For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 5, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Personnel announcements
- Russia
- Taxes
- Chicago travel
- North Dakota travel
- South Dakota travel
- Investigations/pardons
- Bipartisanship
- AID/religion
- Airline industry
- Medicare
- Repetitive stress syndrome
- Carlyle group/arms sales
12:20 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. Thank you for coming in. Several
personnel announcements today. The President intends to
nominate Kenneth Dam to be Deputy Secretary of Treasury. The
President intends to nominate William S. Farish to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And the President
intends to nominate Roger Walton Ferguson Jr., to be a member of the
board of governors of the Federal Reserve System. We'll have
paper coming out on that shortly.
Those are the only announcements I
have. I'll be more than pleased to take your questions
Q Ari, what has the
administration said or what does it plan to say to the Russians about
this tunnel?
MR. FLEISCHER: Any conversations on
that -- let me back up one step. If the reports are accurate, or
inaccurate, it's not a topic that I'm at liberty to
discuss. And any conversations between our nations will be
private ones.
Q That's all you're
going to say on it?
Q We know that the tax
cut will be phased-in, the lower rates will be introduced gradually
over the years. At the same time, we are told that the size
of the tax cut, under no circumstances, would be scaled back in case
the surplus wouldn't come in as expected. Does that make any
fiscal sense or common sense? Why shouldn't the actual cut
just follow the actual surplus, as it comes in?
MR. FLEISCHER: The rate at which
the tax cut is phased-in is reflected by the fact that we have a
surplus that is exploding. The surplus is growing in leaps
and bounds under all economic projections. In the current
fiscal year, the surplus is approximately $250 billion to $300
billion. In the year 2010, the surplus is projected to be
between $750 billion and $800 billion or so. And so the size
of the tax cut does grow as the surplus grows.
Q Can you tell us what
makes the President such a believer in 10-year projections, since it's
been proven that even 10-month projections are not safe and correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's
interesting, because the House requires, of course, a five-year budget
window. The Senate requires a 10-year budget
window. So no matter what the President submitted in his
budget, the House and the Senate would have no choice but to follow
suit -- five years House, 10 years Senate. And that's in
keeping with the -- actually, I don't know if it's statute, but it's
the long-standing procedures of the House and the Senate.
So the President's budget can be viewed as a
one-year, five-year, 10-year, whatever window you like. And
the budget specifies in each of the next 10 years what those numbers
are.
Q Ari, what's he going
to do this week to get the thing through? And could you preview
tomorrow's trip a little bit?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the second part
of the question, the President will be traveling to Chicago, Illinois
tomorrow, where he'll be talking, making the case for his budget and
tax plan, talking about the importance of economic growth, talking
about how we are all in this economy together. And one of the
interesting phenomenons that have happened in the American economy in
the last decade or so is this growing investor class, the surge of
middle income Americans, who now invest in markets, have mutual funds,
who have other investments.
It's another reminder how we all are in this
together. And the markets often are leading indicators,
suggesting which direction the economy will grow, or go. And
the President believes that he has an economic plan that can help
strengthen the economy and he will talk about that generally at the
Exchange tomorrow in Chicago.
The President is going to continue to meet
with members of Congress, discuss his plans with members of
Congress. And we're looking forward to Thursday's vote in
the House of Representatives. We expect that this will be a
singular moment, a very important day for getting tax relief to the
American people. And we're pleased to be working with such a
do-something Congress.
Q In his approach to
this, is he looking ahead to the Senate, assuming that he's fine in the
House?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's a little
premature until the House acts, of course. But throughout
this whole process he's been working with both House members and Senate
members. But all revenue items must originate in the House,
and upon completion in the House, only at that point can the bill go to
the Senate and the tax work begin in the Senate.
Q Ari, is he going to
North Dakota to send a message to Senator Conrad?
MR. FLEISCHER: He's going to North
Dakota and South Dakota and Louisiana for the same reasons that he's
been traveling, as he did to Pennsylvania or to Missouri or to
Nebraska. He wants to speak directly to the voters about his
plan to build up support for the plan and urge the voters to contact
their representatives.
