mr. carney:good afternoon,ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. i just want to note thepresident has a cabinet meeting at 1:00 p.m., so we're goingto need to move through this quickly. i will try to be precise andconcise in my answers and move around as quickly as i can. and for that reason,i have no topper. associated press.
the press:thank you. now that the sequester cutshave begun to take effect i'm wondering what we should beexpecting from the white house. are officials going to be tryingto point out negative impacts of the sequester? is there any effort that's goingto be underway to try to build some type of public reactionto pressure washington to avert these cuts? mr. carney:we made clear that theimposition of the sequester will
have serious consequences formiddle-class americans across the country. the sequester will have seriousconsequences for defense department contractors,civilian workers, and for our defense readiness. it will have seriousconsequences for families whose child will lose ahead start slot, for workers on the border-- border security agents, for air traffic controllerswho will have their hours cut.
and i'm sure you will behearing about these impacts from americans themselves who willwonder why republicans made this choice, why they wouldn't goalong with what they did two months ago, why they wouldn'tgo along with balanced deficit reduction, why they choseprotecting tax loopholes for the few rather than protecting thejobs of the many or protecting our economy. there have been and there willbe specific effects that we'll see, and there willbe the overall effect,
which i don't thinkanybody argues with -- cbo, macroeconomicsadvisers, moody's, others have estimated that wewill lose up to three-quarters of a million jobs because ofsequester, if it stays in place, and our economy will grow bya full half a percentage point more slowly than it wouldhave otherwise -- or more. we'll continue to talk aboutthis because it's bad for it's unnecessary. it's a self-inflictedwound on the economy.
but we'll also continue towork on those things that the american people expectus to work on -- on creating jobs,growing the economy, making sure that we getcomprehensive immigration reform, making sure that wemove forward towards getting a comprehensive set of initiativesin place to reduce gun violence, and other things. the press:what was the president askingfrom lawmakers he talked to on saturday?
and can we also get a list ofthe lawmakers that he called? mr. carney:the president had conversationswith republicans and democrats over the weekend about thesequester specifically, and the broader issue ofbalanced deficit reduction. and he spoke here the other dayabout believing that there is a caucus of commonsense out there, lawmakers in both parties whounderstand that we need to do tough things to achieveentitlement reforms because that's the rightthing for our economy,
and we need to do toughthings on tax reform -- tough things for republicans --go along with tax reform in a way that generate revenuesto pay down our deficit. and that's the kind ofdiscussion he's having with lawmakers and he'llcontinue to have, because he believes thatthere are republicans who -- both those who have spokenpublicly about it and others who have not -- who support thegeneral premise of balance, who support the idea that weshould reform our tax code in a
way that eliminates thesespecial breaks for the few and the wealthy andthe well-connected, and to use that revenue forreducing our deficit so that we don't put the burden solely onsenior citizens or families with children who havedisabilities and the like. so he'll continuethose conversations. i don't have a list for you. we're trying to be clearthat the president is having these conversations.
