President's economic plan
12:53 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. And to Helen, bon jour; I like
your chapeau.
Q It's a bad hair day. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: You're talking to me about a bad hair day?
(Laughter.)
On the good hair day category, the President began his day with an
intelligence briefing, followed by an FBI briefing. And then he
convened a meeting of the National Security Council.
The President will shortly have an event in the East Room, to make
remarks on the one year anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act.
The President is very much looking forward to gathering with school
principals, school administrators and members of Congress and members
of the Education Department to commemorate this important anniversary.
The Department of Education will announce that five states have
already, even at this early date, submitted their approved plans for
accountability. The President sees this as a point of moving forward
and making progress in educating America's children through tougher
standards, better standards, with increased funding and increased
resources to help educate our nation's school children -- a top
priority in this administration.
Then the President will also meet in the Cabinet Room later today
with members of Congress of both parties, House and Senate, to begin
the new year Congress convened yesterday. The President is very
pleased with the progress it has made on unemployment insurance; the
fact that the Senate has passed it, he looks forward to signing it.
The President will also discuss with these bipartisan leaders the
importance of working together to achieve a growth package to pass into
law, a growth package to benefit the economy, the unemployed and the
entire country. He'll talk about the appropriations process.
He'll also talk about another domestic priority, which is helping
senior citizens by modernizing and strengthening Medicare, including
the delivery of prescription drugs to seniors. He views that as an
important priority this year. Welfare reform remains an important
agenda item. Faith-based solutions to help people who have been left
out is an important agenda item. And there will be a number of other
items, I think, will likely come up in that meeting with the President
this afternoon.
And with that, I'm happy to take your questions. Campbell.
Q The President has renominated Judge Charles Pickering and
has in the past defended his civil rights record. But that doesn't
change the fact that Pickering, as a judge, lobbied prosecutors to
reduce the sentence of a man who burned a cross on the lawn of an
inter-racial couple. Is that acceptable?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when the President takes a look at the record
of Judge Pickering, and he looks at the comments that have been made
and the widespread bipartisan support for Judge Pickering, he believes
that Judge Pickering has an excellent record and deserves support from
the Senate. In fact, in the last session of the Senate there was,
indeed, enough bipartisan support to pass Judge Pickering on the floor
of the Senate. It was just a question of obstructionist tactics that
kept the majority from speaking by keeping the nomination bottled up in
committee.
On the issue that you were asking about, specifically on this, that
Judge Pickering expressed his record of disdain for his heinous crime.
He was concerned in this case about disparate sentences. The sentence
-- the person he deemed most guilty was given no jail time, while the
person he believed less capable faced what even the prosecutor agreed
was a draconian sentence. These concerns were raised in open court
before both parties.
Q Can I ask you, I guess, more broadly, since Trent Lott's
comments, that incident, Republicans have said that the party generally
needs to do more to reach out to African Americans. The President
during the campaign said, for a state to fly a Confederate flag in a
public place it was the state's decision. As far as I recall, he never
condemned states that chose to fly the Confederate flag in public
places. Is that something he would do now as a way to reach out to
African Americans?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's opinions on that remain just as he
said throughout the entire campaign and into his presidency, that he
viewed that matter as a matter for the people of the state of South
Carolina to decide -- as they did, in a very bipartisan solution, which
was a solution that united people instead of divided people to
successfully resolve that issue, that the people of South Carolina have
agreed was a wise approach to take, and it led to the diffusion of a
controversy.
The President's policies, by helping the people of South Carolina
to deal with it themselves, led to the solution that has been accepted
throughout the state.
Q But does the President think that it's wrong for the
Confederate flag to be flown in public places?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes it's a judgment for the
states to make.
Q What's his personal feeling, though? Is it right or is it
wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a question for the states to decide. That's
the President's view.
Q Well, he can voice his opinion without telling the states
what to do.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a question for the states to decide, not for
the President of the United States to dictate.
Q Did General Franks attend the Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting
today? And does it have anything to do with the timetable for invading
Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was a National Security Council meeting today,
as I announced this morning. General Franks did attend.
Q Why?
