20 questions for the President’s press conference
21 July
President Obama is scheduled to hold a press conference tomorrow (Wednesday) evening at 8 PM EDT.
I hope the questions are better than the one asked by Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times at the President’s 100-day press conference on April 30th:
During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?
In case any members of the White House press corps are looking for more rigorous questions focused on economic policy, I offer the following for your consideration.
Economy
- The U.S. economy has lost 2.64 million jobs since you took office. The unemployment rate is 9.5% and rising. The good scenario is one in which the unemployment rate begins to decline early next year. The Vice President said your Administration misread the economy. You said you had incomplete information when proposing the stimulus. Yet you have said you would not change anything about the stimulus if you could. If the facts have changed, why doesn’t it make sense to change your policy?
- Last month’s jobs report was the first since you took office that was worse than the prior month. Do you think the economy is getting stronger or weaker right now? If the next jobs report gets still worse, will you re-evaluate the need for a change in fiscal policy?
- Do you maintain your promise not to allow taxes to be raised on people earning less than $250,000 per year? Will you insist that health care legislation conform with this commitment?
- Chrysler and GM have exited bankruptcy. Are U.S. taxpayers done subsidizing these firms? What is your exit strategy from taxpayers owning much of GM and Chrysler?
- You proposed spending money from the TARP to prevent foreclosures, help small businesses, and to buy toxic assets from banks. In June CBO said they had found no evidence that any money has been spent for any of these programs. How many foreclosures have been prevented, how many small businesses have received loans from, and how many toxic assets have been purchased?
Health care
- You have insisted that health care reform “bend the cost curve down.” CBO Director Elmendorf says the bills being debated would instead raise the health care cost curve and would increase long-term budget deficits. Will you continue to insist that health care reform not increase the deficit?
- Your Administration has said that health care reform is the key to addressing our long-term budget problem. Yet you have adopted a lower standard, that health care reform legislation simply does not make our deficit problems worse. If health care reform leaves the unsustainable budget situation unchanged, and since CBO says your budget would result in nine trillion dollars of new debt over the next decade, then how else do you propose to deal with the projected explosion of government debt over the long run?
- You have said transparency is a top priority. Yet you are calling on Congress to pass a trillion-plus dollar spending bill before CBO has had time to estimate its full effects. In addition, your Administration is delaying release of the new economic projections and deficit estimates until after Congress votes on this massive new spending bill. Will you commit now that you will not ask Members of Congress to vote on this massive new spending commitment until your Administration has met its legal obligation to provide an updated economic forecast and deficit projection, and until CBO has provided Congress with transparent and complete analysis of the bill?
- On June 15th you said, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” Yet CBO says these bills would cause a few million Americans who now have employer-provided health insurance to lose it, as their employers would try to push costs and people onto taxpayer-subsidized programs. Last Thursday in New Jersey you seemed to redefine your promise when you said, “When I say, ‘If you have your plan and you like it, … what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.” And at your televised forum, you said, “If you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don’t want you to have to change.” Do you believe your first promise was too strong?
- In a February 2008 debate with then-Senator Clinton you opposed an individual mandate to buy health insurance. In that debate you said, “In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were. They don’t have health insurance and they’re paying a fine. In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty.” Now you are supporting a bill that would force people to buy health insurance, and that CBO says would still result in eight million people not having health insurance and paying higher taxes. How do you explain to those eight million uninsured people why you now support the mandate and “very harsh penalty” they would have to face, and which you opposed during the campaign?
- Experts across the policy and political spectrum say that repealing or limiting the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance is a good way to bend the health cost curve down. Some powerful unions oppose this change. Your position has so far been ambiguous. Do you think this change would be good policy? Are you willing to support it if it attracts Republican votes?
- Your party controls the White House, has a 38+ seat margin in the House, and has the 60 Senate seats needed to overcome any filibuster. How can Republicans be holding up health care reform?
- Most members of Congress who oppose these health care bills argue they have a better way of reforming health care, such as the Ryan-Coburn bill. Why is it fair to accuse them of defending the status quo? Can you name a Member of Congress who has explicitly argued for the status quo, rather than just arguing against your preferred alternative?
