(public domain) Subtitle created via GreatDreamers.cn
Mr. Phillips: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the White House.
I apologize for running a few minutes late today, it's another
busy day here at the White House, but we're finally starting,
and we're very pleased to have David Axelrod join us to
answer some questions that we've gotten over the last few days,
and that we'll be taking through the website.
I'll introduce myself, I'm Macon Phillips, I work on the
New Media Team, I work on Whitehouse.gov,
and if you want to ask some questions during this you can
head over there to Whitehouse.gov/live and join the
Facebook chat that's happening right now.
But we've already been collecting some questions, so
we'll just start right into it.
Mr. Axelrod: Great.
Mr. Phillips: The first question comes from Di Kozinski, (phonetic)
who says I lost my job on June 4th, 2009, after 19 years
with the same company, and have been unable to find anyone to hire me.
Current unemployment benefits run out in another month or so.
Does the President have any plans to try to get these
benefits extended again or am I just out of luck?
Mr. Axelrod: No, you're not out of luck, the President's going to
continue to fight that to get these benefits extended.
When we have an extraordinary situation as we've faced over
the last couple of years, it is important that we rally as a
country and make sure that folks who have worked hard and met
their responsibilities and got caught up in this economic
downturn can survive that storm and find other work and move on,
and so that's why we've fought several times to extend the
unemployment insurance, and we will -- we hope to do that,
hope to do that again.
And before -- and thank you for your question.
Let me just say how pleased I am, Macon, to be here, and do this.
You know, when the President ran for office, one of the things
that we felt we wanted to do was give people a greater
opportunity to participate in their own government.
Ultimately we're here to work for the American people, and
it's important to have a dialogue with the American people.
So this is a great opportunity, and I appreciate it, and I
appreciate all of you who have sent in questions and who are
monitoring this today.
I hope it's the first of many conversations we can have.
Mr. Phillips: Great.
Well, then we'll move on to an issue that a lot of people are
talking about, the President and his position on
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
I have a question that's pretty representative of that,
comes from Walter Bertshill, (phonetic) who says here's a
question from a U. S. Marine that was discharged under
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Why is the President appealing the recent court decision?
Does he have faith that Congress will repeal "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" this year?
Weren't the three branches of government set up to ensure
checks and balances?
Mr. Axelrod: Well, first of all, Walter, if you're the Marine,
thank you for your service and for your question.
One of the things the President made clear when he campaigned
and when he arrived here both to the American people and to the
Department of Defense and our military leaders was that "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" was a policy that just didn't make sense.
We were depriving our country of the talents of many and
commitment of many, many Americans who wanted to serve,
and it made no sense to exclude them.
It was unfair, unjust, and unwise for our national security.
And so he said that we were going to end this policy, and he
put us on a track to do that.
The Pentagon has been engaged in a study on how to effectuate
this with a minimum of disruption, and their report is
due back very shortly.
There is a law in place that was passed by the Congress, and we
are a nation of laws, and so we want to work through the
Congress to change that law.
We came very close before the break, it was stopped by a
filibuster by the Republicans in the Senate, but we're going to
keep working to change it there and work internally to change that policy.
And in terms of the -- in terms of the appeal, it is the custom
of the U. S. government to appeal laws of Congress that
were -- that were challenged in lower courts and we did that,
but it should be by no means read as an abandonment
of the commitment that we intend to keep and we will keep.
Mr. Phillips: Okay, great.
The next question comes from Beth Bucbaros, (phonetic) who
asks, David, does President Obama have any plans to address
the reform of the way credit reporting agencies --
Transunion, Experian, et cetera -- work?
Will the new Consumer Protection Agency help consumers who have
had their credit unjustly trashed by these CRAs?
Mr. Axelrod: Well, let's separate out issues.
The CRAs are largely responsible for rating bonds, and there,
too, there was a tremendous problem.
There were conflicts of interest that called into question the
legitimacy of much of what they were doing, and it was one of
the reasons why we had the financial crisis.