Q Right. But
the real reason he's going to these states is because on the target
list in the White House, at least half of them are up for reelection,
particularly in the Senate. I mean, the President is a
pretty charming guy, but would you dismiss the idea that this is a
fairly heavy-handed, hardball approach to making sure that the vote
gets through, that the package gets through?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the
President talking directly with the voters can never be seen as
heavy-handed or hardball. I think it's what Presidents do
for a living.
Q You know what I'm --
MR. FLEISCHER: And as I indicated,
the President is going to talk to constituents and urge them to contact
their representatives, you bet.
Q But you know what I'm
-- you're just not going to answer?
Q Perhaps my question
was too subtle. You do want to send a message to Senator
Conrad, I assume?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think I
answered in your question, saying any time the President travels and he
urges people to send e-mails or pick up the phone or send letters, the
President, himself, said --
Q So it's politics
then. It's not really pushing the taxpayer. It's really to
get to the people who are opposed to him, is that right?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's called
the essence of governing, is to --
Q Oh, that's the
essence of governing?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- is to reach out
to the voters, to talk to them, so they agree with the Presidential
agenda, so they'll contact their
representatives. Absolutely.
Q You pointed before to
the sharply partisan votes in tax bills before, as kind of -- that's
how Congress does business. Since the House Ways and Means
Committee was a party-line vote, and the House vote is this week, can
you point to anything that shows that President Bush has brought any
kind of new climate or bipartisanship to what Congress has done, is
doing?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I want to
remind everybody about the last time a tax bill was enacted into law,
and that was in 1997, when the Congress, the Republican-controlled
Congress passed a $285 billion tax cut that was signed into law by
President Clinton. It was that tax cut that actually created
the $500 per child credit. There was none prior to that. It
lowered the capital gains rate from 28 to 20 percent. This
is a significant tax relief package.
At that time, too, every Democrat in the Ways
and Means Committee choose to vote against it at the beginning of the
process. By the time it got to the end of the process, it
was a different story. So there's a history and a tradition
up on Capitol Hill, to have bills emerge. But still, they
ultimately get signed into law. At least that was the case
in the previous one.
And we're confident that we're going to be
able to work with enough Democrats and Republicans alike to secure
passage both in the House and the Senate, not only on the first go
round, but on the final conference agreement, which will be the most
important of all.
I do think, Ann, though that if you look
around, you'll see the tenor is changing. I think it's
changing over time. I think you're seeing that -- even the
calls for investigations, I think, are diminishing. I think
you see less and less people interested in looking back, and more
people looking forward, more people interested in working on the
substantive agenda. And I do submit that there is, over the
last several years, a case of pent-up demand for getting things
done. And the President's going to continue to work with
people in both parties to get things done.
Q Has this White House
asked Congress not to do more investigations, particularly on the
pardons?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President spoke
about that last week, and he said that he has moved
forward. And I think people hear his message. And
Congress still is a separate branch.
Q Ari, are you saying
that because there are fewer investigations, it's a sign of
bipartisanship?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think you're
seeing increasing signs from people up on the Hill saying, let's move
forward, on all issues. And it is still early in a
session. I've indicated we're pleased to be working with a
do-something Congress. But it's early in the
session. Typically sessions start out, and then the
legislation starts coming out over the months. And we'll
have additional items of legislation coming to us, and I think we'll
all be able to see what the votes are, as Congress takes up bills.
Q Can we go back to
that last answer, what do you mean by that?
Q Yes, does it strike
you as odd that you're talking about bipartisanship on the one hand,
and on the other hand, the President is going out to all the states
where there are possibly vulnerable Democrats to make some convincing
arguments, he hopes, that this tax cut should be passed, or else?
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course he also
traveled to Pennsylvania, where you have two Republican
Senators. And it's exactly what Presidents do for a living.
Q One of whom doesn't
agree with the President's tax program, on the record.
MR. FLEISCHER: If the suggestion is
that it's somehow inappropriate for the President of United States to
travel the country, to talk to the voters who elected him, and to make
his case to the people and urge them to contact their representatives,
that's a new and novel notion.