it's not necessarily helpfulfor individual senators to have those conversationsspecifically read out. but, of course, you're welcometo contact senators yourself. yes. the press:is the presidentopen to having talks, or perhaps having talks already,with lawmakers specifically on finding ways to reduce theimpacts of the sequester? mr. carney:i think we've been very clearabout the way the law is written and the fact that flexibilitydoes not help the overall
problem, because, as thechairman of the fed has said and many others have said, $85billion withdrawn from our defense and nondefensediscretionary budgets will have a negative impact. that's what the cbo has said. that's what outsideeconomists have said. and certainly we're seeing someof those impacts already on regular folks out there who aretrying to make ends meet but are finding out through warn noticesor other advisories that they
may lose their jobs, or they'regoing to lose some of their pay, or they're goingto be furloughed. so we're working with and we'llcontinue to work with congress towards achieving a compromisethat eliminates that sequester, that achieves balanceddeficit reduction, that does it in a way thatallows our economy to grow and to help the middle class grow. because the president firmlybelieves that our economy is at its strongest and its best whenit grows from the middle out and
not the top down. that's been provenby our history. so that's the effortthat we're undertaking. the press:you talk about movingforward with gun control, immigration reform, but how doyou do that when we're mired in this discussionabout the budget? mr. carney:well, you do it becauseyou have to do it, because these issues matterand they're important. and there are lawmakers on bothsides of the aisle who believe
that those issues are importantand should be acted on, and we're working with members,both republicans and democrats, on those issues. and they're very key to thepresident's second term agenda. he thinks they're the rightthing for the country, the right thingfor our families, the right thing for our economy. so he'll continue to work onthose issues just as he will continue to work on enhancingour national security and
continue to work on measures to,in spite of the impacts of the sequester, to improve jobcreation and economic growth, and help the middle class. it is unfortunate -- again, thisis a wholly unnecessary decision that was made by republicansto allow this to happen. if you step back, what issomewhat remarkable about it, because you see republicanscalling it a victory -- a victory for the tea party or avictory because they stood up to the president on spending -- butremember what republican goals
are supposed to be. republicans budgets call for anincrease in defense spending, not the dramatic cut we'reseeing with the imposition of the sequester. republicans generally talk aboutincreasing our border security presence, consistent with theway it's increased over the years, doubled since 2004. obviously, sequesterdoes the opposite. republicans say they're theparty of deficit reduction,
long-term deficit reduction; thesequester doesn't achieve that. the republicans say that theywant entitlement reforms; there's nothing in thesequester that achieves entitlement reform. they say they want tax reform;there's nothing here that meets that objective. the president has put forwarda proposal that does meet those objectives -- that achievesentitlement reform, that achieves tax reformin a balanced and fair way,
that allows for the necessarylevel of funding for our national security interests,that allows for the continued strengthening ofour border security. and he hopes that havingachieved this empty victory, at least as they see it, therepublicans will understand that their goals arebeing unmet here, so not only are americanssuffering from this -- regular folks -- but theirobjectives are being unmet. and there's an opportunityto change that dynamic,
to do something that'sgood for the country, that's good for the economy, andthat's to come together around a plan that would reduce ourdeficit in a balanced way, that would embrace bothentitlement reform and tax reform towardsdeficit reduction. one of the things that'sstriking to me when you talk about the differences betweenthese two parties is we're only asking that the republicans dowhat the speaker said he wanted to do just two monthsago -- enact tax reform,
achieve revenue by closingloopholes for the well-off and the well-connected, and use thatmoney towards deficit reduction, a very conservative goal. the president has put forwardentitlement reforms -- some tough entitlementreforms that achieve savings. and he, as part ofa balanced approach, would commit to doing those,as his plan calls for, if republicans would commit towhat they said they wanted to do just a few months ago, whichis tax reform in the name of
deficit reduction. it is the conservative thing todo to use that money to reduce the deficit, not to funnel itinto tax cuts for wealthy folks. that seems counterproductive,to say the least. so the president hopes thecommon-sense caucus expands in support of those ideas. jim. the press:jay, isn't the sequesterreally here to stay? because i think what you sawover the weekend is that you
heard the tworepublican leaders -- mitch mcconnelland john boehner -- start talking about howwe need to work through continuing resolution. they were confidentthat that would happen. what makes you think that youcan go back and do away with these cuts in the sequester? mr. carney:well, for all thereasons i just mentioned, and that is that the sequesterdoesn't achieve any of the
stated objectives ofthe republican party, of republican leaders. it creates all the harm thatrepublican leaders said it would create when they were decryingthe sequester just a few months ago. the press:they said they're not goingto come back and do anything in terms of revenues. there's not one republican,mitch mcconnell said, who is in favor ofincreasing revenues.
