Ed. Note: After the shellacking of the November mid-term elections, President Obama was able to achieve some successes in the lame duck session.  He described it as "the most productive post-election period we’ve had in decades," and, Obama added, "It comes on the heels of the most productive two years that we’ve had in generations."
News Conference by The President
South Court Auditorium, Eisenhower Executive Office Building
December 22, 2010
[WHITE HOUSE TRANSCRIPT]

4:16 P.M. EST

     THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  Good afternoon.  I know everybody is itching to get out of here and spend some time with their families.  I am, too.  I noticed some of you colleagues have been reporting from Hawaii over the last week.  But I just wanted to say a few words about the progress that we’ve made on some important issues over these last few weeks.
 
     A lot of folks in this town predicted that after the midterm elections, Washington would be headed for more partisanship and more gridlock.  And instead, this has been a season of progress for the American people.  That progress is reflecting -- is a reflection of the message that voters sent in November -- a message that said it’s time to find common ground on challenges facing our country.  That’s a message that I will take to heart in the New Year, and I hope my Democratic and Republican friends will do the same.
 
     First of all, I am glad that Democrats and Republicans came together to approve my top national security priority for this session of Congress -- the New START treaty.  This is the most significant arms control agreement in nearly two decades, and it will make us safer and reduce our nuclear arsenals along with Russia.  With this treaty, our inspectors will also be back on the ground at Russian nuclear bases.  So we will be able to trust but verify.
 
     We’ll continue to advance our relationship with Russia, which is essential to making progress on a host of challenges -- from enforcing strong sanctions on Iran to preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.  And this treaty will enhance our leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and seek the peace of a world without them.
 
     The strong, bipartisan vote in the Senate sends a powerful signal to the world that Republicans and Democrats stand together on behalf of our security.  And I especially want to thank the outstanding work done by Vice President Joe Biden; the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry; and the Ranking Republican, Senator Richard Lugar, for their extraordinary efforts.  
 
In fact, I just got off the phone with Dick Lugar, and reminded him the first trip I ever took as senator -- foreign trip -- was with Dick Lugar to Russia, to look at nuclear facilities there.  And I told him how much I appreciated the work he had done and that there was a direct line between that trip that we took together when I was a first-year senator and the results of the vote today on the floor.
 
This all speaks to a tradition of bipartisan support for strong American leadership around the world -- and that's a tradition that was reinforced by the fact that the New START treaty won the backing of our military and our allies abroad.   
 
     In the last few weeks, we also came together across party lines to pass a package of tax cuts and unemployment insurance that will spur jobs, businesses and growth.   This package includes a payroll tax cut that means nearly every American family will get an average tax cut next year of about a thousand dollars delivered in their paychecks.  It will make a difference for millions of students and parents and workers and people still looking for work.  It’s led economists across the political spectrum to predict that the economy will grow faster than they originally thought next year.   
 
     In our ongoing struggle to perfect our union, we also overturned a 17-year-old law and a longstanding injustice by finally ending “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  As I said earlier today, this is the right thing to do for our security; it’s the right thing to do, period.
 
     In addition, we came together across party lines to pass a food safety bill -- the biggest upgrade of America’s food safety laws since the Great Depression.  And I hope the House will soon join the Senate in passing a 9/11 health bill that will help cover the health care costs of police officers, firefighters, rescue workers, and residents who inhaled toxic air near the World Trade Center on that terrible morning and the days that followed.
 
     So I think it’s fair to say that this has been the most productive post-election period we’ve had in decades, and it comes on the heels of the most productive two years that we’ve had in generations.
 
     That doesn’t mean that our business is finished.  I am very disappointed Congress wasn’t able to pass the DREAM Act so we can stop punishing kids for the actions of their parents, and allow them to serve in the military or earn an education and contribute their talents to the country where they grew up.
 
I’m also disappointed we weren’t able to come together around a budget to fund our government over the long term.  I expect we’ll have a robust debate about this when we return from the holidays -- a debate that will have to answer an increasingly urgent question -- and that is how do we cut spending that we don’t need while making investments that we do need -- investments in education, research and development, innovation, and the things that are essential to grow our economy over the long run, create jobs, and compete with every other nation in the world.  I look forward to hearing from folks on both sides of the aisle about how we can accomplish that goal.
 
     If there’s any lesson to draw from these past few weeks, it’s that we are not doomed to endless gridlock.  We’ve shown, in the wake of the November elections, that we have the capacity not only to make progress, but to make progress together.
 
     And I’m not naïve.  I know there will be tough fights in the months ahead.  But my hope heading into the New Year is that we can continue to heed the message of the American people and hold to a spirit of common purpose in 2011 and beyond.  And if we do that, I’m convinced that we will lift up our middle class, we will rebuild our economy, and we will make our contribution to America’s greatness.
 
     Finally, before I take questions, I want to send a message to all those Americans who are spending Christmas serving our nation in harm’s way.  As I said in Afghanistan earlier this month, the American people stand united in our support and admiration for you.  And in this holiday season, I’d ask the American people to keep our troops in your prayers, and lend a hand to those military families who have an empty seat at the table.
 