Q What about the spirit
of bipartisanship?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's exactly what
the President does for a living, and he's going to keep on doing it.
Q Bipartisanship? Come on.
MR. FLEISCHER: I fail to see the
lack of bipartisanship. I see everything bipartisan.
Q In the spirit of
bipartisanship, though, Senator Daschle has accepted an invitation from
one of the TV stations in South Dakota to have a live discussion with
the President on tax policy. Is that something the President
would be interested in?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it was a
challenge to the President to debate, and that is not the purpose of
his trip. There will be no such debate. The President is
looking forward to the travel.
Q Does the President
believe that a vote against this tax package is a vote for recession?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
believes that the tax package is one of the best ways we have of
stimulating the economy to keep out of recession. He would hope that
all members of Congress, both parties, would vote for the tax package
because taxes are too high, because the surplus belongs to the people
and they should have it back, and to stimulate the
economy. He thinks it's a combination --
Q Does he agree or
disagree with that rallying cry?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I just
answered it.
Q Does he think the
pardon investigation should end now? You say he's tired of
the investigations and wants -- should they come to a halt?
MR. FLEISCHER: As the President
said last week, he has moved on, he's looking forward. He
understands that Congress will do as Congress does. Congress is a
separate institution, and I remind you that many of the things that
people talk about on the Hill are bipartisan in their expressions of
concern. But the President has moved forward.
Q Does that mean that
he wants Congress to hear that message?
Q Is he or other
officials calling up on the Hill asking them to end the pardon probe,
saying it's time to move on?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has
spoken out. I think people understand the President's
view. But as I indicated, the President also knows that
Congress is a separate institution.
Q But would it be fair
to say that senior officials have said -- Congress is a separate
institution, but would it be fair to say, in explaining what the
President meant that senior officials say, can you get this over with
quickly?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of any
senior officials doing that.
Q Ari, there's a report
published in The New York Times today that a religious group called
Samaritans First, which receives U.S. government funds through AID,
requires people to attend prayer meetings or watch movies before they
receive the assistance that the U.S. government is
supporting. Does the administration condone this kind of
practice?
MR. FLEISCHER: AID is looking into
that matter to make certain that all AID assistance is carried out in
accordance with the law. And that's a matter that AID is
looking into.
Q Well, AID has, in
fact, issued a statement saying that government money cannot be used to
finance religious activities. So does the administration
plan to alter that policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: But in regard to the
specific question about El Salvador and any of the practices in El
Salvador, AID is looking into that matter now. AID is
looking into that matter now.
Q How is the President
being kept informed of the various disputes in the airline industry,
and is he prepared to intervene if he's asked?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is
updated regularly on those labor matters, and in the case of all the
airlines, just as with Northwest, it first was triggered by the
National Mediation Board. If the National Mediation Board
takes its action, freeing the parties from further negotiations, at
that point the President would be more likely to step in, if the
President decides to do so.
There are several other pending possibilities
that are under active review. The administration is
monitoring them carefully, and we will continue to await and listen to
the status of the negotiations between labor and management and hear
from the National Mediation Board.
Q Has he indicated a
willingness to step in?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think until
the National Mediation Board, if and until they make their statement,
it would be premature for the President to weigh in. You
clearly heard what he did on Northwest Airlines after the National
Mediation Board did act.
Q Any decision by the
President about whether FEMA and Drug Czar will be Cabinet-level
positions?
MR. FLEISCHER: If there are any
further announcements to be made about Cabinet, we'll keep you
informed.
Q Wouldn't FEMA have
been a natural to be announced today with the swearing-in of the new
director?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, if there are
any changes to the current policies, we'll keep you informed, we'll let
you know.
Q The purpose today of
the meeting with leaders from Congress, about Medicare -- what's the
idea here?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants
to start building the case for fundamental Medicare reform and he's
holding a bipartisan meeting today with several leaders on the Hill to
discuss that important issue.
Congress came very close in the last session
to having a bipartisan recommendation. There was a
Congressional Commission set up of 17 members. And, if I recall,
either 10 or 11 voted for the Commission recommendations in a strong
bipartisan showing.
