Weekly Address: Working Together to Extend the Middle Class Tax Cuts

Hi, everybody. 

Four years after the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, our economy is growing again and creating jobs.  But we have much more to do. Our task now is to build on that progress.  Because this nation only succeeds when we’ve got a growing, thriving middle class. 

That’s what drives me. That’s what I campaigned on for the past year.  That’s what will guide me in our work over the next four years. And I’m willing to work with anyone of any party to move this country forward.

Because soon, we face a very clear deadline that requires us to make some big decisions on jobs and taxes; on investments and deficits. Both parties voted to set this deadline. And I believe both parties can work together to make these decisions in a balanced and responsible way.

When it comes to taxes, for example, there are two pathways available. 

One says, if Congress fails to act by the end of the year, then everybody’s taxes automatically go up – including the 98% of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year. Our economy can’t afford that right now. You can’t afford that right now.  And nobody wants that to happen.

The other path is for Congress to pass a law right away to prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of anyone’s income. That means all Americans – including the wealthiest Americans – get a tax cut.  And 98 percent of Americans, and 97 percent of all small business owners, won’t see their income taxes go up a single dime. 

The Senate has already passed a bill like this. Democrats in the House are ready to pass one, too. All we need is for Republicans in the House to come on board. 

We shouldn’t hold the middle class hostage while Congress debates tax cuts for the wealthy. Let’s begin our work by actually doing what we all agree on. Let’s keep taxes low for the middle class. And let’s get it done soon – so we can give families and businesses some good news going into the holiday season.

I know these challenges won’t be easy to solve. But we can do it if we work together. 

That’s why on Friday I sat down with Congressional leaders to discuss how we can reduce our deficit in a way that strengthens our economy and protects our middle class. It was a constructive meeting. And everyone agreed that while we may have our differences, we need to come together, find solutions and take action as soon as possible. 

Because if anything, that’s the message I heard loud and clear in the election. 

Work as hard as you can to make our lives better. And do it together. 

Don’t worry about the politics.  Just get the job done. 

Everywhere I went in that campaign – from farms in Iowa to the Vegas strip; from Colorado’s Rockies to the Florida coast – I was inspired by the grit and resilience of the American people, by your hard work and sense of decency.  And it makes me want to work even harder for you. I saw it again this week in New York, where our fellow citizens are going through a really tough time, but are helping each other through it. And we’re going to be there to help them rebuild.

Every single day, the good people of this country work as hard as you can to meet your responsibilities. Those of us you sent to Washington are going to do the same. 

Thanks and have a great weekend.

###

Remarks by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon -- As Prepared for Delivery

“President Obama’s Asia Policy & Upcoming Trip to Asia”

Good morning everyone, and thank you Dr. Hamre—for your introduction, your friendship and your contributions to our nation, both in government and here at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  It is wonderful to be at CSIS.  For half a century, your research, scholarship and analysis has in many ways been the intellectual capital that has informed so many of our national security policies, including during the Obama Administration.

We’ve shared ideas and we’ve shared staff.  That includes the topic that brings me here today—our strategy with regard to the Asia Pacific.  And it includes individuals who have served in both government and CSIS—including Matt Goodman.  As a member of our National Security Staff, Matt was essential to much of the President’s international economic diplomacy.  To Matt, and all of you—especially the ambassadors I see from many ASEAN nations—thank you for being here. 

In less than 48 hours, President Obama will embark on his first foreign trip since his reelection.  He’ll travel to Thailand, make an historic visit to Burma, and conclude his trip in Cambodia for the East Asia Summit.  His decision to travel to Asia so soon after his reelection speaks to the importance that he places on the region and its centrality to so many of our national security interests and priorities.

What I’d like to do today is step back and put this trip in context: how it fits into the President’s broader approach to national security; how the President’s rebalancing toward the Asia Pacific advances our national security interests; and how this trip furthers each pillar or our multidimensional strategy toward the region.  And given the decades of experience in the region represented in this room, I look forward to taking your questions and engaging in a discussion. 

I’d start by noting that in every Administration, one of the great challenges in the implementation and execution of foreign policy is to prevent daily challenges and cascading crises from crowding out the development of broader strategies in pursuit of long-term interests.  That’s why, from the outset of the Administration—in the very first days—the President directed those of us on his national security team to engage in a strategic assessment, a truly global examination of our presence and priorities.

We asked what America’s footprint and face to the world was and what it ought to be.  We set out to identify the key national security interests that we needed to pursue.  We looked around the world and asked, where are we over-weighted?  Where are we underweighted?