Some exotic financial instruments were being rated
much more highly than they deserved and people were making
investments on that basis, and ultimately the whole house of cards collapsed.
In terms of your question and your situation, one of the
reasons the President fought so hard to have a Consumer Finance
Protection Bureau created was to have one place in the government
where the sole responsibility was -- is to look after consumers.
And part of their authority will be to ensure that if you get
denied credit or there are other apparent irregularities, that
you can request your credit report for free, and you can see
exactly what was said about you.
Because many times people didn't even know why they were being denied credit.
And secondly, you'll be able to appeal to the new Consumer
Finance Protection Bureau to redress erroneous reports and
deal with your situation.
Now, I will tell you that, you know, we fought hard to pass
that financial reform in which the Consumer Finance Protection
Bureau was created.
There are those who suggest that they want to repeal it now.
There's tremendous pressure from some elements of Wall Street to
do so, and we're going to resist that because consumers need to
be protected against just the kind of situation that you're,
that you're raising here.
Mr. Phillips: Okay, great.
While you were answering that we had another question come in
from Pam Hoffman on education.
Mr. Axelrod: Yes.
Mr. Phillips: She asks, what is President Obama doing about the
high price of education?
I used to perceive financial aid as helping people better
themselves, but it's really gambling.
We gamble the economy will support us paying back the loans.
If we're wrong it's a financial disaster not dischargeable via bankruptcy.
And as such, financial aid entities are making high-risk loans.
These entities face no regulations or risk.
So back to the original question, what is President
Obama doing about the high price of education?
Mr. Axelrod: Well, first of all, it's a critical question
because it's, the cost of education, of a higher education
has put so much of a burden on families and on young people
leaving our colleges just at a time when we know that higher
education is absolutely the key to success in the 21st century.
The highway to jobs of the future are going to require
higher education, and we want to make sure that more and not
fewer people can go and they don't end up deep in the hole
when they come out of it.
That's why we worked so hard to change the federal student loan system.
In the past we've had middlemen, banks and other middlemen
administering these loans, and had we kept the system that was
in place in the next ten years we'd be spending $60 billion
just on subsidies to these middlemen.
We changed that system.
It took a big fight, but we changed that system so that that
60 billion is now going to be devoted to grants to students
who need help going to college, as well as to lift our community
college system, which is the gateway for so many young people
in terms of getting higher education, and also for older
folks who need retraining to gain the skills they need for
new, for new jobs.
We also had as part of the Recovery Act a tax credit for
college tuition, we want to make that permanent and we're going
to fight for that in the future.
And obviously we're also going to encourage economies at these
institutions so as to hold down the inflation and college costs
which have been great.
But this is a significant problem, not just for young
people across this country and families, but for our country itself.
If we're going to be competitive we need to make college
education affordable for all students who are willing to work
for it, who are qualified for it.
Mr. Phillips: Great.
So to change subjects a little bit, this is another common
theme we're seeing, maybe best summed up by Paulina, we'll just
say Paulina, who asks, David Axelrod, could you please talk
about what worked and what didn't work and why between the
White House and the Senate and the attempt to put together a
climate energy bill.
What actually happened at some of the key moments?
What are the lessons learned, and what's the plan?
Mr. Axelrod: Well, look, there is no doubt that the issue of energy
and climate change is a significant challenge for our
country, and it's -- and it is an obligation we have to future generations.
First as an economic issue.
The clean energy technology and clean energy manufacturing is
one of the growth industries of the future.
We see the Chinese, for example, making a huge investment in the
new clean energy technologies, and so as an economic matter, it
makes sense for us to invest in those.
As part of the Recovery Act we did make significant investments
in seed money to lure private investors into this arena, and
we got a three to one match from private investors for this.
And as a result, we'll double the use of renewable energy in
this country over a very short period of time.
We also raised fuel efficiency standards for the first time in
30 years, and we did it in conjunction with industry, first
on cars and then on trucks, and then on larger trucks.
And that's going to make a big difference.