     So with that, I’m going to take some questions.  And I’m going to start with Caren Bohan.
 
     Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You racked up a lot of wins in the last few weeks that a lot of people thought would be difficult to come by.  Are you ready to call yourself the “Comeback Kid”?  And also, as you look ahead to 2011, are you worried that bipartisan agreement will be a lot harder to reach on issues like deficit reduction and maybe even tax reform?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, as I said right after the midterm elections, we took a shellacking.  And I take responsibility for that.  But I think what’s happened over the last several weeks is not a victory for me, it’s a victory for the American people. And the lesson I hope that everybody takes from this is that it’s possible for Democrats and Republicans to have principled disagreements; to have some lengthy arguments but to ultimately find common ground to move the country forward.  
 
     That’s what we did with taxes.  Those arguments have not gone away.  I still believe that it doesn’t make sense for us to provide tax cuts to people like myself who don’t need them when our deficit and debts are growing.  That’s a debate that’s going to continue into 2011, and I know the Republicans feel just as strongly on the other side of that.
 
     I think that we’re still going to have disagreements in terms of spending priorities.  It’s vital for us to make investments in education and research and development -- all those things that create an innovative economy -- while at the same time cutting those programs that just aren’t working.  And there are going to be debates between the parties on those issues.
 
     But what we’ve shown is that we don’t have to agree on a hundred percent to get things done that enhance the lives of families all across America.  And if we can sustain that spirit, then regardless of how the politics play out in 2012, the American people will be better for it.  And that’s my ultimate goal.
 
     Jake Tapper.
 
     Q    Thanks, Mr. President.  Merry Christmas.
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Merry Christmas.
 
     Q    I have a couple questions about “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  First of all, congratulations.  What was your conversation like with Marine Commandant Amos when he expressed to you his concerns and yet he said that he would abide by whatever -- whatever the ruling was?  Can you understand why he had the position he did?  And then on the other hand, is it intellectually consistent to say that gay and lesbians should be able to fight and die for this country but they should not be able to marry the people they love?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  You know, I don’t want to go into detail about conversations in the Oval Office with my service chiefs.  Jim Amos expressed the same concerns to me privately that he expressed publicly during his testimony.  He said that there could be disruptions as a consequence of this.  And what I said to him was that I was confident, looking at the history of the military with respect to racial integration, with respect to the inclusion of women in our armed forces, that that could be managed.  And that was confirmed by the attitudinal studies that was done prior to this vote.
 
     And what he assured me of -- and what all the service chiefs have assured me of -- is that regardless of their concerns about disruptions, they were confident that they could implement this policy without it affecting our military cohesion and good discipline and readiness.  And I take them at their word.  And I’ve spoken to them since the vote took place and they have all said that we are going to implement this smartly and swiftly, and they are confident that it will not have an effect on our military effectiveness.
 
     So I’m very heartened by that.  And I want to, again, give Bob Gates and Admiral Mullen enormous credit for having guided this process through in a way that preserves our primary responsibility to keep America safe and at the same time allows us to live up to our values.
 
     With respect to the issue of whether gays and lesbians should be able to get married, I’ve spoken about this recently.  As I’ve said, my feelings about this are constantly evolving.  I struggle with this.  I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions.  And they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.
 
     At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have.  And I think -- and I think that’s the right thing to do.  But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we’re going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward.
 
     Q    But the military does not recognize civil unions, right?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  I understand.  And as I said, this is going to be an issue that is not unique to the military -- this is an issue that extends to all of our society, and I think we’re all going to have to have a conversation about it.
 
     Dan Lothian.
 
     Q    Thank you, Mr. President, and happy holidays.
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Happy holidays.
 
     Q    Can you give us an update on that car that you talk about so much about being in the ditch?  Can you give us an update as to where it is today?  What kind of highway do you think it will be driving on in 2011?  Who will really be behind the wheel, given the new makeup in Congress?  And what do you think Republicans will be sipping and saying next year?  (Laughter.)  
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Dan, you gave some thought to that question, didn’t you?
 
     Q    I did.  (Laughter.)  
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I do think that the car is on level ground.  I mean, the car is the economy.  And I think we are past the crisis point in the economy, but we now have to pivot and focus on jobs and growth.  And my singular focus over the next two years is not rescuing the economy from potential disaster, but rather jumpstarting the economy so that we actually start making a dent in the unemployment rate and we are equipping ourselves so that we can compete in the 21st century.
 
     And that means we’ve got to focus on education, that means we have to focus on research and development, we have to focus on innovation.  We have to make sure that in every sector, from manufacturing to clean energy to high-tech to biotech, that we recognize the private sector is going to be the driving force.  And what the government can do is to make sure that we are a good partner with them, that we’re a facilitator; that in some cases, we’re a catalyst, when it’s a fledgling industry.
 