so it seems likeyou're at an impasse. mr. carney:well, that's false on its facesince there are a number of republicans who said theysupport tax reform that creates revenues, and they'vesaid so publicly, including veryprominent republicans. so there's that. but the issue here is on thecontinuing resolution and funding the government. we certainly supportthe idea that,
as the president said fromhere, that we should not create another crisis ontop of this one, another manufactured showdown;that congress ought to pass a cr without drama, as it has a halfdozen times since april of 2011 -- you probably didn't know itwas that many times because there was no drama around it --and to do that in a way that's practical and nonpolitical andconsistent with the levels of the budget control act. we'll see what congress does.
we'll see what therepublicans do. but the president,as you heard him say, would support that approach sothat we don't add crisis upon crisis here. but to the broader questionabout dealing with the sequester, we need to do that,but we can do it if we follow the path that the public says itwants republicans and democrats to follow that thepresident has embraced, that bipartisan commissions havesaid is the right way to go,
and we hope that wecan achieve that. because if we do, we can reallyunleash some of the potential, the bottled up potential inour economy that exists -- as many economists have saidthat 2013 could be a very strong year economically if washingtonwould stop doing harm to the economy and start doing thingsthat would help the economy. the press:and as a follow-up -- well, notreally a follow-up, but maybe on a separate front. mr. carney:i won't hold you to it.
the press:earlier this morning, secretarynapolitano said that lines at some of the biggest airportsover the weekend were 150 to 200% longer. we're asking homeland securityfor some kind of metrics to back that up. but given the fact that therewas sort of this back-and-forth over teacher layoffswith secretary duncan, and even the president talkedabout janitors that might be impacted at the capitol --that may not be the case --
what is the administration doingto make sure that these numbers are not hyped? because might thatundercut your message? mr. carney:here's the thing. if you disagree with the cbo andwith outside economic analysts who say that up tothree-quarters of a million jobs will be lost, well, youshould make that case. those are real people. and of course many, many morewill see their wages cut or
their days on the job reduced. that's just a fact. and the impact on the overalleconomy, that is an established, predicted fact by outsideeconomists as well as the cbo. there's no way to do what thesequester calls for and not create these negative effects. there are just numerous examplesalready of what's going to happen. the department of defense hasinformed congress it will have
to furlough 750,000 workers, andthe navy has told virginia it will have to cancelmaintenance on 11 ships. the army has begun curtailingtraining for all units except those deploying to afghanistan. the department of justicetransmitted approximately 115,000 furlough noticesto all doj employees. general dynamics nassco,a major ship design, construction and repair company,mailed warn letters to about 1,040 employees in sandiego, norfolk and mayport,
informing them that they couldbe indefinitely laid off in april -- at the end ofapril through the summer, due to the possible cancellationor delay of maintenance and repair work and uncertaintycreated by sequestration. these are the examples. and i would refer you to thedifferent agencies about how they'll be felt and who --which individuals will be harmed by them. on the issue of thejanitors, it is --
if you work for an hourlywage, and you earn overtime, and you depend on thatovertime to make ends meet, it is simply a fact that areduction in overtime is a reduction in your pay. now, obviously thereare some folks who -- for whom working hourly is adistant memory if it's a memory at all, but that's a fact, andit's a fact for many families. the press:jay? mr. carney:yes, major.