- You campaigned against Washington special interests and have accused them of attempting to block health care reform. Yet your Administration has negotiated and supported deals made behind closed doors with some of these same interests, and you have announced those deals here at the White House flanked by Washington lobbyists representing HMO’s, drug companies, hospitals, doctors, unions, and nurses. How is this consistent?
Energy & Climate change
- The Indian government told Secretary Clinton that India will not agree to limit its carbon emissions. The Chinese have sent the same signal. Are you willing to sign a new climate agreement that does not contain binding commitments by China or India to reduce or slow the growth of their emissions?
- Does it make sense for the U.S. to impose higher energy costs on American workers and manufacturers if the two largest developing economies are unwilling to slow their emissions growth? Won’t that just disadvantage American workers with little reduction in future global temperatures?
- If the Senate cannot pass a cap-and-trade bill this fall, will you ask Congress to send you a smaller clean energy technology bill before you go to the global climate change discussions in Copenhagen this December?
- Do you support the expansion of nuclear power in the U.S.? If so, what are you doing to encourage it? And where are you going to store the nuclear waste, given the strong opposition of Senate Majority Leader Reid to storing it in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain?
Trade
- The top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Finance Committee have called for you to submit to Congress for their approval the signed Free Trade Agreements with U.S. allies Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Why have you not submitted them to Congress? When will you do so?
- At the G20 and G8 Summits you joined other leaders in renouncing protectionism and committed to concluding the Doha Round of global trade talks. What steps are you taking to roll back protectionist measures the U.S. has taken, such as Buy America, and what concrete steps are you taking to advance the Doha Round?
The President and Congress are considering changes in economic policy that would have massive effects if adopted. I hope the White House press corps asks rigorous questions that can better inform the economic policy debate.
(photo credit: whitehouse.gov)
Related Posts
(best matches are listed first)- The President’s press conference: climate change
- What can President Obama learn from President Bush’s bipartisan successes?
- Six month economic policy status update
- The President’s press conference: health
- The Administration’s flawed health care argument threatens their fiscal policy strategy
- Auto loans, part 5: The press forgot to ask about the cost to the taxpayer
- Many mixed signals
- A reporter’s budget mistake at the press conference
“Do you maintain your promise not to allow taxes to be raised on people earning less than $250,000 per year? Will you insist that health care legislation conform with this commitment?”
While this is a good question, it makes me uneasy. It seems to assume that the legislation can be fixed. I don’t think it can. Even if someone works the magic needed to pass a healthcare plan without raising taxes on those earning less than $250K…it is still a bad plan. We don’t need a national health plan. We need measures passed that would take the federal government out of healthcare, putting the responsiblity back on the consumer.
It’s ok to disagree, but personal attacks and name calling…hmmm, is there any other tactic to the republican party? Oh, how quickly we forget how we got to this place in the economy. As a person who is employed, and I have no health insurance I would like the opportunity to get covered. I have already sold my son’s soul to China thanks to ‘relaxed’ trade and bailling out the Big Guys…I think it’s ok to at least ask that I am healthy while I do it!
Looks like we have the President’s answer to #9:
“If you already have health insurance: reform will provide you with more security and stability. It will limit your own out of pocket costs and prevent your insurance company from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. You’ll also have affordable insurance options if you lose or change your job. And it will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money. ”
From the email I just recevied from the President inviting me to watch the press conference. Sounds like there’s no guarantee I will get to keep what I have.
Below are the top five questions Sen. DeMint would like the president to address:
1. If the major provisions of the health care bills will not kick in until 2013, four years from now, why the rush to pass a thousand-page bill before the August recess, a bill you admit that you haven’t fully read yourself?
2. You have said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But, independent analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts both claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion in the first ten years. What independent analysis will you provide that supports your claims and refutes CBO’s?
3. You have repeatedly said that your health care bill allows any American who likes their current employer-based plan to keep it. But the most comprehensive independent analysis available, by the Lewin Group, contradicts your claim and found your bill will force over 80 million Americans to lose their current coverage. Will you provide independent analysis to refute this study?