     And that means that we’ve got to look at some of our old dogmas -- both Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals -- to think about what works.  If there are regulations that are in place that are impeding innovation, let’s get rid of those regulations.  Let’s make sure that we’re also protecting consumers, and we’re protecting the environment and protecting workers in the process.  But let’s find ways to do business that helps business.
 
     People were doubtful about the approach that we took to the auto industry, but that was an example of there may be occasions -- certainly during crisis -- where a timely intervention that’s limited and restricted can end up making a difference.
 
     And so I think Democrats, Republicans, House, Senate, the White House -- all of us have to be in a conversation with the private sector about what’s going to ensure that we can export and sell our products instead of just buying exports from someplace else.  How do we make sure that the green technologies of the future are made here in America?  
 
     And how do we get all these profits that companies have been making since the economy recovered into productive investment and hiring?  That's a conversation that I had with the 20 CEOs who came here, and that's a conversation I expect to continue in the months ahead.
 
     But the answer about who drives -- the American people are driving the car.  They're the ones who are going to be making an assessment as to whether we’re putting in place policies that are working for them.  And both parties are going to be held accountable and I’m going to be held accountable if we take a wrong turn on that front.
 
     Q    And what will the Republicans be sipping?  (Laughter.)  
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  You know, my sense is the Republicans recognize that with greater power is going to come greater responsibility.  And some of the progress that I think we saw in the lame duck was a recognition on their part that people are going to be paying attention to what they're doing, as well as what I’m doing and what the Democrats in Congress are doing.
 
     Mark Knoller.
 
     Q    Yes, sir.  Mr. President, can you explain the anger and even outrage many Democrats felt when the tax cut bill extended tax cuts not just for the middle class but also for the wealthy?  And is that a divide that you may be contributing to when you and the Vice President talk about “morally inappropriate” tax cuts for the wealthy?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Look, the frustration that people felt about that was frustration I share.  I’ve said that before, and I’ll probably say it again.  I don't think that over the long run we can afford a series of tax breaks for people who are doing very well and don't need it; were doing well when Bill Clinton was in office.  They were still rich then, and they will still be rich if those tax cuts went away.
 
     And so this is going to be a debate that we’re going to be having over the next couple of years because I guarantee you, as soon as the new Congress is sworn in, we’re going to have to have a conversation about how do we start balancing our budget, or at least getting to a point that's sustainable when it comes to our deficit and our debt.  
 
     And that's going to require us cutting programs that don't work, but it also requires us to be honest about paying for the things that we think are important.  If we think it’s important to make sure that our veterans are getting care that they need when they come back home from fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq, we can’t just salute and wish them well and have a Veterans Day Parade.  We got to make sure that there are doctors and nurses and facilities for post-traumatic stress disorder -- and that costs money.
 
     If we say that education is going to be the single most important determinant for our children’s success and this country’s success in the 21st century, we can’t have schools that are laying off so many teachers that they start going to four days a week, as they’ve done in Hawaii, for example.
 
     We’ve got to make sure that young people can afford to go to college.  If we want to keep our competitive edge in innovation, well, we’ve got to invest in basic research -- the same basic research that resulted in the Internet, the same basic research that invited -- that resulted in GPS.  All those things originated in research funded by the government.
 
     So we are going to have to compare the option of maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy permanently versus spending on these things that we think are important.  And that's a debate that I welcome.   But I completely understand why not just Democrats but some Republicans might think that that part of the tax package we could have done without.
 
     Having said that, I want to repeat -- compromise, by definition, means taking some things you don't like.  And the overall package was the right one to ensure that this economy has the best possible chance to grow and create jobs.  And there is no better anti-poverty program than an economy that's growing.  There is no better deficit-reduction program than an economy that is growing.  And if the economy started contracting, as it might have had we not gotten this tax agreement, then the choices that we would have to make would be even tougher.
 
     Q    Sir, is there a divide between middle-class and wealthy Americans?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  I think middle-class folks would confirm what the statistics say, which is that they have not seen a real increase in their incomes in a decade, while their costs have skyrocketed.  That's just a fact.
 
     What is also a fact is that people in the top 1 percent, people in the top 1/10th of 1 percent, or 1/100th of 1 percent have a larger share of income and wealth than any time since the 1920s.  Those are just facts.  That's not a feeling on the part of Democrats.  Those are facts.
 
     And something that's always been the greatest strength of America is a thriving, booming middle class, where everybody has got a shot at the American Dream.  And that should be our goal.  That should be what we’re focused on.  How are we creating opportunity for everybody?  So that we celebrate wealth.  We celebrate somebody like a Steve Jobs, who has created two or three different revolutionary products.  We expect that person to be rich, and that's a good thing.  We want that incentive.  That's part of the free market.  
 
     But we also want to make sure that those of us who have been extraordinarily fortunate, that we’re contributing to the larger American community so that a whole bunch of other kids coming up are doing well.  And that means schools that work and infrastructure like roads and airports that function, and it means colleges and universities that teach and aren’t restricted to just people who can afford it but are open to anybody with talent and a willingness to work.  And that’s going to be I think part of the conversation that we’ve got to have over the next couple years.
 