MR. FLEISCHER: Why did he attend? He typically attends these type
of National Security Council meetings.
Q He always attends?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's not uncommon for him to be here for those
meetings.
Q Well, was it a chips-are-down meeting, in any way?
MR. FLEISCHER: Good try. As you know, I'm not going to discuss
the content of any National Security Council meetings.
Q Do you know what the contents were?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have a good idea.
Q Is it now up to North Korea to seek a dialogue with the
United States? They have to ask for a meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, given the fact that North Korea unilaterally
walked out of its commitments that it made as part of an agreement that
North Korea entered into with the United States, it is clear that the
ball is in North Korea's court. The United States has said that we
want to work with our allies to resolve these issues, to make certain
that North Korea takes the steps that were called for by the world
community to come back into compliance with their international
obligations. And the United States has expressed its thoughts on
this. The ball is in North Korea's court now to respond.
Q But the United States is now willing to talk to North Korea,
which is a shift in position, no?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can belabor the point. I can go back to
all kinds of briefings where this issue, since November, has been
talked about -- will you or won't you talk. Let me try to be the most
helpful on it, why I think there may be some confusion about what
policy was. But I think the central issue still remains, what's going
to happen next? What will North Korea now do?
But what we have always said is there have been channels of
communication that have been open that have been used, and those
channels represent North Korea's mission to the United Nations up in
New York. We've also consistently said that we're not going to
negotiate, and we will not negotiate. But we will talk to North Korea
about North Korea's intentions and how they intend to come back into
compliance with the obligations that they committed to.
Q We'll talk to whom about North Korea's obligations? We'll
talk to North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we have channels that exist through the New
York channel to have those conversations. And as you saw in the
statement that was issued yesterday by South Korea, Japan and the
United States, we have said plainly in here that the three delegations
express serious concern over recent steps by North Korea to lift its
nuclear freeze, and call upon North Korea to undo these measures and
not take precipitous action.
The statement continued that North Korea's relations with the
entire international community hinge on its taking prompt and
verifiable action to completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program
and to come into full compliance with its international nuclear
commitments. And then the statement went on to say that the U.S.
delegation explained the United States is willing to talk to North
Korea about how it will meet its obligations to the international
community. However -- this is the next sentence -- "However, the U.S.
delegation stressed the United States will not provide quid-pro-quos to
North Korea to live up to its existing obligations."
So we'd be happy to talk about how North Korea will come into
compliance, but it won't be a negotiation, it won't be any additional
offers, because we have made offers before, they accepted the offers,
an agreement was reached and then North Korea walked out on its end of
the agreement.
Q But the willingness to talk is a new position. And the
reason this isn't a "gotcha," just a game, is that dealing with an
erratic, opaque, nuclear arms regime, it seems that the administration
has staked out a variety of positions erratically and perhaps in a way
that has led to a ratcheting-up of the tension. By staking out such a
hard-nosed, we-aren't-going-to-talk, and now having to climb down from
that, is that making the situation worse?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I just differ on your statement about
the policy. I think it's always been clear to North Korea and to our
allies what our position was on negotiations, and that remains the
ongoing position. And I'd be happy to bore you and go back to
briefings at the State Department as recently as November 2002, in
which this very topic came up and the position was said. And, as you
know, the President this week made clear what the position of the
United States is on it.
But the fundamental issue, to preserve the denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula is what now will North Korea do, having North Korea
brought the international community to this point, by walking away from
the very agreements that it entered into. When nations enter into
sovereign -- when sovereign nations enter into agreements, those are
important statements. And for nations to be able to enter into
additional agreements, their word has to be given and has to be good.
In this case, North Korea gave its word, and then walked away from it.
Q And so the bottom line is the United States is now willing to
talk to North Korea about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: We will talk to North Korea about how North Korea
intends to come back into compliance and honor its word.
Q Is that the only thing you will talk to them about? Are you
now drawing a new line saying, you'll only talk to them about how
they'll come in compliance? Is there anything else you'll talk with
them about?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- had no intention of getting into any
negotiations or offering any inducements.