That assessment resulted in a set of key determinations.   It was clear that there was an imbalance in the projection and focus of American power.  It was the President’s judgment that we were over-weighted in some areas and regions, such as our military commitments in the Middle East.  At the same time, we were underweighted in other regions, such as the Asia Pacific.

Guided by these determinations, we set out to rebalance our posture in the world.  And so you saw, first and foremost, a preeminent focus on recovering from the Great Recession and restoring American economic strength, which is the bedrock of American power.  We set out to revitalize key alliances—our deep network of treaty allies from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which are a uniquely American asset.  We decided to engage more deeply in international and regional organizations, which advance our interests.

The President ended the war in Iraq, re-focused and reenergized our counterterrorism efforts, and has since charted a path for transition in Afghanistan.  In doing so, the President dramatically improved America’s strategic freedom of maneuver so that our posture aligns with our interests in a changing world and a dynamic region. 

But renewing our leadership also meant rebalancing our foreign policy to ensure that our focus and our resources matched our priorities. And it meant a laser-like focus on enduring national interests whose significance cannot be measured by banner headlines and cable news sound bites—interests that will dominate the 21st Century.   

The President therefore made a critical decision as part of this global look—again, at the very outset of the administration—to increase our focus on the Asia Pacific, in terms of resources; diplomatic activity and engagement, both with nations and with regional institutions; and in terms of policy.  As many of you know, Secretary Clinton became the first Secretary of State since Dean Rusk, in 1961, to go to Asia on an inaugural trip.  The first foreign leader the President met with in the Oval Office was from Asia—the prime minister of Japan.  These were early and powerful signals from the President that this region would be a priority.

Our approach is grounded in a simple proposition: the United States is a Pacific power whose interests are inextricably linked with Asia’s economic, security and political order.  America’s success in the 21st century is tied to the success of Asia.

Economically, it’s impossible to overstate Asia’s importance to the global economy and to our own. Asia accounts for about a quarter of global GDP at market exchange rates, and is expected to grow to nearly 30 percent by 2015.  The region is estimated to account for nearly 50 percent of all global growth outside the United States through 2017.  The region accounts for 25 percent of U.S. goods and services exports, and 30 percent of our goods and services imports.  An estimated 2.4 million Americans now have jobs supported by exports to Asia, and this number is growing.  In short, robust U.S. trade and investment in Asia will continue to be critical for our economic recovery and our long-term economic strength.

In terms of security, it is widely recognized that regional security—which is the foundation for the region’s phenomenal economic growth in recent decades—requires a stabilizing American presence.  The U.S. has security obligations to our allies and partners in the region, which is home to several of the world’s biggest militaries and flashpoints such as the Korean Peninsula.  Events like the Fukushima nuclear incident and the Indonesia tsunami made clear that the U.S. remains uniquely capable of delivering non-traditional security like humanitarian assistance and disaster relief as well.

Our renewed commitment to the Asia Pacific also flows from the demand for U.S. leadership from nations across the region.  In addition to traditional security challenges and new demands for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, there is a demand for American economic engagement and trade integration as well a strengthening of regional institutions, codes of conduct and the rule of law to resolve disputes, and the protection of individual human rights.
We also have a mutual interest in deepening and enhancing engagement on sustainable energy.

Guided by these interests, the President has been clear about the future we seek.  He laid out our vision in Canberra last year.  In short, our overarching objective is to sustain a stable security environment and a regional order rooted in economic openness, peaceful resolution of disputes, democratic governance, and political freedom.

This objective stems from our long-term vision of Asia. We aspire to see a region where the rise of new powers occurs peacefully; where the freedom to access the sea, air, space, and cyberspace empowers vibrant commerce; where multinational forums help promote shared interests; and where citizens increasingly have the ability to influence their governments and universal human rights are upheld. This is the future we seek, in partnership with allies and friends.

How are we pursuing these objectives?  What are the elements of this approach? We are pursuing a sustained and multi-dimensional strategy.  I know that the security elements of our strategy often attract the most attention.  But I want to be very clear about what this rebalancing effort is and what it is not.  It is not simply about a shifting of military resources, although we are indeed ensuring that our resources follow our priorities.  Nor is our rebalancing effort an attempt to contain any other nation. 

The rebalancing of our posture toward the Asia Pacific harnesses every element of our national power.  It is a long-term effort to better position ourselves for the opportunities and challenges we’re most likely to face in this century. And our effort continues along several distinct lines of effort.
First, we have strengthened and modernized our security alliances across the region. 