     Juan Carlos López.
 
     Q    Gracias, Presidente.  Feliz Navidad.
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Feliz Navidad.
 
     Q    Mr. President, you’ve been able to fulfill many of your promises.  Immigration reform isn’t one of them.  Just this last weekend, the DREAM Act failed cloture by five votes, and five Democrats didn’t support it; three Republicans did.  How are you going to be able to keep your promise when the Republicans control the House when you haven’t been able to do so with Democrats controlling both the Senate and the House, and when Republicans say they want to focus on border security before they do anything on immigration?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me say, there are a number of things that I wanted to get accomplished that we did not get accomplished.  For example, collective bargaining for firefighters and public safety workers -- that was something that I thought was important.  We didn’t get it done.  I’m disappointed in that.  I think we’re still going to have to figure out how we work on energy, and that’s an area that I want to immediately engage with Republicans to figure out.
 
     But I will tell you, maybe my biggest disappointment was this DREAM Act vote.  You know, I get letters from kids all across the country -- came here when they were five, came here when they were eight; their parents were undocumented.  The kids didn’t know -- kids are going to school like any other American kid, they’re growing up, they’re playing football, they’re going to class, they’re dreaming about college.  And suddenly they come to 18, 19 years old and they realize even though I feel American, I am an American, the law doesn’t recognize me as an American.  I’m willing to serve my country, I’m willing to fight for this country, I want to go to college and better myself -- and I’m at risk of deportation.
 
     And it is heartbreaking.  That can’t be who we are, to have kids -- our kids, classmates of our children -- who are suddenly under this shadow of fear through no fault of their own.  They didn’t break a law -- they were kids.
 
     So my hope and expectation is that, first of all, everybody understands I am determined and this administration is determined to get immigration reform done.  It is the right thing to do.  I think it involves securing our borders, and my administration has done more on border security than any administration in recent years.  We have more of everything -- ICE, Border Patrol, surveillance, you name it.  
 
     So we take border security seriously.  And we take going after employers who are exploiting and using undocumented workers, we take that seriously.  But we need to reform this immigration system so we are a nation of laws and we are a nation of immigrants.  And at minimum, we should be able to get the DREAM Act done.
 
     And so I’m going to go back at it and I’m going to engage in Republicans who, I think, some of them, in their heart of hearts, know it’s the right thing to do, but they think the politics is tough for them.
 
     Well, that may mean that we’ve got to change the politics.  And I’ve got to spend some time talking to the American people, and others have to spend time talking to the American people, because I think that if the American people knew any of these kids -- they probably do, they just may not know their status -- they’d say, of course we want you.  That's who we are.  That's the better angels of our nature.  
 
And so one thing I hope people have seen during this lame duck -- I am persistent.  I am persistent.  If I believe in something strongly, I stay on it.  And I believe strongly in this.
 
And I am happy to engage with the Republicans about -- if they’ve got ideas about more on border security, I’m happy to have that conversation.  And I think that it is absolutely appropriate for the American people to expect that we don't have porous borders and anybody can come in here any time.  That is entirely legitimate.
 
But I also think about those kids.  And I want to do right by them, and I think the country is going to want to do right by them, as well.
 
Mike Emanuel.
 
Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Merry Christmas.  
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Merry Christmas.
 
Q    Guantanamo, sir.  I understand a draft of an executive order is being prepared for you, and I don't expect you to comment then on that --
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Right.
 
Q    It hasn’t gotten to you yet.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.
 
Q    But it makes me wonder where you are, sir, at about the two-year mark on Guantanamo, when closing it was one of your initial priorities, sir?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Obviously, we haven’t gotten it closed.  And let me just step back and explain that the reason for wanting to close Guantanamo was because my number one priority is keeping the American people safe.  One of the most powerful tools we have to keep the American people safe is not providing al Qaeda and jihadists recruiting tools for fledgling terrorists.
 
And Guantanamo is probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations.  And we see it in the websites that they put up.  We see it in the messages that they're delivering.  
 
And so my belief is that we can keep the American people safe, go after those who would engage in terrorism.  And my administration has been as aggressive in going after al Qaeda as any administration out there.  And we’ve seen progress, as I noted during the Afghan review.
 
Every intelligence report that we’re seeing shows that al Qaeda is more hunkered down than they have been since the original invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, that they have reduced financing capacity, reduced operational capacity.  It is much more difficult for their top folks to communicate, and a lot of those top folks can’t communicate because they're underground now.
 
But it is important for us, even as we’re going aggressively after the bad guys, to make sure that we’re also living up to our values and our ideals and our principles.  And that's what closing Guantanamo is about -- not because I think that the people who are running Guantanamo are doing a bad job, but rather because it’s become a symbol.  And I think we can do just as good of a job housing them somewhere else.
 