But we want to work through Congress to get additional
legislation passed.
We had a climate change and energy bill in the House that
passed, and as you point out, it stalled in the Senate, like so
many other things.
There was a filibuster on the part of Republicans in the
Senate that stopped us from moving forward.
We want to find common ground on these issues, however.
I think everyone recognizes that we have to, that we have to move
forward on the energy front, that the fuels and the
technologies of the 20th century aren't going to make it in the
21st century, and that for not just our economy and our air and
the quality of our air and water, but the survival of the
planet, we need to, we need to move forward.
And the President is committed to doing that.
But the short answer to your question is there simply weren't
the votes to break a filibuster and move forward on an energy bill.
Mr. Phillips: Okay.
Our next question comes from Dorothy Carlo, who asks, it is
clear to me that campaign reform would solve a lot of the
problems people complain about.
Citizens United has made campaign reform all the more urgent.
What is the White House doing to reverse Citizens United in
furthering the goal of campaign reform?
Mr. Axelrod: And let's be clear what's Dorothy is referring to.
There was a decision early this year by the United States
Supreme Court that reversed generations of precedent and
said that corporations had First Amendment rights and could
advertise in political campaigns, participate in
political campaigns, advertise in political campaigns, advocate
for the election or defeat of candidates, and that coupled
with a loophole in the law that allows certain organizations to
take unlimited contributions and run political advertising
without disclosing where that money is coming from has opened
up the floodgate, and we've seen hundreds of millions of dollars
of campaign commercials running almost entirely against
Democratic candidates.
It's a seven to one kind of situation.
But be that as it may, it is -- it is a thing that makes a
mockery of our campaign finance system.
Most people, if I make a contribution, if Macon makes a
contribution, we're limited to 20, I believe 23, $2400, and we
have to disclose that we've made that contribution.
But what we see now are people from the oil industry and Wall
Street and other interests that have tremendous, a tremendous
interest in what's going on in Congress because of their own
pecuniary issues, making million dollar and more contributions.
This is all based on investigative reporting, because
they don't have to disclose it -- to these organizations that
run negative ads under benign sounding names like the
Crossroads GPS Organization, and the American Action Network, and
Americans for Prosperity.
You know, but these are essentially front groups for
interests who want to influence our government and hijack the
national agenda.
It's a really, really serious problem.
If someone, if a lobbyist can go in to a Congressman and say if
you don't vote our way on this issue, we're going to run
millions of dollars of campaign ads against you and no one will
even know it's coming from us, it's going to have a profound influence.
So our answer to that was to put a bill to support a law in
Congress that would just force them to disclose their
contributions and let -- and to identify in the advertising who
the chief contributor was behind these ads.
We passed out of the House, we got 59 votes in the United
States Senate to break a filibuster, every Democrat, and
41 Republicans blocked it and essentially voted to keep the
American people in the dark.
That law would have forced groups that supported
Republicans or Democrats to simply disclose where their
money was coming from.
And we're going to continue to fight for that even after this election.
If anything, this election should underscore how insidious
it is to allow the system that is now in place to continue, and
so we're going to fight, Macon, to force disclosure in the future.
Mr. Phillips: So, while you were answering that, Ron Hinton,
who's in the chat, said, so business is evil.
Is that what you're trying to say?
Mr. Axelrod: No, business is not evil, but we shouldn't have a two-tiered
approach to government and politics where some people
operate in the daylight and make their arguments through -- in
transparent ways, and others use essentially these loopholes to
leverage tremendous influence and skew the national agenda.
We, business is the heartbeat of our economy.
We want people who make things, create things, sell things, to succeed.
We want entrepreneurs to have an environment in which they can innovate.
We've invested a lot of money in encouraging innovation.
The President has proposed tax breaks, a permanent tax break
for research and development.
The President has proposed expensing changes so that in
2011 while we're digging our way out from this economic mess we
walked into, that companies can buy equipment and not pay taxes
on those purchases.
So, no, business is to be encouraged.