The President continues to believe that it's
very important to our nation's seniors, and also to a lot of middle
aged Americans who care about what is going to happen to their parents
upon retirement, that they get the health care they
deserve. The Medicare system is in need of reform and
modernization and that's why he's going to work with this group of
Congressmen and Senators.
Q What is wrong with
Medicare now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, did you have a
follow up; and I'll come back to Helen.
Q The Commission effort
dealt mainly with poorer seniors. The President campaigned
on a much broader plan.
MR. FLEISCHER: The Commission
effort? No the Commission effort dealt with Medicare
generally. The Commission effort was broad and encompassed
all of Medicare reform. The President's Immediate Helping
Hand provision dealt with low income seniors, to get them prescription
drugs. But the Commission that the President has referred
to, saying that they generally had a very sound approach to America --
although there are some things he wants to take a second look out --
the Commission was fundamental Medicare reform.
Q So the President has
decided there are two ways to go here. One is to go with
Helping Hand; one is to go for comprehensive reform. It
sounds as if he has decided to try to invigorate the effort to move
toward comprehensive reform?
MR. FLEISCHER: As the President
said in his address to the Congress last Tuesday night, he thinks that
no senior should have to choose between prescription drugs and their
food. Many seniors, unfortunately, in our society are faced
with that choice.
So what the President has sent up to the Hill
is a proposal to have an Immediate Helping Hand, so low income seniors
can get immediate relief through the states for their prescription drug
needs.
He also recognizes that there are many people
on Capitol Hill who prefer, instead, to work forward on comprehensive
reform plan, and that's a group of the people he's going to meet with
today. Of course, any comprehensive reform plan would
include prescription drugs for seniors, as well as take other steps to
modernize Medicare. And I'll get into some of the reasons on
that in just a moment.
Q I have some follow up
on the Chicago trip tomorrow. Could you flush out a little
more on what you mean on his speech to the investor
class? What does he say to people -- investor class about
big losses this year and might not be impacted by your tax cut because
they pay the alternative minimum tax?
And what's the status of his meeting with
Mayor Daley?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the meeting --
again, the President's remarks are going to be overall remarks about
keeping the economy strong and promoting his budget and tax plan as a
way to keep the economy strong.
As far as markets are concerned, what I
indicated is there has been a phenomenal change in the United States in
the last 10 years, where millions of middle income Americans, who
previously did not own any assets, who were not invested in their
economy, now are. They're invested either through their
pensions or their 401(k)s or they directly own mutual
funds. And it's a reflection of how strong a country we are
economically that we're able to spread the wealth.
So people who previously were left out, are
now left in, are part of what's in, and --
Q -- but look at those
futures, which is --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Understood. I understand
that. But it's a reflection on markets. And what
I was suggesting is that when the President addresses the question of
how to grow the economy and keep it strong through his budget and tax
plan, he's also talking about how many millions of Americans are in
this together and how markets have changed to the point now where we
have people who previously had no access now have access for the first
time. And if the economy is strong, markets are strong; if
markets are strong, tens of millions of Americans have more assets and
resources to take care of their family and their needs.
On Medicare, Helen --
Q No, I had -- on
Daley.
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, on Daley, I
don't have anything for you yet on the specifics or the timing or any
of the other events. If you don't mind, Lynn, let's check
back this afternoon on any other schedule and logistics for tomorrow.
Helen had a question on Medicare.
Q What is the core
reason of changing the Medicare system? And I don't say
"reform," because reform indicates you make it better.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are two
reasons. One is, Medicare is going broke, the amount of
money coming in for Medicare exceeds -- going out from Medicare exceeds
the amount of money coming in.
And the second fact is that Medicare remains a
1965-style program at its core. It's been very cumbersome,
very difficult for a lot of seniors to get the health care they
need. For example, while there are some 37 million, 38
million Medicare beneficiaries in this country, the majority of them
are forced to get Medigap insurance, because the benefits they qualify
under Medicare are insufficient: prescription drugs,
eyeglasses.