Now, to the issue you had about the review.  You’re right, I won’t comment right now on a review that I have not received yet.  I can tell you that over the last two years, despite not having closed Guantanamo, we’ve been trying to put our battle against terrorists within a legal structure that is consistent with our history of rule of law.  And we’ve succeeded on a number of fronts.
 
One of the toughest problems is what to do with people that we know are dangerous, that we know are -- have engaged in terrorist activity, are proclaimed enemies of the United States, but because of the manner in which they were originally captured, the circumstances right after 9/11 in which they are interrogated, it becomes difficult to try them whether in an Article III court or in a military commission.
 
Releasing them at this stage could potentially create greater danger for the American people.  And so how do we manage that?  And that's what this team has been looking at.  Are there ways for us to make sure these folks have lawyers, to make sure that these folks have the opportunity to challenge their detention -- but at the same time, making sure that we are not simply releasing folks who could do us grievous harm and have shown a capacity and willingness to engage in brutal attacks in the past.
 
And so when I get that report, I’m sure that I’ll have more comments on it.  The bottom line is, is that striking this balance between our security and making sure that we are consistent with our values and our Constitution is not an easy task, but ultimately that's what’s required for practical reasons.
 
Because the more people are reminded of what makes America special -- the fact that we stand for something beyond just our economic power or our military might, but we have these core ideals that we observe even when it’s hard -- that's one of our most powerful weapons.  And I want to make sure that we don't lose that weapon in what is a serious struggle.
 
So with that, everybody, I want to wish you all a merry Christmas.  Happy holidays.  Happy New Year.  See you in 2011.

END
4:50 P.M. EST



PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
December 7, 2010
[WHITE HOUSE TRANSCRIPT]


2:25 P.M. EST
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Before I answer a few questions, I just wanted to say a few words about the agreement we’ve reached on tax cuts.
 
     My number one priority is to do what’s right for the American people, for jobs, and for economic growth.  I’m focused on making sure that tens of millions of hardworking Americans are not seeing their paychecks shrink on January 1st just because the folks here in Washington are busy trying to score political points.
 
     And because of this agreement, middle-class Americans won’t see their taxes go up on January 1st, which is what I promised -- a promise I made during the campaign, a promise I made as President.
 
     Because of this agreement, 2 million Americans who lost their jobs and are looking for work will be able to pay their rent and put food on their table.  And in exchange for a temporary extension of the high-income tax breaks -- not a permanent but a temporary extension -- a policy that I opposed but that Republicans are unwilling to budge on, this agreement preserves additional tax cuts for the middle class that I fought for and that Republicans opposed two years ago. 
 
     I’ll cite three of them.  Number one, if you are a parent trying to raise your child or pay college tuition, you will continue to see tax breaks next year.  Second, if you’re a small business looking to invest and grow, you’ll have a tax cut next year.  Third, as a result of this agreement, we will cut payroll taxes in 2011, which will add about $1,000 to the take-home pay of a typical family.
 
     So this isn’t an abstract debate.  This is real money for real people that will make a real difference in the lives of the folks who sent us here.  It will make a real difference in the pace of job creation and economic growth.  In other words, it’s a good deal for the American people.
 
     Now, I know there are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight, even if it had meant higher taxes for all Americans, even if it had meant an end to unemployment insurance for those who are desperately looking for work.
 
     And I understand the desire for a fight.  I’m sympathetic to that.  I’m as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I’ve been for years.  In the long run, we simply can’t afford them.  And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed.
 
So we’re going to keep on having this debate.  We’re going to keep on having this battle.  But in the meantime I’m not here to play games with the American people or the health of our economy.  My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving.  My job is to do whatever I can to spur job creation.  My job is to look out for middle-class families who are struggling right now to get by and Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.
 
     A long political fight that carried over into next year might have been good politics, but it would be a bad deal for the economy and it would be a bad deal for the American people.  And my responsibility as President is to do what’s right for the American people.  That’s a responsibility I intend to uphold as long as I am in this office.
 
     So with that, let me take a couple of questions.
    
     Ben Feller.
    
     Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You’ve been telling the American people all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthier Americans.  You said that again today.  But what you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but you’d be willing to go ahead and extend them for a couple years if the politics of the moment demand it.
 
     So what I’m wondering is when you take a stand like you had, why should the American people believe that you’re going to stick with it?  Why should the American people believe that you’re not going to flip flop?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Hold on a second, Ben.  This isn’t the politics of the moment.  This has to do with what can we get done right now.  So the issue -- here’s the choice.  It’s very stark.  We can’t get my preferred option through the Senate right now.  As a consequence, if we don’t get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000.  Number two:  At the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance.  
 
     Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I’m going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can’t win in the Senate -- and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently.  So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished.  I’ve got an option of just holding fast to my position and, as a consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see their paychecks smaller.  Or alternatively, what I can do is I can say that I am going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance.  And I will continue to fight before the American people to make the point that the Republican position is wrong.
 
     Now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the American people to my side, then I would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me.  There are polls showing right now that the American people, for the most part, think it’s a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy. 
 