the press:one question on the flexibilityissue that's arising as house republicans draft theircontinuing resolution -- to what degree is theadministration interested in negotiating over flexibilityfor the defense side of this, which appears to be houserepublicans' central focus as they craft this amendmentonto a rather standard continuing resolution? mr. carney:well, i would like to waitto see what congress produces. as gene sperling saidover the weekend,
we want to see something that ispractical and nonpolitical and consistent with the levelsestablished in the budget control act that both partiesagreed to overwhelmingly. i'm not going to analyzehypothetical actions that they may take. we'll have to seewhat they produce. the press:all right. on iran, is there any thoughtbeing given here at the white house of canceling thepresident's trip to israel
because there is not agovernment formed yet under prime minister netanyahu? mr. carney:we have no schedulingchanges to announce. the president is lookingforward to, very much, his trip to israeland the region, and we're on courseplanning that trip. mr. carney:there were developmentsover the weekend -- announcements from iran about3,000 centrifuges at natanz, the iaea report saying that theycan no longer say categorically
that all of the researchand development is for peaceful uses. and prime minister netanyahujust told aipac a few moments ago iran is getting closer,sanctions haven't worked, and the red line time isgetting -- drawing near. i'd like to get your evaluationof all those developments on this front over the weekend. mr. carney:there is no question, aswe've said many times, that the window of opportunityfor iran will not remain
open indefinitely. there is opportunity here fortehran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions, to complywith u.n. security council resolutions, to get right withthe international community and thereby rejoin the internationalcommunity and end its isolation from the world becauseof its behavior. but that period of opportunity,as the president has said and as others have said,will not last forever. and our policy is founded uponthe goal that iran will not
acquire a nuclear weapon, andthe president is very serious about that. the press:would you characterize iran'sreaction to the softened negotiating offer thatthe p5-plus-1 just made -- rebuffed it entirely-- this new -- prime ministernetanyahu's point -- even when there is an effort todelay or soften the conditions set before, iranresponds with nothing. and his point is technologicallythey're getting closer.
i know this is a sortof catchphrase -- the window is not going toremain open indefinitely -- but the point seems to be, is itclosing and are we getting to a point where this issue has to beresolved one way or the other, either through militarymeans or some other means? mr. carney:well, we take nooption off the table, including the military option. that's a point the presidenthas made repeatedly, a. b, there is no questionthat the window, the door,
the period of opportunity herewill not last forever and that the more that iran flouts -- the press:it can't last forever,that's obvious. what i'm trying to getat is, is it getting -- are we getting to a point wheredecisions have to be made very soon? mr. carney:there's no question -- well, iwon't characterize a timeframe here, but there is no questionthat as iran continues to flout its responsibilities, as itcontinues to take seriously the
insistence of the internationalcommunity and fails to produce tangible progressin p5-plus-1 talks, that its opportunities to getright with the international community diminish, as doesthe timeframe in which they can do that. but i'm not going toput a date certain -- an end date certain. obviously, there's a lotupon which that depends. ed.
the press:jay, one of the president'stop nominees, john brennan, for the cia, faces a committeevote tomorrow, i believe. as you know, there have beenlawmakers pushing for copies of these memos that show the legalunderpinnings for the use of drone strikes. is the administrationwilling to share those memos with lawmakers? mr. carney:we have, as you know, takenaction to share advice from olc to the relevantcommittee members.
we are working with thecommittee to provide information that is consistentwith their requests, but obviously mindful of all thenational security issues that are at stake in asituation like this. and we look forward to johnbrennan being confirmed -- passed out of committee and thenconfirmed by the senate to be the next cia director. he is extraordinarily qualifiedfor the position and he needs to get on the job.
the press:i understand that you'veshared, as you say, the office of legalcounsel advice on it. but do you think the nominationcan get through without the actual memos beingshown to lawmakers? mr. carney:ed, i can't get into a lotof detail about these issues. we're working withthe committee. we have taken extraordinarymeasures in a unique situation to be forthcomingwith information. and we are continuing to workwith the committee to meet
their concerns. the press:two other quick things. more than a week has passedsince the initial reports suggesting that some of thepresident's outside advisors were offering access to himfor a $500,000 contribution to organizing for action, thisoutside group that is at least connected with the president andhis former campaign aides like jim messina. my question is groupslike common cause,
which are usually not veryfriendly to the president's opposition, shall we say, hassaid that this group should be shut down altogether. can you give us any idea whetherthe president thinks that's a good idea? is he concerned aboutthe perception out there? are you trying to push backon the idea that they will get access for $500,000? mr. carney:well, i think i pushed backon it and i'll push back on
it again. any notion that there is a setprice for a meeting with the president of the unitedstates is just wrong. as you know, organizing foraction was set up to promote the president's publicpolicy agenda. therefore, asanyone would expect, the president would likely meetwith their representatives to discuss his agenda. but again, any notion thatthere's a price for meeting with
the president is simply wrong. i would send specific questionsabout how they do their fundraising to the organization. but it is worth knowing thatthey are going beyond what is required by disclosing donorsand not accepting any funds from lobbyists. the bottom line here is thatthis is a separate organization, as we've noted, the existence ofwhich is perfectly appropriate. and the white house will engagewith it consistent with the way
we engage with a whole host ofother outside constituencies. the press:but basically, people couldstill give money to this outside group as long as it's notdirectly attached to access. you've got nothing to do withthe money that's going in there. mr. carney:the white house sets thepresident's schedule. and there is no price tomeet with the president. organizations have fundraising. they raise money and this onehas committed to disclosing its fundraising activities.