4. Your own record in the Senate reveals you spent years voting against nearly every reform to make health care more affordable and accessible, but this week you said that opponents of your plan are “content to perpetuate the status quo, [and] are, in fact, fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests.” Which specific elected officials will you cite that have proposed to keep the status quo, and is that how you characterize the opposition of the 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House and the moderate Democrats in the Senate?
5. Yes or no question: Will you guarantee pro-life Americans that, under your plan, they will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions?
“forced to subsidize elective abortions? ”
Oh, please tell me they haven’t put non-elective abortions in there next to the “counseling seniors to kill themselves.”
I can see based on a lot of the comments that name calling is the response to thoughtful comments here.
I do run a business. Health care costs are a major issue for me and my employees. I paid a heck of a lot less for solid care in Japan (1999-2007). These are the facts as I see them as a business owner. I do not subscribe to party politics, but I find it interesting the perspective of a business owner is so ridiculed by republicans who claim to be our defenders. Instead of name calling or insults, why not ask your selves why we have allowed our businesses across the country to be saddled with this burden? Are you refuting the rapid rise of costs? Are you projecting their stabilization? How do you expect it to be fixed?
Kirsten – Giving up freedom? My whole point is I do not have a choice. If there were choices, I believe cost would go down. I don’t subscribe to “only gov” or “no gov” typical politician BS. Public option or none. I do not care. I feel no more freedom getting bent over by insurance companies with no choice than by the govn’t. Only politicians and activitists care about that. Me, $1300 and rising at a high percentage every year (usually with no notice) is a big bill for a family. If I can get quality care from the gov for less fine. From other insurance companies for less fine. I need quality care with cost controlled. If you guys are successful at organizing a non-govn’t option that works to do that, I’d be just fine with that. As a business owner, it is only the results that matter, not the method.
SOLVE THE ISSUE
With respect to nuclear power it is the liberals’ banning of nuclear materials reprocessing that is causing the faux problem of storage of nuclear ‘waste’. The liberals knew that if they could ban reprocessing (when France reprocesses materials from its numerous nuclear plants and has close to zero ‘waste’) then they could use their commie environmentalist proxies to tie nuclear programs up for years and use fear and lies for their dirty work. Get rid of the ban and nuclear power will be a powerful draw for energy production. But of course democraps are not interested in energy production, they want the USA to become an impotent power and almost all their policies are dedicated to that objective.
@ Kirsten If you are talking about end of life care I agree with you. It is tough, but we can’t spend infinite money delaying the inevitable. That is an issue I doubt any politician has the guts to take on, but govn’t public or whatever we just can’t do it or our whole country will be bankrupt along with medicaid
i’d go with:
given that the science behind global warming is shaky at best, the two largest developing industrial nations just laughed at you, and that cap and trade has already failed in europe, why are you still pushing a futile plan that will cripple workers?
i could give a rats ass if he was born in america or not. i hate winning on technicalities.
or:
if your plans for health care and stimulus go through, will you rename the US “New Western Europe”?
Actually, an even better link outlining options for healthcare
is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Instead of watching Obama’s Idiocy tonight, spend the time watching
this documentary, and you’ll be more informed about reasonable
paths toward healthcare reform than 99% of the American people and
95% of the Congress.
The bottom line is this:
1. Put everyone in a catastrophic care pool with a yearly deductible of
$5K, 10K, or something that would prevent individuals from going
bankrupt due to extreme conditions. The Fed would be the best to
administer this and probably fund it through limiting the tax exclusion
for employer-funded healthcare.
2. Get the AMA, insurance companies, and the HHS Secretary in a room,
lock the doors, and force them to standardize procedure codes, forms, etc.,
to eliminate the waste of bureaucracy. Use Fed reimbursement funds to get
states to agree, just like highway funds (e.g., speed limit/drinking age). Anyone who
can come up with a better system can, but they will have to pay a 10% fine
on their operations — i.e., they’ll really have to find something that makes
a difference in reducing cost. If they can do it, then their business will grow.