Q -- the benefits,
under your plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly,
many of the proposals on the Hill that dealt with Medicare reform did
allow seniors to have more options and more choices, so they could get
a package of health care benefits that suited their individual needs.
The other interesting thing about Medicare
today that was so different from when Medicare was created in 1965, is
the fastest growing group of Americans are octogenarians, people in
their 80s. And in the 1960s, that just wasn't the
case. And you have tremendous differences in health care
needs between somebody who just turned 65, for example, and someone who
is in their 80s. They have different needs from a health
care system.
The Medicare system, though,
currently really remains a one-size-fits-all system. But
there are many people who had a tremendous number of options in the
work place when they were 64 years old and 364 days
old. They could have a medical savings account; they could
have HMO coverage; they could have PPO coverage, a variety --
Q You want to get
privatization in.
MR. FLEISCHER: We want more choices
and more options for seniors, so what seniors are able to enjoy when
they're 64 years old, they're still able to enjoy when they're 65 years
old, while still protecting 80-year-olds and other seniors who want no
change whatsoever, by maintaining the current Medicare
system. And that really is what the bipartisan reforms on
the Hill have focused on, in terms of Medicare.
Q Is the President
going to call today or early this week some House Democrats to talk to
them about the tax plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: Always an
option. We'll just have to see how the week progresses.
Q Is he going to take
with him any of the senators from the Dakotas or from Louisiana, as he
did in Nebraska and in Arkansas?
MR. FLEISCHER: I typically don't
get my report from Congressional Affairs on who is traveling until
later in the week, until much closer to the trip.
Q Can you tell us
whether they've been even invited?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. Again, a lot of that depends on
the congressional schedule and what the calendar of Congress
is. As you recall, especially on Thursdays, often they don't
know if they're going to be in or out a session. But, again,
I just haven't gotten any report yet from Congressional Affairs.
Q Ari, you said a few
moments ago that surplus estimates are exploding. And if
that's the case and we're going to have these big surpluses going
forward, what's the danger in agreeing to some sort of trigger
mechanism like the Democrats want to do with regard to a tax cut?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the
President has indicated, he thinks there are only two things that are
going to lead to a smaller surplus. One is a failure to have
economic growth. And if there's a failure to have economic
growth, the last and the worst thing you should do, in the President's
opinion, is raise taxes, which is what a trigger would be tantamount
to. The other reason the surplus will
diminish is if the politicians do this year what they did last year,
which is to spend the surplus. And as a result of agreements
made by the Congress and the President last year, the surplus for the
next 10 years is $570 billion smaller because of spending
increases. It's $37 billion smaller because of tax
cuts. And that's proof-perfect, in the President's opinion,
that the biggest threat to the surplus is spending increases, not tax
relief.
One final point on triggers. What
you're saying is, if the politicians spend too much money, we should
reimpose a marriage penalty on people, for example. And the
President thinks that's not in keeping with the values we should hold
as a government, and it's bad economic policy.
Q Ari, since the
administration is looking favorably on repealing the repetitive stress
syndrome rules, does the administration have an alternative to that,
and also, as a second part of that question, given what has occurred
thus far, is it fair to characterize that the President is anti-union?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the Department
of Labor is also taking a look at repetitive stress illnesses, to make
certain that we are protecting the health and safety of
workers. And if we have anything further to inform you
about, we will, or you may want to talk to the Department of Labor on
that.
But I think what you're seeing is a President
who is very concerned, as you saw on the executive orders that he
issued a couple of weeks ago, to make sure that there is fairness and
balance in the system, and that the federal government doesn't tip its
hand to union shops or non-union shops. Previously, it was easier to
get federal contracts if you were a unionized shop, and that often is
unfair to small businesses, to minority businesses, and that's one of
the reasons the President has signed executive orders maintaining a
level playing field in the awardance of government contracts.