Q I'm not asking that, because you've made that clear. Is
there anything else you'd be willing to talk to North Korea about? Or
is now the line only about --
MR. FLEISCHER: We've never ruled out anything else, Ron. I mean,
their channel in New York does exist to have conversations such as --
there is the food program. We are a huge supplier of food to the
people of North Korea. And we do have concerns about whether North
Korea is getting that food to its people. There are questions that we
have asked the North Korean government to answer about whether or not
the food is getting to the people of North Korea. We'd be always
interested in making certain the people of North Korea, with whom we
have no dispute, are well fed and that none of the food is diverted.
Q So you're now willing to talk to North Korea, but the only
thing you're saying is we're not going to negotiate, which of course is
a term that can be interpreted differently by people.
MR. FLEISCHER: This is why I'm just a little confused on the
process side of this, because we have consistently said that. And I
just think there may have been some over-emphasizing. I don't know if
it was anybody that you talked to or if it was a misinterpretation by
the press on the conversations. But it has always been clear that --
Q The people who work for you and who work in this White House
have been consistent with everybody in this room on that point.
MR. FLEISCHER: I've laid out the position as clearly as I can.
Q Let me try one more on North Korea and then I want to ask you
a domestic question. So if the North Koreans say, we will accept this
offer to talk, but only if also on the agenda are resumption of the
fuel shipments, perhaps diplomatic recognition, perhaps a nonaggression
treaty, the United States will say, no?
MR. FLEISCHER: Keep in mind that the United States already entered
into a series of quid pro quos and negotiations with North Korea which
led to their saying to the world they would no longer pursue nuclear
weapons. In return for that, North Korea was granted a series of
benefits and programs, including the shipment of fuel oil and other
potential benefits.
North Korea pocketed those parts of the agreement and then they
walked out on their part of the agreement. So certainly it makes
little sense to no sense at all for the United States to say, we'll
give you additional inducements if now you only go back and do what you
originally promised us to do.
Q I'm not saying --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's just a formula to invite countries around
the world to go back on their word to the United States, to try to get
more out of us.
Q I'm not saying the United States would negotiate. But as
you know and in the case of the various interpretations of Resolution
1441, sometimes it helps diplomatic progress if different parties to an
agreement have different interpretations of either what a document says
or what the meeting is about. Sometimes that helps move the ball
forward. Is it -- in a confusing situation, can you say with clarity
that -- to Ron's point and to Terry's point about confusion -- that if
there are discussions, the only thing discussed at any meeting
involving a United States representative would be North Korea coming
into compliance --
MR. FLEISCHER: I just give the example of the food program which
is very important. And I can't rule out --
Q No fuel oil, no nonaggression pact?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's negotiating, isn't it? That will not be
done. Let me remind you again of the joint statement among the United
States, Japan, and South Korea -- we are pursuing a multilateral course
to preserve peace. And the President has faith that this can be done
through diplomacy. We are dealing with a nation that prides itself on
a unilateral approach against the will of the world. What was said
yesterday by the United States, shoulder-to-shoulder with our South
Korean and Japanese allies, is North Korea's relations with the entire
international community hinge on its -- meaning North Korea -- taking
prompt and verifiable action to completely dismantle its nuclear weapon
program.
I think there's no question that the issue involving North Korea
has now come down to what will North Korea do now? The ball is in
North Korea's court.
Q On the domestic front, you mentioned the growth plan will
obviously come up at this meeting with the bipartisan congressional
leadership. Democrats say the President's plan is way too big and will
blow up the federal budget deficit. Leader DeLay said a short time ago
to reporters that he views the $674 billion of the President's plan as
the floor, not the ceiling. Is the White House open to this package
getting even bigger?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House is open to working with Congress to
get something done for the American people. The President made a
proposal that he thinks is the ideal and the best proposal to get the
economy going and growing and to create jobs for America's workers. We
have a process in our system. It's a process that works well. The
President has made his proposal; he will work diligently to fight for
it with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
And I think there's no question there are some Democrats who will
never be for what President Bush is for. But there are going to be
others who are. And we will find them, we will work with them, and the
process is now beginning. That's why the President has invited people
from both parties and both parts of Congress to the White House to
begin the work of the people today.