Fair Isaac did it with FICO scores, why can’t the same be done for administrative
costs?
3. Develop a scheme for low-cost clinics to handle chronic and mundane illness.
There are many examples of ones around. Some of the traits should be: 1. everyone
pays something adjusted to income (if folks can buy booze, cigs, and cell phones,
they can pay at least $5-10 bucks a visit), 2. an option for aspiring students of modest
means to pay off medical/nursing school loans via work in these clinics — make it
a new Peace Corps-like initiative, 3. anyone can visit, but records will be electronic
(hello, folks have no problem using credit cards and Facebook, so no worries about
well-guarded privacy).
4. Phase out payments for non-necessary medical items (Viagra, knee replacements for
overweight 80-year-olds). Basically, tell everyone under 50 that these will no be covered,
and give them charts estimating the likelihood they will need these procedures, so they
better start saving.
5. Tort reform to limit damages other than gross negligence (let the AMA and some politicos
decide what that means, but once decided it’s done).
These measures should be politcally palatable, and at least eliminate some of
the bigger complaints about the current system. However, tremendous issues
such as massive care in the last six months of life, reducing obesity, etc., still
remain, and cannot be legislated easily (or at all) because they involve personal
and moral beliefs. That’s where Presidents (yes, multiple because it will be a
ongoing need) should be providing leadership. It doesn’t have to be tied to religion,
but it does need a moral base of what can be done vs. what should be done.
re; kirstin@No Hennessey Koolaid
My 54 year-old wife was laid of from her job of eleven years with little fanfare just before Christmas 2008. We replaced her healthcare plan with a HSA (full coverage) that is costing us $250.00/mo. HSAs are the answer to this entire conundrum because it eliminates the burden of the insurance company having to pay for your band-aids and cough syrup while incentivizing the insured to pay for the incidentals. While employed, my wife watched as her co-workers abused their insurance policies by running to the doctor for every little ache and pain and then bitch about the co-pay and rise in their premiums. If you can work, you can afford health insurance today – if not you have Medicare and Medicaid.
If you are a business owner, you can easily provide your employees HSAs for a reasonable cost but you have to explain to them that it’s kinda like your car insurance – you would never think to require your car insurance company to pay for an oil change but this kind of abuse of the system by hypochondiacs is exactly what is killing the system (well, that and illegal immigrants who pay nothing and will continue to pay nothing under Obamacare).
By the way, if it weren’t for Govt medling in the health-care system to begin with, the cost of health care would be a fraction of the cost it is today. Both the democrats and republicans are to blame. The health care lobby has a well beaten path to their Capitol Hill offices and their spouses and children sit on the boards of hospitals, insurance and pharmaceutical companies (Hello Michelle Obama). I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
FYI, our joint income is now like 50K and we can afford coverage – I figure if we can do it anybody can.
You have no guarantee NOW that you keep what you have. Companies change and reduce coverage all the time. I thought that conservatives were all about self reliance and individualism. Why do you need a guarantee???
A friend of mine (age 48) just spent 3 weeks in ICU with a total body infection. He survived, thank God, but is still recuperating. He said that his hospital bill was $550,000 and additional charges from service providers pushed the total “cost” above one million. How does your health savings account deal with that kind of situation? Without insurance, my friend would be a bankrupt without a home. This happens more times than we imagine. Its totally INSANE that we disagree that we have this depth of problem in our system.
@redkwamya –
I am not looking for a guarantee. But the President made one. Now he is backing away from it. It appears that such guarantees are of no value in evaluating the effects of legislation. In fact, it would probably be more often correct to assume the exact opposite of promises made by those with a poor grasp of economics.
Here is another question for the President. “Do you know of data showing high deficits are unsustainable or have caused recessions, depressions, inflations, tax increases, reduced availability of lending funds and/or any other negative economic effects?”
In case the President can’t answer, and you or your readers have answers, please respond to rmmadvertising@yahoo.com
Thank you for your assistance.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
921 Pontiac, Wilmette, IL 60091
847-256-6141
http://www.rodgermitchell.com