     But the issue is not me persuading the American people; they’re already there.  The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans in the Senate who are currently blocking that position.  I have not been able to budge them.  And I don’t think there’s any suggestion anybody in this room thinks realistically that we can budge them right now. 
 
And in the meantime, there are a whole bunch of people being hurt and the economy would be damaged.  And my first job is to make sure that the economy is growing, that we’re creating jobs out there, and that people who are struggling are getting some relief.  And if I have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt or helping those folks and continuing to fight this political battle over the next two years, I will choose the latter.
 
Q    If I may follow up quickly, sir, you’re describing the situation you’re in right now.  What about the last two years when it comes to your preferred option?  Was there a failure either on the part of the Democratic leadership on the Hill or here that you couldn’t preclude these wealthier cuts from going forward?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy.  This is -- seems to be their central economic doctrine.  And so, unless we had 60 votes in the Senate at any given time, it would be very hard for us to move this forward.  I have said that I would have liked to have seen a vote before the election.  I thought this was a strong position for us to take into the election, to crystallize the positions of the two parties, because I think the Democrats have better ideas.  I think our proposal to make sure that the middle class is held harmless, but that we don’t make these Bush tax cuts permanent for wealthy individuals, because it was going to cost the country at a time when we’ve got these looming deficits, that that was the better position to take.  And the American people were persuaded by that. 
 
But the fact of the matter is, I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party.  I haven’t persuaded Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded John Boehner.  And if I can’t persuade them, then I’ve got to look at what is the best thing to do, given that reality, for the American people and for jobs.
 
     Julianna.
 
     Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Back in July, your budget office’s Mid-Session Review forecast that unemployment would be 7.7 percent in the second -- in the fourth quarter of 2012.  Will this package deal lower that projected rate?  And also, is it going to do more to boost growth and create jobs than your Recovery Act?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  This is not as significant a boost to the economy as the Recovery Act was, but we’re in a different situation now.  I mean, when the Recovery Act passed, we were looking at a potential Great Depression and we might have seen unemployment go up to 15 percent, 20 percent -- we don’t know.  In combination with the work we did in stabilizing the financial system, the work that the Federal Reserve did, that’s behind us now.  We don’t have the danger of a double-dip recession.
 
     What we have is a situation in which the economy, although growing, although company profits are up, although we are seeing some job growth in the private sector, the economy is not growing fast enough to drive down the unemployment rate given the 8 million jobs that were lost before I came into office and just as I was coming into office.
 
     So what this package does is provide an additional boost that is substantially more significant than I think most economic forecasters had expected.  And in fact, you’ve already seen some, just over the last 24 hours, suggest that we may see faster growth and more job growth as a consequence of this package.  I think the payroll tax holiday will have an impact.  Unemployment insurance probably has the biggest impact in terms of making sure that the recovery that we have continues and perhaps at a faster pace.
 
     So, overall, every economist I’ve talked to suggests that this will help economic growth and this will help job growth over the next several months.  And that is the main criteria by which I made this decision. 
 
     Look, this is something that I think everybody has to remember, and I would speak especially to my fellow Democrats who I think rightly are passionate about middle-class families, working families, low-income families who are having the toughest time in this economy. 
 
The single most important jobs program we can put in place is a growing economy.  The single most important anti-poverty program we can put in place is making sure folks have jobs and the economy is growing.
 
We can do a whole bunch of other stuff, but if the economy is not growing, if the private sector is not hiring faster than it’s currently hiring, then we are going to continue to have problems no matter how many programs we put into place. 
 
And that’s why, when I look at what our options were, for us to have another three, four, five months of uncertainty, not only would that have a direct impact on the people who see their paychecks get smaller, not only would that have a direct impact on people who are unemployed and literally depend on unemployment insurance to pay the bills or keep their home or keep their car, but in terms of macroeconomics, the overall health of the economy, that would have been a damaging thing.
 
Q    Just to follow up.  The unemployment rate was just north of 8 percent when the last Recovery Act was put in place.  It’s now 9.8 percent.  Are you prepared to say today that the unemployment rate is going to go down as a result of this package?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  My expectation is that the unemployment rate is going to be going down because the economy is growing.  And even though it’s growing more slowly that I’d like, it’s still growing.
 
Now, how fast it’s going to go down, how quickly the economy is going to grow, when are private sector businesses going to start making the investments in plant and equipment and actually start hiring people again?  There are a lot of economists out there who have been struggling with that question. 
 
So I’m not going to make a prediction.  What I can say with confidence is that this package will help strengthen the economy -- will help strengthen the recovery.  That I’m confident about.
 
     Chuck Todd.
    
     Q    Mr. President, what do you say to Democrats who say you’re rewarding Republican obstruction here?  You yourself used in your opening statement they were unwilling to budge on this.  A lot of progressive Democrats are saying they’re unwilling to budge, and you’re asking them to get off the fence and budge.  Why should they be rewarding Republican obstruction?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me use a couple of analogies.  I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts.  I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.  Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy.  In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed. 
 