but i would refer you tothem for more on that. the press:the last thing, on sequester. at the top of this you saidsomething to the effect of republicans made a choice hereto let these sequester cuts go through, the context of it. the president has madechoices as well, obviously, including the fact that his ownstaff came up with the idea for sequester. i understand republicans endedup voting for it and they bear
some responsibility here aswell it needs to be said. however, does anyone here at thewhite house regret the fact that people inside this white housecame up with this idea in the first place? mr. carney:well, senator gramm and rudmancame up with the idea back in the 1980s. the press:they've been out ofpower a long time. mr. carney:and let's be clear -- and thosewho were on the inside and those of you who covered it closelywill remember that republicans
were pushing for a trigger,a hard trigger as part of the negotiations to avert a default. the white house proposednumerous triggers that included revenues. republicansabsolutely, adamantly, categorically refused to includerevenues in the triggers, a position thatmay sound familiar. they insisted on aspending-cut-only trigger. that is what sequester is.
it is a spending-cut-onlytrigger. the fact that it's called thatwas because that's what it was called back in the 1980s underthe deficit reduction package known as gramm-rudman-hollingsthat president reagan signed when they had a trigger, aspending-cuts-only trigger that was evenly divided betweendefense spending and nondefense spending. and it's true that that wasput on the table as part of the demand for a spending-cuts-onlytrigger that "let's do it the
"way they did it backunder president reagan," our team said to republicans,thinking that might be appealing. and it was so appealing thatjohn boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted. every house republican leadervoted for it enthusiastically, and speaker boehner said he waspretty pleased with the outcome. so this is allpretty irrelevant. what is relevant is that it wasnever supposed to be policy,
and republicans themselves onso many occasions that i'm sure we've all lost count said thatwe had to do everything we can to avert sequester, that itwould be enormously damaging. speaker boehner just a few weeksago in the wall street journal said it would do harm to ournational defense and would cost thousands of jobs. and he's right. so it was a choice to allowsequester to take effect rather than embrace the idea thatthe american people strongly
embrace, that a majority ofrepublicans strongly embrace out in the country, which is thatwe can close a few loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected,cap a few deductions, and achieve balanced deficitreduction in a way that would eliminate thesequester entirely. let's just do that. let's do that and republicanscan say that they achieved some very important goals that areelemental to republican and conservative philosophy, whichis we need deficit reduction,
we need entitlement reform-- and the president says, i'll meet you halfwaytowards that -- and we need tax reformand we'll do that. so let's do it in abipartisan, balanced way. jon, then peter. the press:jay, how big a priority -- howhigh a priority is it for the president to win back thehouse of representatives with the democrats? mr. carney:well, he's obviously interestedin the success of democrats.
