concert with the special envoy that I've sent over, Richard
Holbrooke, one of our top diplomats, to evaluate a regional approach.
We are going to need more effective coordination of our military
efforts with diplomatic efforts with development efforts with more
effective coordination with our allies in order for us to be successful.
The bottom line, though -- and I just want to remember [sic] the
American people, because this is going to be difficult -- is this is a
situation in which a region served as the base to launch an attack that
killed 3,000 Americans. And this past week, I met with families of
those who were lost in 9/11 -- a reminder of the costs of allowing
those safe havens to exist. My bottom line is that we cannot allow al
Qaeda to operate. We cannot have those safe havens in that region. And
we're going to have to work both smartly and effectively, but with
consistency, in order to make sure that those safe havens don't exist.
I do not have yet a timetable for how long that's going to take. What I
know is, I'm not going to make -- I'm not going to allow al Qaeda or
bin Laden to operate with impunity, planning attacks on the U.S.
homeland.
All right. Helene Cooper. Where's Helene? There you are.
Q Thank you, sir. I wanted to ask you on the next bank bailout. Are you
going to impose a requirement that the financial institutions use this
money to loosen up credit and make new lending? And if not, how do you
make the case to the American people that this bailout will work, when
the last one didn't?
THE PRESIDENT: Again, Helene -- and I'm trying to avoid preempting my
Secretary of the Treasury, I want all of you to show up at his press
conference as well; he's going to be terrific. But -- this relates to
Jake's earlier question -- one of my bottom lines is whether or not
credit is flowing to the people who need it. Is it flowing to banks --
excuse me, is it flowing to businesses, large and small? Is it flowing
to consumers? Are they able to operate in ways that translate into jobs
and economic growth on Main Street? And the package that we've put
together is designed to help do that.
And beyond that, I'm going to make sure that Tim gets his moment in the sun tomorrow.
All right. Major Garrett. Where's Major?
Q Mr. President, at a speech Friday that many of us covered, Vice
President Biden said the following thing about a conversation the two
of you had in the Oval Office, about a subject he didn't disclose: "If
we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we
stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a
30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong." Since the Vice
President brought it up, can you tell the American people, sir, what
you were talking about? And if not, can you at least reassure them it
wasn't the stimulus bill or the bank rescue plan -- (laughter) -- and
if in general, you agree with that ratio of success, 30 percent
failure, 70 percent success?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was
referring to. (Laughter.) Not surprisingly. But let me try this out. I
think what Joe may have been suggesting, although I wouldn't put
numerical -- I wouldn't ascribe any numerical percentage to any of this
-- is that given the magnitude of the challenges that we have, any
single thing that we do is going to be part of the solution, not all of
the solution. And as I said in my introductory remarks, not everything
we do is going to work out exactly as we intended it to work out.
This is an unprecedented problem. And when you talk to economists,
there is some general sense of how we're going to move forward; there's
some strong consensus about the need for a recovery package of a
certain magnitude; there's a strong consensus that you shouldn't put
all your eggs in one basket, all tax cuts or all investment, but that
there should be a range of approaches.
But even if we do everything right on that, we've still got to deal
with what we just talked about, the financial system, and making sure
that banks are lending again. We're still going to have to deal with
housing. We're still going to have to make sure that we've got a
regulatory structure -- a regulatory architecture for the financial
system that prevents crises like this from occurring again. Those are
all big, complicated tasks. So I don't know whether Joe was referring
to that, but I use that as a launching point to make a general point
about these issues.
Q Did you get any promise from them?
THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea, I really don't.
Michael Fletcher, The Washington Post.
Q Yes, thank you, sir. What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's
admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it's depressing news on top of what's been a
flurry of depressing items when it comes to Major League Baseball. And
if you're a fan of Major League Baseball, I think it -- it tarnishes an
entire era to some degree. And it's unfortunate, because I think there
are a lot of ballplayers who played it straight. And the thing I'm
probably most concerned about is the message that it sends to our kids.
What I'm pleased about is Major League Baseball seems to finally be
taking this seriously, to recognize how big of a problem this is for
the sport. And that our kids, hopefully, are watching and saying, you
know what, there are no shortcuts; that when you try to take shortcuts,
you may end up tarnishing your entire career, and that your integrity
is not worth it. That's the message I hope is communicated.
All right, Helen. This is my inaugural moment here. (Laughter.) I'm really excited.
Q Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan are maintaining the safe
havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists? And also, do you
know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that Pakistan -- there is no doubt that in
the FATA region of Pakistan, in the mountainous regions along the
border of Afghanistan, that there are safe havens where terrorists are
operating. And one of the goals of Ambassador Holbrooke, as he is
traveling throughout the region, is to deliver a message to Pakistan
that they are endangered as much as we are by the continuation of those
operations. And that we've got to work in a regional fashion to root
out those safe havens. It's not acceptable for Pakistan or for us to
have folks who, with impunity, will kill innocent men, women and
children. I believe that the new government of Pakistan and Mr. Zardari
cares deeply about getting control of this situation. We want to be
effective partners with them on that issue.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Holbrooke is there, and that's exactly why he
is being sent there, because I think that we have to make sure that
Pakistan is a stalwart ally with us in battling this terrorist threat.
With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don't want to speculate.