Again, this not an abstract political fight.  This is not isolated here in Washington.  There are people right now who, when their unemployment insurance runs out, will not be able to pay the bills.  There are folks right now who are just barely making it on the paycheck that they’ve got, and when that paycheck gets smaller on January 1st, they’re going to have to scramble to figure out, how am I going to pay all my bills?  How am I going to keep on making the payments for my child’s college tuition?  What am I going to do exactly?
 
     Now, I could have enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month or two, because as I said, the American people are on our side.  This is not a situation in which I have failed to persuade the American people of the rightness of our position.  I know the polls.  The polls are on our side on this.  We weren’t operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion.  The problem is that Republicans feel that this is the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party.  And in light of that, it was going to be a protracted battle and they would have a stronger position next year than they do currently. 
 
     So I guess another way of thinking about it is that if -- certainly if we had made a determination that the deal was a permanent tax break for high-income individuals in exchange for these short-term things that people need right now, that would have been unacceptable.  And the reason is, is because you would be looking at $700 billion that would be added to the deficit with very little on the short term that would help to offset that.
 
     The deal that we’ve struck here makes the high-end tax cuts temporary, and that gives us the time to have this political battle without having the same casualties for the American people that are my number one concern.
 
     Q    If I may follow, aren’t you telegraphing, though, a negotiating strategy of how the Republicans can beat you in negotiations all the way through the next year because they can just stick to their guns, stay united, be unwilling to budge -- to use your words -- and force you to capitulate?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t think so.  And the reason is because this is a very unique circumstance.  This is a situation in which tens of millions of people would be directly damaged and immediately damaged, and at a time when the economy is just about to recover. 
 
     Now, keep in mind, I’ve just gone through two years, Chuck, where the rap on me was I was too stubborn and wasn’t willing to budge on a whole bunch of issues -- including, by the way, health care where everybody here was writing about how, despite public opinion and despite this and despite that, somehow the guy is going to bulldoze his way through this thing.
 
     Q    Tell that to the left -- they weren’t happy --
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, but that’s my point.  My point is I don’t make judgments based on what the conventional wisdom is at any given time.  I make my judgments based on what I think is right for the country and for the American people right now.
 
     And I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues.  I suspect they will find I am.  And I think the American people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights.  But right now I want to make sure that the American people aren’t hurt because we’re having a political fight, and I think that this agreement accomplishes that. 
 
     And, as I said, there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving up.  I mean, the truth of the matter is, from the Republican perspective, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the college tuition tax credit, the Child Tax Credit -- all those things that are so important for so many families across the country -- those are things they really opposed.  And so temporarily, they are willing to go along with that, presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years.
 
     And I’m happy to have that battle.  I’m happy to have that conversation.  I just want to make sure that the American people aren’t harmed while we’re having that broader argument.
 
     Scott Horsley.
 
     Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Last week members of your administration were boasting that your willingness to walk away from the Korean negotiations led to a better deal.  Can you explain how this is --
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  The difference is that if I didn’t get the Korea deal done on January 1st the taxes of middle-class America wouldn’t go up.  It’s pretty straightforward.  If we didn’t get the Korea deal done by January 1st, 2 million people weren’t suddenly looking at having no way to support their families. 
 
     And that’s why -- this goes to Chuck’s question as well about what’s going to be different in the future. You’ve got a situation here that was urgent for millions of people.  But as I recall, with the Korea free trade agreement, that was deemed by conventional wisdom as an example of us not getting something done.  I remember a story above the fold on that.  Then when we got it done with a better deal that has the endorsement of not only the U.S. auto companies but also of labor, the story was sort of below the fold.  So I would just point that out.  I think -- I am happy to be tested over the next several months about our ability to negotiate with Republicans.
 
     Q    Having bought that time now, do you hope to use this two-year window to push for a broader overhaul of the tax code?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  And the answer is yes.  Part of what I want to do is to essentially get the American people in a safe place so that we can then get the economy in a stable place.  And then we’re going to have to have a broad-based discussion across the country about our priorities.  And I started doing that yesterday down in North Carolina.
 
     Here’s going to be the long-term issue.  We’ve had two years of emergency -- emergency economic action on the banking industry, the auto industry, on unemployment insurance, on a whole range of issues -- on state budgets.  The situation has now stabilized, although for those folks who are out of work, it’s still an emergency.  So we’ve still got to focus short term on job growth. 
 
     But we’ve got to have a larger debate about how is this -- how is this country going to win the economic competition of the 21st century?  How are we going to make sure that we’ve got the best-trained workers in the world?  There was just a study that came out today showing how we’ve slipped even further when it comes to math education and science education. 
 
     So what are we doing to revamp our schools to make sure our kids can compete?  What are we doing in terms of research and development to make sure that innovation is still taking place here in the United States of America?  What are we doing about our infrastructure so that we have the best airports and the best roads and the best bridges?  And how are we going to pay for all that at a time when we’ve got both short-term deficit problems, medium-term deficit problems, and long-term deficit problems?
 