but i noted the story thatprobably prompted your question, and i think it goes withoutsaying that the president wants those in his party to do well,but it is not a focus of his particularly at this point. he is focused on trying to get abipartisan consensus around some very importantpolicy objectives: balanced deficit reductionthat helps our economy grow and create jobs; comprehensiveimmigration reform that helps our economy andthe middle class;
common-sense measures thatreduce gun violence in this country; investments in cleanenergy technology that help build industries here in thiscountry and help deal with climate change for the future. so that's what he'sfocused on right now. the press:does he agree with the head ofthe democratic house campaign committee who said, thepresident understands -- and he said this was based on aconversation with the president -- the president understandsthat to get anything done we
need to get a democraticmajority in the house of representatives? mr. carney:well, the presidentcertainly believes that, as other presidentsbefore him have believed, that it is easier sometimes toenact your agenda when you have more members of yourparty in congress. but it is also thepresident's belief, and it is established infact in recent history, that you can achieve importantpolicy objectives with divided
government, with, in his case,republican leadership in the house and republicansemi-control in the senate through the filibuster. and that's what he's done, andhe hopes to continue to do that. i mean, we're talking here aboutopportunities on immigration reform and other issues,including balanced deficit reduction, that requirebipartisan support. and based on what we know interms of the progress the gang of eight is making, or theprogress that's being made in
moving forward onreducing gun violence, and the progress that isrepresented by the voices of those republicans who say theyembrace what the majority of the country embraces, and theyembrace what the majority of republicans embrace when itcomes to deficit reduction, that we can do these things. and the president --that's what his focus is. the press:to the republicans who saythat the president is -- they're worried the presidentgoing into any one of those
issues you just mentioned, goinginto this not necessarily to get anything done but to positionhimself to have a better run at the mid-term elections, i mean,just to quote steve israel again, "to have a legacy in 2016he will need a house majority in "2014 and it has to start now." mr. carney:look, it is just not accuratethat the president doesn't want these accomplishments. he is expending great politicalcapital and energy on the proposition that he wantsimmigration reform done in a
bipartisan way and done early. that's why he has pushed so hardfor the senate to move forward in its efforts. that's why he has pushed ongun violence measures and put forward a comprehensivepackage so early in his -- the first year ofhis second term. and that's why he continues tohave on the table the offer that he made to speaker boehnerwhen it comes to completing the $4-trillion job here of deficitreduction over 10 years that
would help achieve that fiscallysustainable path that we want for our economy overthe next decade. these are things he believeswe can do very soon if bipartisanship and a spiritof compromise on behalf of the american people isrealized on capitol hill. the press:so on that offer, i mean, you'reabsolutely right that some prominent republicans have comeout in recent days and said that they could live with a planthat increased tax revenue -- not to replace the sequester,but as part of kind of a renewed
effort at the grand bargain. so are we going tosee an effort -- mr. carney:but that would eliminate thesequester, which the whole -- the whole idea behind the -- the press:but it would be biggerthan just eliminate. you're exactly right. but it would be bigger. so will there be an effort tojumpstart a grand bargain-type series of talks with republicansin the coming weeks or months to
achieve just that? mr. carney:i'd hesitate to placelabels on things. i would simply say that thepresident is interested in moving forward on deficitreduction that pairs the twin objectives of entitlement reformand tax reform in the way that his proposal does, in away that is consistent with simpson-bowles anddomenici-rivlin and others who have put forward ideas andproposals in a bipartisan way. and it presents an opportunityfor both republicans and
democrats to achieve someimportant objectives -- objectives that areimportant to their parties, as well as to the country,and to move forward. the press:so that's what theweekend calls were about? the grand bargain, not -- mr. carney:well, the weekend calls wereabout trying to find common ground on the way to deal withthe sequester and balanced the press:the big deal. mr. carney:but they're linked.