The year is already off to a good start. Congress came in just
yesterday. Unemployment insurance to help people who need help is on
its way to passage and to presidential signature. The new year has
begun with people working together. The President would like to build
on that.
Q Is that a yes? Are you open to a bigger tax cut?
(Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is going to work with Congress.
Q On the question of the President's economic plan, how do you
intend to introduce this to Congress? Will it be an
administration-proposed bill? And does it all go up as a single
package, or for various reasons, does it get split up? Does it
accelerate and the tax cuts, for instance, go up as one thing, and
other things go up separately?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think this will go up as one package. This
was announced by the President as one package; $670 billion of this is
in the form of tax relief, $4 billion is in the spending program, the
new package to help those who are unemployed. Per the Constitution, it
will begin in the House Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means
Committee would be the committee of jurisdiction that takes first
action. The Senate cannot act on a tax measure until it is passed by
the House. Because this is a new Congress, there are no pending tax
measures in the Senate, and so it will begin with the House Ways and
Means Committee, it will go to the full House of Representatives, and
only at that point could it proceed to the United States Senate.
Q Now, the President indicated yesterday that obviously moving
forward the tax cuts, he seemed to suggest shouldn't be that hard a
stretch for Congress, since they'd already approved them later on down
the road. The dividend tax cut is a different matter. Why did the
President decide to spend so much money on one particular thing that
does not have any short-term stimulative effects for the --
MR. FLEISCHER: The purpose of the announcement the President made
yesterday was to increase consumer spending, to give a boost to the
economy and to investment -- particularly in small business -- and also
to help the unemployed. Those were the three broad goals the President
outlined yesterday.
The acceleration of the income tax rate reductions, the
acceleration of marriage penalty relief, the acceleration of a child
credit, all into January 1, 2003, all provide an immediate stimulus to
the economy as soon as Congress passes them and they're enacted into
law, which could take place in 2003, perhaps in the summer, we'll see
exactly what the date would be.
The dividend piece, the President looks at as a chance to do
something fundamentally good for long-term economic growth.
Washington, as much as it must always focus on the here and now and on
short-term solutions, would neglect its responsibilities to the people
if it didn't also focus on what is important long term. And the
President at a meeting, which was on November 26th in the Roosevelt
Room, had this conversation with his economic advisors. Prior to that
time, most of the discussion focused on a 50 percent dividend
exclusion. At that meeting, the President received advice from his
advisors that, given the state of the economy, one of the most
important steps that could be taken for long-term economic growth would
be an absolute abolition of the double taxation on corporate -- on
dividends paid by corporations that are received by individuals. So
it's the abolition of the individually paid tax on dividends.
Q If I could just clarify one thing on North Korea, when the
U.S. has these discussions with North Korea, you're not suggesting
that there would be no discussion of what the future would be like if,
in fact, North Korea came back into compliance?
MR. FLEISCHER: What I'm saying, I can't predict every shake and
turn of a conversation that has not yet had -- been had. What I am
saying is it will not be a negotiation, there will be no inducements.
The purpose would be, principally, to make sure that North Korea does
what it is supposed to do to come back into international compliance as
they've been called on to do not only by the United States and Japan
and South Korea and the neighbors who are closest, but by the IAEA
which represents multiples of nations around the world, including Cuba
and Iran, all of whom have called on North Korea to come back into
compliance.
Q Because it was part of the original agreed framework and
therefore may not be seen as being an incentive or rewarding North
Korea for its bad behavior, would a resumption of fuel oil shipments --
in the White House's opinion -- represent a negotiation? Or could it
be seen as a gesture of good faith entering to talks?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, it was a multilateral decision
-- the United States and its allies -- to halt the shipment of fuel oil
because the agreement that North Korea entered into in return for
receiving the fuel oil was abandoned by North Korea. So if you're
asking does the United States think it makes sense in having North
Korea abandon its commitments to an obligation it said it would comply
with, then the United States should say that doesn't matter that you
are no longer holding up your end of an agreement, we'll continue to
honor ours. I think that's a formula for nations to walk out on
agreements knowing the United States will do nothing about it.