     Now, that’s going to be a big debate.  And it’s going to involve us sorting out what government functions are adding to our competitiveness and increasing opportunity and making sure that we’re growing the economy, and which aspects of the government aren’t helping.
 
     And then we’ve got to figure out how do we pay for that.  And that’s going to mean looking at the tax code and saying, what’s fair, what’s efficient.  And I don’t think anybody thinks the tax code right now is fair or efficient.  But we’ve got to make sure that we don’t just paper over those problems by borrowing from China or Saudi Arabia.  And so that’s going to be a major conversation.
 
     And in that context, I don’t see how the Republicans win that argument.  I don’t know how they’re going to be able to argue that extending permanently these high-end tax cuts is going to be good for our economy when, to offset them, we’d end up having to cut vital services for our kids, for our veterans, for our seniors.
 
     But I’m happy to listen to their arguments.  And I think the American people will benefit from that debate.  And that’s going to be starting next year.
 
     Marc Ambinder.
 
     Q    Mr. President, thank you.  How do these negotiations affect negotiations or talks with Republicans about raising the debt limit?  Because it would seem that they have a significant amount of leverage over the White House now, going in.  Was there ever any attempt by the White House to include raising the debt limit as a part of this package?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  When you say it would seem they’ll have a significant amount of leverage over the White House, what do you mean?
    
     Q    Just in the sense that they’ll say essentially we’re not going to raise the -- we’re not going to agree to it unless the White House is able to or willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the board that probably go deeper and further than what you’re willing to do.  I mean, what leverage would you have --
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Look, here’s my expectation -- and I’ll take John Boehner at his word -- that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen.  And so I think that there will be significant discussions about the debt limit vote.  That’s something that nobody ever likes to vote on.  But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern.  You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower.
 
     And so my expectation is, is that we will have tough negotiations around the budget, but that ultimately we can arrive at a position that is keeping the government open, keeping Social Security checks going out, keeping veterans services being provided, but at the same time is prudent when it comes to taxpayer dollars. 
 
     Jonathan Weisman, last question.
 
     Q    Some on the left have questioned -- have looked at this deal and questioned what your core values are, what specifically you will go to the mat on.  I’m wondering if you can reassure them with some specific things in saying, all right, this is where I don’t budge.  And along those lines, what’s going to be different in 2012, when all these tax cuts again are up for expiration?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what’s going to be different in 2012 we’ve just discussed, which is we will have had two years to discuss the budget -- not in the abstract, but in concrete terms.  Over the last two years, the Republicans have had the benefit of watching us take all these emergency actions, having us preside over a $1.3 trillion deficit that we inherited and just pointing fingers and saying, that’s their problem.
 
     Well, over the next two years, they’re going to have to show me what it is that they think they can do.  And I think it becomes pretty clear, after you go through the budget line by line, that if in fact they want to pay for $700 billion worth of tax breaks to wealthy individuals, that that’s a lot of money and that the cuts -- corresponding cuts that would have to be made are very painful.  So either they rethink their position, or I don’t think they’re going to do very well in 2012.  So that’s on the first point.
 
     With respect to the bottom line in terms of what my core principles are --
 
     Q    Where is your line in the sand?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand.  Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent -- that was a line in the sand.  Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low-income families, that those were preserved -- that was a line in the sand.  I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other important breaks for middle-class families like the college tax credit, that those had gone away just because they had Obama’s name attached to them instead of Bush’s name attached to them.
 
     So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care.  This is the public option debate all over again.  So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower     premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. 
 
Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done.  People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.  And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.
 
     That can’t be the measure of how we think about our public service.  That can’t be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat.  This is a big, diverse country.  Not everybody agrees with us.  I know that shocks people.  The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America.  Neither does The Wall Street Journal editorial page.  Most Americans, they’re just trying to figure out how to go about their lives and how can we make sure that our elected officials are looking out for us.  And that means because it’s a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise.  This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans.  You did not qualify.  And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people.  When Medicare was started, it was a small program.  It grew. 
 
     Under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal.  This country was founded on compromise.  I couldn’t go through the front door at this country’s founding.  And if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn’t have a union.
 
     So my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there.  What is helping the American people live out their lives?  What is giving them more opportunity?  What is growing the economy?  What is making us more competitive?  And at any given juncture, there are going to be times where my preferred option, what I am absolutely positive is right, I can’t get done.
 
     And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way or tack a little bit that way, because I’m keeping my eye on the long term and the long fight -- not my day-to-day news cycle, but where am I going over the long term?
 
     And I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised.
 
     Take a tally.  Look at what I promised during the campaign.  There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do.  And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.
 
     And so the -- to my Democratic friends, what I’d suggest is, let’s make sure that we understand this is a long game.  This is not a short game.  And to my Republican friends, I would suggest -- I think this is a good agreement, because I know that they’re swallowing some things that they don’t like as well, and I’m looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years.
 
                        END           2:57 P.M. EST