first of all, the big dealhas been partly accomplished. so when the grand bargainnegotiations began with speaker boehner, the goalwas $4 trillion. now we're $2.5 trillionalong that road. so it may be thepetite bargain -- i guess if you go all french. (laughter) the press:i'll leave thatentirely to you, jay. mr. carney:but seriously, $1.5 trillionin deficit reduction,
the president's proposal wouldachieve $1.8 trillion in further deficit reductionin a balanced way. the press:bowles-simpson want $2.4trillion now at this point. they've moved the goalposta little bit to -- mr. carney:there's no question that morework going forward will need to be done as we deal withour fiscal challenges. but the $4 trillion in deficitreduction set as a goal by speaker boehner and presidentobama and by many economists on the inside and outside ofgovernment can be achieved,
and then some, if republicanswould embrace the president's compromise proposal thatwould do some tough things on entitlements, as well asspending and on tax reform. the press:but you understandthe difference. he's trying to create arepublican groundswell for grand bargain talks. mr. carney:he's just trying to find somecommon ground around the basic common-sense notion that wecan do this in a balanced way because he knows thatthere are significant --
there's a significant amount ofsupport for that approach around april. sorry. peter, then april. the press:april, that waskind of, thank you. the press:you're welcome. the press:i'm curious since our time -- mr. carney:stand up, april. the press:-- since our time withyou is limited right now,
if the president had anyreaction or had a chance to watch some of the conversationswith dennis rodman who just returned from north korea, andif the president believes that this in some way undermines thegovernment's efforts in trying to deal with that country. mr. carney:peter, the united stateshas direct channels of communications with the dprk. and instead of spending moneyon celebrity sporting events to entertain the elitesof that country,
the north korean regime shouldfocus on the well-being of its own people who have beenstarved, imprisoned, and denied their human rights. we have urged the north koreanleadership to heed president obama's call to choose thepath of peace and come into compliance with itsinternational obligations. north korea's actions, however,directly violate united nations security council resolutions andthreaten international peace and security.
the press:dennis rodman carried amessage from kim jong-un. he said to call. so does the presidenthave any intention -- mr. carney:again, we have -- the press:what did he make of -- what didhe make of dennis rodman being the ambassador to north korea? mr. carney:i don't have a readout specificto the president to give to you. i think that what i just saidmakes clear that north korea ought to be focusing on its owncitizens and opportunities to
improve their lives. and the united states haschannels of communications directly with the dprk and thoseare the channels we choose to employ. the press:jay, i want to go back tosequestration and then to something with mitt romney. you said sequestration willhave serious consequences. with that, what is the estimatednumber of americans who will fall out of the middle-classstatus because of sequestration?
mr. carney:well, i don't havethat breakdown. you may look at what -- some ofthe analysis that has been done by outside economicorganizations like moody's and macroeconomics advisers. but i'm not sure if theybreak it down that way. certainly, if 750,000americans lose their jobs, that could have an effect onthe size of the middle class. and that would be highlycounterproductive to the stated objectives of bothparties in washington.
shaving half a percentage pointoff our gdp growth would be hugely harmful and wouldhave ripple effects. there are jobs that we will knoware specifically affected by the sequester in our defenseindustries and other areas that are directly linkedto federal funding. but then, there will be the jobsthat are lost or not created because the sequestergoes into effect -- around businesses that close --small businesses that close or cut back, support servicesaround them whether they're
restaurants orbarbershops and the like, that are affected and don't hirea new worker because there are fewer patronizingtheir businesses. and that's the shameof all of this, is that there will be so manyregular americans who will be negatively affected by thiswholly unnecessary imposition of the press:and the next questionreally fast -- what do you say about mittromney's revelation that was televised last night that hedid not win the state of ohio
because he failed to attract theblack and hispanic vote with his "47%" comment? mr. carney:i actually confessthat i didn't see that. i would simply say thatmitt romney didn't win ohio. donovan. the press:george will said, "i will domany things for my country and "my profession. "i will not takeseriously mr. carney." mr. carney:it's funny.
i did see that. it's funny you raised that. i love the structureof the sentence. it's very george will-ian. but i have a lot ofrespect for george will. i've been on the panel on "thisweek" with him many times in my previous life. i think he is a very smart guy. and despite the fact that a fewdays before the election i think
he predicted a romney landslidevery confidently on television -- 321-217 over the president --built on a victory in minnesota, which the president ended upwinning by more than 7%, i will continue to takegeorge will seriously. thanks a lot.
0 comments:
Post a Comment