Q No, I'm just saying, could you make the argument that if you
were to resume fuel oil shipments as a result of these talks with North
Korea, if you could say, well, that was part of the 1994 agreement, so
we're really not negotiating anything new here, we're not rewarding
North Korea --
MR. FLEISCHER: No --
Q -- for its bad behavior by doing this?
MR. FLEISCHER: You should not look for that to be in the cards.
Q Ari, how do you -- at the start of the process on the debate
about the growth package, how do you assess the level of support for
Congress? And particularly the Senate for what the President is
proposing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President is encouraged from what
he's heard so far. Obviously, there are some who voted against the
2001 package, which received substantial bipartisan support, who've
already come out -- even before the President announced his proposal --
against the President's 2003 proposal. That's not a surprise.
But the President is going to continue to work with and look for
others who are willing to work with the White House. And I think as
the process begins, as Congress holds its hearings, it'll become
increasingly clear what type of will is there in the Congress to move
forward. Clearly, on the Republican side, the package is met with what
sounds to be like considerable support. On the Democratic side, there
are many people who are really, interestingly, not said very much about
it. Typically, that's where bipartisan coalitions are forged.
Q And in 2001, the President unveiled a package, it went up to
the Hill and it was negotiated off of -- as the bill moved through the
process. Will there be the same sort of flexibility in this bill, or
does he insist on the details going into the package as they are?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President worked very hard on the details,
because he believes that they are the right details and the best
details to get America's economy growing. So he is committed to them.
The President understands that we have a system in our country. And
the President proposes, and it's Congress's responsibility to the
American people to discuss it, to hold hearings and to exercise its
judgment on the President's package.
I think he has shown over the last two years a very successful
track record of fighting for what he believes in and working well with
Congress to get it enacted. And that's exactly what he intends to do
this time.
Q Senator McCain yesterday was very critical of the President's
tax plan, especially the dividend elimination. He said that the money
would be much better spent on much more targeted tax relief for middle
class and lower middle class people. Is it a blow to the President's
plan that a veteran Republican senator, like Senator McCain, would come
out against it?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think there are many issues that the
President and Senator McCain, and the White House and Senator McCain
worked very closely on, shoulder-to-shoulder on, particularly in the
area of foreign policy. This may be an issue on which, at least at
this stage, they don't see eye to eye. Senator McCain did not vote for
the previous tax plan, if I recall. And that's his prerogative. It
was enacted into law with many bipartisan votes. So Senator McCain is
an important senator. There are many senators and we intend to work
with all of them to assemble a bipartisan commission.
Q The views that Senator McCain enunciated last night sounded
very much like the Democratic arguments against the President's plan.
Similarly, on global warming, Senator McCain has sounded very much like
a Democrat in recent days. Is the President concerned that Senator
McCain is drifting away from the Republican --
MR. FLEISCHER: As I said, as with every senator, there are going
to be issues on which we can work directly on because we see close
enough what the solution should be, and there are others on which
people will differ. And that's true about every senator to varying
degrees, and every senator is free to exercise their constitutional
prerogatives.
Q Ari, could you tell us, please, about the efforts by this
administration and the White House to sell the President's growth
package?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's been extensive. The President thinks it's
very important when it comes to getting the economy going, which is the
source of creating opportunities for the American people, to be
successful. And so there have been a series of phone calls made to
various different constituencies -- Steve Friedman is up in New York
right now, the President's new economic advisor, meeting with various
groups in New York City to discuss the prospects for passage of this
proposal.
The President today is meeting with Democrats from the Senate,
Democrats from the House, Republicans from the House, Republicans from
the Senate; as well as the White House Office of Media Affairs has
conducted a series of phone calls and conversations with local
newspaper writers and editorial boards throughout the United States.
It's a very detailed plan to try to garner as much support as possible
for something the President thinks is important.
Q Cabinet officers, Vice President Cheney?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Vice President will have more to say about
this, as well. Cabinet officers -- of course, Secretary Evans and
Director Mitch Daniels have been involved in this and they've also been
doing their share of work in building support for it, too. Secretary
of Labor Elaine Chao, of course, worked very extensively on -- and
successfully, as well -- on getting Congress to pass the unemployment
insurance extension.