What is to be discouraged is people trying to game the
system, operating in the shadows, putting their thumb on
the scale, trying to buy up Congress in order to get their agenda through.
Because what happens is we get, you know, we get unwarranted tax
loopholes that favor specific industries or even specific businesses.
We get regulatory policies that conspire against the American
people, an example is on this financial situation.
We didn't have the appropriate oversight in place during the
eight years before we got here, and it led to a financial
crisis, the proportions of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression.
So, you know, we want everybody to play on a level playing field
and we want people to be transparent about what they're
arguing for and why.
And if we do that, we're going to be a better and stronger
country, and business is going to do better as well, because
you won't have one business, again, putting their thumb on
the scale using their political connections and their political
money, and disadvantaging other businesses who don't have that ability.
Mr. Phillips: Okay.
Great.
Well, let's change gears and before I ask the next question,
though, let me just remind everyone if the sound's not
working or you're seeing that something's wrong with your
screen, just hit refresh.
Sometimes we have some issues on that.
Again, if you want to join the conversation, you can head to
Whitehouse.gov/live where there's a very active chat going
on right now.
I'm trying to pull some questions from this.
But let's dive into the next one that has more to do with health care.
This one comes from Arlene Thomasetti, (phonetic) who says
I am 53, widowed, and a waitress and a freelance web designer.
Neither of my jobs provide health insurance.
I make very little money, and I'm wondering how this health
plan can help me find insurance I will be able to afford, and
when can I expect to be able to be insured?
I have issues, but won't see a doctor since I'm sure they will
require treatment, which I absolutely cannot afford right now.
Any hope for someone like me?
Mr. Axelrod: Well, there is hope, Arlene, and that's why the President
made the fight that he fought for health insurance reform.
It is specifically people like you who are most disadvantaged
in this health care system because health care for people
in the individual market who don't get it through their
employers has been exponentially more expensive than the policies
that people can get through their jobs, and it's priced
people like you out of the insurance market so you can't
get the health care you need.
The whole idea of health insurance reform is to make sure
that people like you can get health insurance at a price you can afford.
And the first thing that you can do is go to the new website
that's been established as a result of that law called
healthcare.gov, and on that website you can type in
your information and find out exactly what insurance policies
are available in your market to people like you, public and private.
You can see their cost, you can see their benefits, and you may
find that there are policies that you can afford that will be helpful.
But when this plan is fully implemented in 2014, you're also
going to be able to buy a health care policy through what's
called health insurance exchanges, essentially co-ops or
markets where private insurance companies will compete for your
business, and you'll be able to buy them, and if you need some
help in terms of subsidies to afford them, you will be able to
get that as well.
I'd say the other thing, I don't know when you say you have
issues, whether that refers to a pre-existing medical condition,
which sometimes leads to, has led to people being banned from
getting insurance.
Part of this law is to end that practice and to say to insurance
companies you have to give everyone a chance to get
coverage, even people with pre-existing conditions.
Right now under the law, as of September, children with
pre-existing conditions must be covered so families who have a
child -- I was in that position with a pre-existing medical
condition -- and are denied care for their child, that no longer happens.
But in 2014, everyone with pre-existing medical conditions
will be able to get health insurance at a price they can afford.
And there are, there are some policies available now for
people with pre-existing conditions that may be
affordable to you.
So I'd check into that healthcare.gov
website and -- and yes, there is hope on the way here.
Mr. Phillips: Great.
So we're going to take two more questions.
Mr. Axelrod: Okay.
Mr. Phillips: And the next one comes from Josh Smith, who says this week
Bloomberg ran a news piece about large U.S. corporations
like Google sheltering profits overseas.
According to the article, Google's average tax rate is
around two and a half percent.
My personal average income tax rate last year was more than ten times that.
Given our severe budget difficulties, why are we not
immediately closing the loopholes that let America's
largest companies avoid paying their fair share of taxes?
Mr. Axelrod: Josh, that's a really good question, and it's one
we've been asking.