Q Ari, on the question
of -- a couple weeks ago the President said the committees are going to
do what the committees are going to do. How does it square
with his promise to restore honesty and integrity to Washington, if his
officials are basically pressuring Burton to stop
investigating. And if we're going to change the tone, this
is probably the most bipartisan investigation that Committee's headed
in several years. Why would you try to put an end to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's a
premise to your question that administration officials are -- I think
you said pressuring. And I don't know where you get that
from. As I indicated before, I have no information about
that. The President has spoken, and said that he's moving
forward. But the President, also out of respect for the legislative
branch, understands that they will -- and as you point out, some of
these investigations are bipartisan. And the President is
respectful of the prerogatives of Congress, to exercise its powers.
Q Ari, how many
Democratic votes does the White House hope to get on Thursday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, I'm not a
vote-counter or a vote-guesser. We're going to continue to
work to try to get as many as possible. We'll see what the
count is, and the President will continue to be hopeful that his plans
will receive bipartisan support. Bipartisanship is a two way
street. The more Democrats vote for it, the stronger the signal we'll
get from the Hill that the Democrats, too, are interested in
bipartisanship. We hope they'll be many, but whatever the
number is -- we're interested also in majorities to pass our agenda so
we can get legislation signed into law.
Q Going back to the
first question you took today, the espionage
issue. Diplomatic conversations with the Russians aside,
what effect do you think these stories have had -- the Hanssen case and
the story that you don't want to confirm or deny from yesterday -- what
effect do you think that this has all had on relations with Moscow?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that the
President is still going to approach relations with Moscow the same way
he always has, and he addressed that throughout the campaign, and we're
looking forward to having good relations with Russia, straightforward
and direct conversations, which is the President's manner and style,
and I don't see that changing.
Q Outside the context
of the current tax cut proposal, a lot of conservatives outside and
inside Congress would like to see over time the government move toward
a flat tax. What's the Bush view of the flat tax cut?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are two
principal approaches to tax simplification on Capitol
Hill. One is to have a flat tax, the other is to have a
consumption-style tax. And there is no clear majority for
either view up on Capitol Hill at this time. The President
does believe in simplification; that's one of the reasons that
Congress, in his opinion, should pass his tax plan. It
reduces the current five brackets down to four brackets, it lowers
them, it simplifies the code by abolishing one bracket; elimination and
total repeal of the death tax is one of the biggest simplification
measures he can enact.
The death tax represents, by some accountants,
40 percent of the tax code. It also is one of the greatest
ways of tax avoidance. There are many people who are very
wealthy, who are able to hire the best tax attorneys and CPAs to get
around the tax because of its complexities.
The President is prepared to engage in further
tax relief items after this year -- additional tax simplification
items. But he's focused right now on passage of his tax plan
for 2001 and those simplification items that are contained in that
plan. Q Ari, not all
of the trigger mechanisms that were proposed would necessarily raise
taxes; some would simply freeze the process if there is no further
increase in the surplus.
MR. FLEISCHER: If Congress were to
enact a law this year that says we will reduce the marriage penalty,
and then three years from now, Congress says to a married couple, we
didn't mean it, there is a trigger, your marriage penalty is
back. That family is going to look at the marriage
penalty as reimposed.
Q It wouldn't have been
gone in the first place, or at least not all of it; it would simply be
frozen.
MR. FLEISCHER: According to all
accounting in Congress, once you pass a tax cut, that tax cut is
permanent law of the land. Same thing with the spending
increase; once you increase spending, it is permanent law of the
land. So any type of trigger would bring revenues into the
federal government, because now that tax cut no longer goes into
effect. So it is actually legally constituted as a tax
hike.
Q You're suggesting it
would rescind what had already been done?
MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly any
trigger that is designed to stop a tax cut from going into place would
result in a tax hike, according to --
Q But these are all
incremental. So if I get so much this year and so much the
following year, and then it's frozen, that doesn't take back what I've
already gotten.
MR. FLEISCHER: One of the greatest
effects of a tax cut on the economy is the psychological sign that it
sends to people, that it's permanent. No, but it's permanent
-- that you know that you will have more money to spend each year.