Q Ari, does the President have a time frame in mind when he'd
like this economic stimulus package to be passed by Congress? Does he
have a three-month or 30 days or 60 days?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no immediate sense that I've heard from
the President. I think his preference is the sooner the better, the
better for the economy. But Congress has its process. In 2001,
Congress was able to pass it actually on -- as Congress typically takes
up tax bills, a more rapid rate than in the recent past. Congress
passed by Memorial Day the President's 2001 tax proposal. We'll see if
they're able -- what the timetable will be this year. I think it's too
soon to say, Richard. Congress is also still working on last year's
appropriations, unfortunately.
Q Is he concerned that it might go too long and that it
wouldn't do any good?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I said, the sooner the better for the
economy in the President's judgment. But he has not put any date at
all on that. But the President -- again, this program has immediate
help to get the economy growing as soon as Congress passes it. And
then it also has more long-term fundamental fixes in place that will be
appropriate at all times.
Q Ari, getting back to Campbell's question, there was some
expectations on Capitol Hill that Judge Pickering would not be
renominated. Was there any debate in the White House and, if so, can
you give us an idea of how those discussions went?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think as you saw, the package that went up to
the Hill yesterday -- which by the way, I've seen some discussion that
this was a dinnertime announcement. If people are eating their dinner
between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., I guess they would have noticed it.
But the package was sent up between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., received
by Senate officially between those hours. I think we distributed here
in the press office at -- it was 5:46 p.m. So if you were eating
early, you received it publicly. And the package represented all the
nominations that were submitted to the Senate last year in which no
action was taken. And so in some senses it's a formality to resubmit
the same names. And it was in its entirety all those who were
submitted last year. I think it was some 31 names.
Q If I can follow, the President's speech in Philadelphia
arguably put a nail in Senator Lott's coffin as GOP leader. How does
this nomination not send a mixed signal?
MR. FLEISCHER: And on what basis would it send a mixed signal,
Ken?
Q Well, if you are nominating someone who has defended a
cross-burner -- cross burning is arguably, and this would be an
understatement, segregationist. And that would seem to be --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think your question is taking sides
in a debate which not everybody has agreed that that is an accurate
statement. As I said earlier in regarding when Campbell asked me a
question about that very topic, that was something that he expressed on
the record, his disdain for that heinous crime.
Q Ari, as a former governor, is the President aware of the
problems the states are having fiscally? And is he worried that
without more assistance to the states in his stimulus plan, that states
may be forced to raise taxes? And is he concerned that that may have a
counteracting effect?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is very sympathetic with the
needs of the states, having been a former governor himself. He
understands what has created the deficits within the states is the
state of the economy. The fact of the matter is, the state budgets are
driven fundamentally by economic growth, just as the federal budget
is. And by way of example on that, in 2000, when the economy was
growing at a rate of 3.75 percent, the states had a surplus of $177
billion. Then the slowdown began in the summer of 2000 and that
surplus diminished and went away. In 1997, the federal economy grew at
a rate of 4.3 percent and all 50 states had enjoyed a combined surplus
of $27.5 billion.
In times of recession, states have gone into deficits as a result
of the federal economy being in recession. So the President's judgment
is the most important way to help the states on a macro sense is to
have a federal economy that is going and growing, and that's why the
policies he announced are designed to give a boost to the economy
which, as history has shown, will return money into state coffers.
Beyond that, the President's budget has proposed a variety of money
for the states, including a $30 billion increase from the '03 budget --
from the '02 budget, and that includes a large infusion of resources
for NEGs, which are national emergency grants, Reed Act distributions,
which are used for a variety of programs to help the unemployed. And
there have been streamlined state Medicare waiver process, which also
has been helpful to the states. So the President is very sympathetic
to the needs of the states. He is aware of the difficulties they can
go through, and he has announced a program that, in his judgment, will
be very helpful to the states.
Q If I could just follow-up, is he going to be then asking the
governors to resist efforts within their legislatures to cut critical
services that haven't been aided by the items you just mentioned, or to
raise taxes again? I mean, the states are facing a more immediate
crisis than the federal government.