What I know is this: that if we see a nuclear arms race in a region as
volatile as the Middle East, everybody will be in danger. And one of my
goals is to prevent nuclear proliferation generally. I think that it's
important for the United States, in concert with Russia, to lead the
way on this. And, you know, I've mentioned this in conversations with
the Russian President, Mr. Medvedev, to let him know that it is
important for us to restart the conversations about how we can start
reducing our nuclear arsenals in an effective way so that -- so that we
then have the standing to go to other countries and start stitching
back together the nonproliferation treaties that, frankly, have been
weakened over the last several years.
Q Why do we have to pick --
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, all right.
Q -- on who (inaudible)?
THE PRESIDENT: Sam Stein, Huffington Post -- where's Sam? Here.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Today Senator Patrick Leahy announced that
he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate
the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that before you turn
the page, you have to read the page first. Do you agree with such a
proposal, and are you willing to rule out right here and now any
prosecution of Bush administration officials?
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen the proposal, so I don't want to express an opinion on something that I haven't seen.
What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way
that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, and that we abide by the
Geneva Conventions, and that we observe our traditions of rule of law
and due process, as we are vigorously going after terrorists that can
do us harm. And I don't think those are contradictory; I think they are
potentially complementary.
My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear
instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any
ordinary citizen; but that generally speaking, I'm more interested in
looking forward than I am in looking backwards. I want to pull
everybody together, including, by the way, the -- all the members of
the intelligence community who have done things the right way and have
been working hard to protect America, and I think sometimes are painted
with a broad brush without adequate information.
So I will take a look at Senator Leahy's proposal, but my general orientation is to say, let's get it right moving forward.
Mara Liasson.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. If it's this hard to get more than a
handful of Republican votes on what is relatively easy -- spending tons
of money and cutting people's taxes -- when you look down the road at
health care and entitlement reform and energy reform, those are really
tough choices. You're going to be asking some people to get less and
some people to pay more.
What do you think you're going to have to do to get more
bipartisanship? Are you going to need a new legislative model, bringing
in Republicans from the very beginning, getting more involved in the
details yourself from the beginning, or using bipartisan commissions?
What has this experience with the stimulus led you to think about when
you think about these future challenges?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said before, Mara, I think that old habits
are hard to break. And we're coming off an election and I think people
want to sort of test the limits of what they can get. There's a lot of
jockeying in this town and a lot of who's up and who's down and
positioning for the next election.
And what I've tried to suggest is that this is one of those times where
we've got to put that kind of behavior aside, because the American
people can't afford it. The people in Elkhart can't afford it. The
single mom who's trying to figure out how to keep her house can't
afford it. And whether we're Democrats or Republicans, surely there's
got to be some capacity for us to work together -- not agree on
everything, but at least set aside small differences to get things done.
Now, just in terms of the historic record here, the Republicans were
brought in early and were consulted. And you'll remember that when we
initially introduced our framework, they were pleasantly surprised and
complimentary about the tax cuts that were presented in that framework.
Those tax cuts are still in there. I mean, I suppose what I could have
done is started off with no tax cuts, knowing that I was going to want
some, and then let them take credit for all of them. And maybe that's
the lesson I learned.
But there was consultation. There will continue to be consultation. One
thing that I think is important is to recognize that because all these
-- all these items that you listed are hard, that people have to break
out of some of the ideological rigidity and gridlock that we've been
carrying around for too long.
And let me give you a prime example -- when it comes to how we approach
the issue of fiscal responsibility. Again, it's a little hard for me to
take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they
presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a
lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
Having said that, I think there are a lot of Republicans who are
sincere in recognizing that unless we deal with entitlements in a
serious way, the problems we have with this year's deficit and next
year's deficit pale in comparison to what we're going to be seeing 10
or 15 years or 20 years down the road.
Both Democrats and Republicans are going to have to think differently
in order to come together and solve that problem. I think there are
areas like education where some in my party have been too resistant to
reform, and have argued only money makes a difference. And there have
been others on the Republican side or the conservative side who said no
matter how much money you spend, nothing makes a difference, so let's
just blow up the public school systems.
And I think that both sides are going to have to acknowledge we're
going to need more money for new science labs, to pay teachers more
effectively, but we're also going to need more reform, which means that
we've got to train teachers more effectively, bad teachers need to be
fired after being given the opportunity to train effectively, that we
should experiment with things like charter schools that are innovating
in the classroom, that we should have high standards.
So my whole goal over the next four years is to make sure that whatever
arguments are persuasive and backed up by evidence and facts and proof
that they can work, that we are pulling people together around that
kind of pragmatic agenda. And I think that there was an opportunity to
do this with this recovery package because as I said, although there
are some politicians who are arguing that we don't need a stimulus,
there are very few economists who are making that argument.
I mean, you've got economists who were advising John McCain, economists
who were advisors to George Bush -- one and two -- all suggesting that
we actually needed a serious recovery package. And so when I hear
people just saying, oh, we don't need to do anything, this is a
spending bill, not a stimulus bill -- without acknowledging that by
definition, part of any stimulus package would include spending --
that's the point -- then what I get a sense of is that there's some
ideological blockage there that needs to be cleared up.
But I am the eternal optimist. I think that over time people respond to
civility and rational argument. I think that's what the people of
Elkhart and people around America are looking for. And that's what I'm
-- that's the kind of leadership I'm going to try to provide.
All right, thank you, guys.
END 9:01 P.M. EST