Our budget proposals have contained hundreds of billions
of dollars of these corporate loopholes that we want to close
because they don't, they don't lead to jobs and growth here in
this country, and including tax breaks that encourage
corporations to actually move jobs overseas.
This is a fight we're going to continue to wage.
We, at a time when we need not just to close our budget gap and
deal with our deficits, but also encourage growth here, we ought
to evaluate these tax breaks and ask the question are these
really strengthening our country or are these some of those that
are inserted by lobbyists and special interests into the tax
code for their own benefit.
And we're going to continue to make that fight.
As you can imagine, there's lively debate on in this Congress.
One of the reasons why special interests are pouring so much
money into these secret funds, these front groups to influence
this election is because they want to protect those advantages.
And I'm not talking about any particular company here, but we
need to look at our tax code and make some judgments here as to
whether these -- it's -- things that are in it are sensible and
whether they actually promote a good business climate and growth
and jobs or not.
Mr. Phillips: Great.
Well, our last question comes from Sheila Parker Stone, who
asks, I think, a bigger picture question moving forward.
Mr. Axelrod, please try to explain this question for me.
It's obvious that the Republican party is not interested in
bipartisanship.
I fully understand the President's desire to work this
way, as he is President of us all.
Please explain how the President is going to move forward under
this climate of civil war between the parties.
We, the citizens of this country, really need a more
convincing answer from the President.
He needs to take a stand more vocally and convince us that he
is above this political climate and only interested in defending us.
Mr. Axelrod: Well, look, I think that if anybody who watched the
President campaign and anybody who's really spent time watching
him govern understand that he agrees with that.
I mean, even today as he campaigns he makes a point that
I think we all share, which is that we may be Democrats or
Republicans, but we're Americans first.
And we're here not to promote the interests of a political party,
but to promote the interests of the American people.
And we would like nothing better than to have partners,
Republicans and Democrats, in moving this country forward.
We came to office with that expectation, we came to office
at a time of great economic crisis, and we're hoping to
forge bipartisan coalitions to deal with those problems.
We weren't successful in persuading the folks on the
other side of the aisle to do that.
They made a judgment, I believe it was a political judgment, but
I'll let others make their own assessment of that,
but we weren't able to get a lot of cooperation.
I think it's very clear that we have an election next week in
which whatever the ultimate outcome is, there will be more
parity between the parties here in Washington.
I'm hoping that we'll imbue folks on the other side with a
greater sense of responsibility and an interest in cooperating,
and they will meet with, they will meet with a welcoming hand from us.
You know, there are no doubt things that we will never agree
on, but there are also things that we can agree on, and we
ought to put, you know, we have elections that are hotly
contested, we ought to be willing to put those aside after
the election, and wait, and take up the next election closer to
the day when people vote and not contest it from the moment one election ends.
And that would be our hope.
We've got big problems and big challenges in this country, and
big opportunities, but we're not going to be able to seize them
if we're engaged in partisan warfare day after day after day.
Mr. Phillips: Great.
Well, Robin Randall has one comment, says keep up the great
work, you look thin.
Are you eating your vegetables?
(laughter)
Mr. Axelrod: I have, you know, I have lost a bunch of weight.
I've told this story before, it was -- I had a parasite, I don't
know where I acquired it, I don't think it's a commentary on Washington, D. C.,
so let me make that clear, but then I just decided to go with it.
But I will say that Macon's my workout buddy here, so I'm
hoping to have a salutary effect on him here.
Mr. Phillips: I appreciate it.
(laughter)
All right.
Well, thanks a lot, and thanks, everybody else, for joining.
If you came late we'll be posting the whole video to
Whitehouse.gov
so you can go back and find questions you may have missed,
and look forward to doing more of these with you every
Tuesday at 1:00.
We actually have another one coming up on Thursday with White
House photographer Pete Souza, who's going to be taking your
questions about your favorite photos.
That should be pretty fun.
Mr. Axelrod: Yes.
Mr. Phillips: So thanks everyone for joining.
Have a great day.