MR. FLEISCHER: When George W. Bush was the governor of Texas he
did not think it was Washington's business to dictate to Texas the
decisions that elected officials in Texas were elected to make on
behalf of their constituents. He had his governing approach in Texas
and he followed it through with his state legislature. He knows the
governors will do the same thing.
Q Ari, can I just ask you briefly about the philosophical
balance of the package the President proposed yesterday? You said to
us that the package is aimed at incurring growth both in the short- and
the long-term. And that ultimately the best solution to deficits is
growth plus spending restraint.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Does the President believe the package he proposed yesterday
will encourage enough growth to pay for itself?
MR. FLEISCHER: Over time the President does believe that the
package he proposed yesterday will lead to a boost in the economy, and
as the economy grows, additional revenues will come in. Clearly,
that's one of the issues that drove the President to do it and I think
he alluded to that yesterday.
Q But as you know, there's this philosophical question as to
exactly how much growth to expect from tax cuts in general.
Presumably, I mean, you showed us that you calculated 2 million jobs
over three years, you've run it through models. Will it produce, in
your estimation, enough growth to pay for itself? Or will there need
to be other effects to fight the deficit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is a classic issue of economics and
federal budgeting. And on it what you basically have is -- you're
asking a question that deals with what economists call macroeconomic
feedback -- and the question is, will the additional growth in the
economy give a sufficient boost to the economy that it pays for the
cost of these tax rate reductions. And I think if you take a look at
how the economy grew in the 1990s, the Congress passed a large tax cut
in 1997, including a reduction in the capital gains rate from, I think
it was at that time 28 percent, down to 20 percent. And it had
additional -- that's where the child credit first found its home in the
tax code.
Then the economy soared following that. And depending on how you
or other experts define cause and effect, you can make that case. Now,
I don't think anybody with precision can say that the economy in its
entirety grew as a result of this one policy or that one policy, and
therefore, you can make a dollar-for-dollar corresponding calculation.
But what you can conclude is that programs that are put in place have
an effect on growth, and the more the economy grows the more revenues
come in.
Q Does that mean you have not made that calculation on the
President's package?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you're asking on a dollar-for-dollar
basis, it's a question that is almost like angels on a head of a pin.
What precisely caused growth? Is it a variety of factors; is it one
factor? And is it the child credit alone that caused growth, by having
it retroactive to 1/1/03? Or was it a combination of economic policies
that led to growth, and therefore, how do you divide and attribute?
And it's hard to say.
Q Typically, these things are run through economic models. Are
you telling me that you haven't done that --
MR. FLEISCHER: You're missing my point. What's not run through an
economic model is any one provision, such as speeding up of a $500 per
child tax cut. Does that in itself create growth, or is it in
combination with other factors? The entire package is what the
President looks at. And the estimate is, clearly, as 2.1 million jobs
are created as a result of this, you will now have 2.1 million
additional taxpayers, people who will no longer be on unemployment,
people who are paying revenues into the federal government. And that
is how growth gets created.
Q In its entirety, has the package been run through the Council
of Economic Advisors models, and is it the President's contention this
will pay for itself, or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I don't know how to make a literal answer
based on any one tax provision. The entire package the President does
believe will lead to growth, which will over time grow the economy,
create additional revenues for the federal government and pay for
itself.
Q Ari, what is President Bush's philosophy on civil rights, and
how does that mesh with his statements about Trent Lott's comments in
Philadelphia and the renomination of Charles Pickering, who has recent
-- well, has controversy throughout his life, I guess, with civil
rights?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me talk specifically about Judge
Pickering and the record that he has. And keeping in mind that Judge
Pickering -- you say "controversy," I want to remind you, Judge
Pickering was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate just a
short number of years ago. So if there is so much controversy about
Judge Pickering, why did so many senators vote for him on the District
Court? I think it may suggest that the controversy really is not about
Judge Pickering's record, it is just about a different type of
controversy and I'll address that in a second.