For example, if you're going to make some
purchasing decisions, and you know that you will have more money in
your paycheck this year, next year and the following year, and you make
a decision, on the basis of that. And the government goes and pulls
the rug out from underneath you by saying, oh, that tax cut we promised
you, we didn't mean it, it's on hold -- that is not in the economic
interest of the country, nor is it in the consumer's
interest. And that would be the effect of --
Q But better that than
going into deficits, right? Better disappointing some
families than sending the country into deficits, right?
MR. FLEISCHER: But, again, there
are two things that will put the economy into deficit -- spending
increases and slower economic growth. And I do note again
that in this town there was no such interest expressed for all the
years that spending increased. Only now that taxes are going
to be cut do people express that concern. And the greatest
danger, again, is if you don't cut taxes, that money will be
spent. That's the history of Washington, and that's what
we're up against this year, as well.
Q -- is a real
concern.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's
twofold. It's, one, the President wants to deliver tax
relief and let people keep it, and not have it be snatched away from
them after it's been delivered. And, two, he is concerned
that the money will be spent if you don't cut the taxes.
Q To get you on the
record on this question, in the White House view, there's no ethical
conflict in former President Bush and former Secretary of State Jim
Baker using their world contacts with world leaders to represent one of
the most well-known military arms dealers, the Carlyle
Group? That's perfectly okay, it's ethical?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has
full faith that his family will conform with all proper ethics laws,
all ethics laws, and will act properly in their conduct. And
that's exactly what they've -- been done, and there are no questions
that --
Q So he thinks it's
okay for former President Bush to go to the Middle East dealers and
sell guns and tanks and planes?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President
has full confidence that all members of his family are acting in full
accordance with all ethics laws.
Q Ari, Senator Daschle
wasn't informed about the South Dakota trip before it was
announced. Was it accidental or a mistake, or the President
just doesn't feel it is appropriate, out of courtesy, to let him know
that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the
President's travel to all states is a decision that the White House
makes and it is the prerogative and the liberty of the President to
travel. And he will continue to do so.
Q Ari, one clean-up
from the Roger Ferguson appointment, will he also serve another term as
vice chairman?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the paper it will
spell it out a little more clear. Mr. Ferguson will serve the
remainder of the 14-year term that expires on January 31, 2014, as a
representative of the Boston Federal Reserve District. He
was previously appointed to the Board of Governors in 1997, and served
as vice chairman of the Board since 1999. So it deals with
the complexity of how the Federal Reserve seats are held, and I think
once you see the printed statement, it should make it clear.
Q Ari, on Medicare
overhaul, does the President have a timetable for establishing a
commission or anything like that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, and I didn't say
there would be a commission on Medicare. So I wouldn't go in
that direction necessarily.
Q -- explore options
and --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's
correct. A bipartisan meeting with some of the people who
have been most associated with bipartisan reform.
Q If the President, if
they do, in fact, decide to move ahead with comprehensive reform, what
does the President see as the next step?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we need to
allow them to have the meeting first and see what the sentiment is.
Q Ari, you were saying
before that bipartisanship is a two-way street.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
Q Could you elaborate a
little bit on what you think the other half of that street
is? And could you also address the question of whether, in
the 2002 elections, the President might be more inclined to campaign
against, let's say, Democrats who opposed him on the tax cut?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's
far too early to start talking about the 2002 elections. But
bipartisanship is a two-way street, and the President has been
encouraged by some of the early signs of bipartisanship coming from the
Hill. And he understands that there are going to be
Democrats who are never going to vote with him. He
understands that, and he only asks that the disagreements be kept at a
civil level and that the politics of personal destruction, which has
been the hallmark of this town for too long, be laid to rest, and that
we have disagreements based on principle.
But I think it's also clear that there is a
limit to how many votes we're going to be able to get on any given
issue, but we're going to continue to reach out to work with the
Democrats on all issues. And then the Democrats have to
decide -- so, too, do the Republicans -- when it comes time to vote,
how they will vote. And we will be respectful of those who
vote against the President, and we will continue to put together
bipartisan coalitions. Sometimes they'll be bigger then
others, sometimes they'll be smaller then others. But in all
cases, our goal will be to govern, and to get legislation signed into
law.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 12:53
P.M. EST
|