But let me talk specifically about Judge Pickering and the type of
leader he is, and what people have said about Judge Pickering. Frank
Hunger, who is Al Gore's brother-in-law and served as President
Clinton's Assistant Attorney General in Charge of Civil Division,
wrote: "I have known Judge Pickering for nearly 30 years and have the
utmost respect for him as a fair-minded judge who would never knowingly
do anything improper or unethical. He is a person of great integrity,
strong moral character, courage and compassion, who treats all who come
before him in a fair and dignified way."
Thaddeus Edmonson, a former local President of the NAACP who is now
president of the seven-member Laurel City Council and one of its five
African-American members stated: "I can't believe the man they're
describing in Washington is the one I've known for years. If those
people who are voting against him because of some press release would
just come down here and talk to the people who know him, I think they
would have a very different opinion."
Charles Evers, the brother of slain Mississippi civil rights leader
Medgar Evers, said Judge Pickering was "standing up for blacks in
Mississippi when no other white man would."
And, finally, the sitting Democratic attorney general of
Mississippi said, "You won't see elected officials stand up for a man
if he is a racist."
This controversy, if there is one about Judge Pickering, I submit
to you, this has nothing -- nothing -- to do with race and everything
to do with the ideology of a few liberal Democrats who oppose a man who
has bipartisan support, enough support to be confirmed by the full
United States Senate, including having a rating of well qualified by
the American Bar Association. This is not about race; it's about
ideology.
Q Ari, you say it's not about race, but all right, let's not
even talk about the cross burning situation. Let's talk about the
situation --
MR. FLEISCHER: A cross burning situation which he denounced as a
heinous crime.
Q Okay, I'm not talking about that. Let's move on to another
one I'm trying to point out. Let's talk about the one, the opinion
that he wrote, the paper that he wrote -- I believe it was in '61,
where he was a first-year law school student -- and he was talking
about interracial marriages. I mean, is that not about race? And once
again, how does President Bush's feelings on civil rights mesh with
this issue and Trent Lott?
MR. FLEISCHER: If you've read that, you will see that while it was
written some 40 years ago, it neither advocated -- did not take any
position -- it neither advocated nor condemned such laws. It was an
analysis of the existing Mississippi law, as it existed in the early
'60s, and how many states and how many places have these laws changed.
He, as a law student, a first-year law student, wrote an analysis of
the existing statute. It did not take a stand. It did not take a
side. It was a straight analysis.
Q Well, that's pretty cowardly -- wait, that's pretty cowardly
--
Q Yes, but, Ari, 1970, the --
MR. FLEISCHER: April. April.
Q -- he met with a segregationist group when he was a state
legislature.
Q Ari, okay, I understand your opinion and what you're saying
right now. But let's say when he was confirmed by the Senate before,
do you agree that that time is different from now? There is a whole
new era of politically correctness as it deals with racial issues.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that when you take a look at the record of
Judge Pickering, and the fact that he was confirmed unanimously by the
United States Senate; the fact that so many African Americans in
Mississippi who know him, support him; and so many Democrats support
him, you'll see that these charges don't stand up. They fall on
merit. And they're based on ideology, not race. Lester.
Q Can you just address that one --
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester.
Q -- just one example --
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester.
Q Ari, on Monday -- on Monday, the Office of the U.S. Attorney
for the Southern District of New York confirmed that there has been no
report on their criminal investigation of William J. Clinton for
Pardongate, which investigation began nearly two years ago. And my
question, since the Constitution requires that the President, "shall
take care that the laws be faithfully executed," will he or has he ever
taken such care regarding this criminal investigation lest there be
national suspicion that this is just being swept under the rug
forever?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have no information on that, Lester. And
anything dealing with Justice, you need to refer to Justice on.
Q When the President was Governor of Texas, as I understand it,
he signed a bill allowing anyone age 21 or over with no crime or mental
health problem a permit to carry a concealed weapon. And my question
is, since this meant that this weapon could be legally used to stop a
crime, which all good citizens are supposed to resist and report, how
can the President oppose malitia groups who stopped the crime of
illegal immigration which goes on by the millions, including those who
bring in drugs?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm really not sure I see the connection, Lester --
obeying the law, and the law in Texas was obeyed, and the President
urges people in the domestic -- the federal level to obey --
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 1:33 P.M. EST