• We have succeeded in upgrading and modernizing our alliance with Japan, including improved interoperability and coordination on roles, missions, and capabilities. 
• With the Republic of Korea, we have implemented a joint vision for enhanced security cooperation, we’re implementing the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, and we’ve supported the emergence of a “Global Korea” that contributes to global security, including as a partner in Afghanistan and in anti-piracy efforts off the coast of Somalia. 
• During his visit to Australia last year, President Obama and Prime Minister Gillard announced the landmark rotational deployment of U.S. Marines and a range of initiatives to address regional challenges through joint training and exercises.  Secretaries Clinton and Panetta were in Australia just yesterday to work on alliance and regional issues.
• President Obama hosted Philippine President Aquino in Washington this June, and we are working closely together on a range of counter-terrorism and maritime security issues. 

The bottom line is that our alliances in the Asia Pacific are as strong as, or stronger than, they have ever been.  This is reflected in the breadth and depth of the partnerships I just described.  It’s reflected in the strength of President Obama’s personal relationships with his counterparts across the region and the high standing in which the United States is now held.  And it’s reflected, as I said, in the demand in the region for sustained American leadership. 

In addition to strengthening our alliances, we continue to pursue a second line of effort—forging deeper partnerships with emerging powers. We set about asking ourselves what are the alliances and partnerships we will need in the years to come to achieve our national goals?

As such, we’ve deepened our ties with India.  Indian Prime Minister Singh’s visit to Washington in 2009 was the first official state visit of the Obama Administration.  Building on President Obama’s trip to India in 2010, and our U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, we see India a strategic partner for the 21st century.  As such, we welcome India’s efforts to “Look East” and play a larger role in Asia, including the Indian Ocean.  At the same time, we have worked hard to help realize Indonesia’s potential as a global partner—an effort that was advanced by the President’s visit to Jakarta in 2010 and the formal launch of our Comprehensive Partnership. 
 
As a third line of effort, we’ve engaged more deeply in institutions—global and regional—in order to promote regional cooperation, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and adherence to human rights, and international law.  At a global level, for example, the President strongly supported making the G-20 the premier forum for international economic cooperation.  This, of course, brought more Asia-Pacific nations to the table global economic decision-making, including China, South Korea, India, Australia and Indonesia.

Within the region, we’ve engaged more deeply in ASEAN, and President Obama became the first U.S. President to participate in the East Asia Summit, as he did last year in Bali, and he will participate again in Cambodia next week.  This reflects an often overlooked—but critically important—aspect of our strategy:  we’re not only rebalancing toward the Asia Pacific, we’re rebalancing within the Asia Pacific, with a renewed focus on Southeast Asia and on ASEAN.  As Ernie Bower of CSIS recently observed—and I believe Ernie is traveling today—President “Obama is carving out new patterns for U.S. engagement in Asia.”  That includes an Asia policy with “ASEAN at its core.” 

Why?  The ten ASEAN countries, stretching across the Indian and Pacific Oceans, have a population of over 600 million and combined are the third largest economy in Asia.  ASEAN sits astride some of the world’s most important trading routes and sea lines of communication, including the Straits of Malacca.  Since its founding, ASEAN has grown from a modest forum for regional cooperation to an institutionalized organization responsible for a broad range of practical cooperation, and the driver for broader regional economic, political, and security integration.  At its best, we have witnessed ASEAN play an essential role crafting regional responses to shared challenges and building an effective rules-based order.
The United States strongly supports these efforts, because we believe that an integrated, effective ASEAN is inherently in our interests and in the region’s interests.  That is why last year President Obama appointed David Carden as America’s first resident Ambassador to ASEAN, and why next week’s meetings in Cambodia will mark President Obama’s fourth meeting with ASEAN leaders.  Our goal is to support and strengthen ASEAN as an institution so that it can more effectively promote regional stability, political and economic progress, and human rights and the rule of law.

The President’s meeting with ASEAN leaders reflects our commitment to deepening relations with these countries, including in the areas of trade and investment and energy. His visit also reflects the President’s support for making the East Asia Summit an effective leaders-level forum for dealing with strategic and security issues.  After all, APEC provides an opportunity for leaders from across the region to work on economic and trade matters.  And ministers meet at the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Shangri-La dialogue.  But there is frankly no venue other than the EAS for the region’s leaders to consult on political issues -- and one is needed.  The East Asia Summit can be that forum.

The fourth element of our strategy involves pursuing a stable and constructive relationship with China.  There are few diplomatic and economic challenges that can be addressed in the world without having China at the table: from North Korea, to Iran, to Syria, to global economic rebalancing and climate change.

The U.S.-China relationship, of course, has elements of both cooperation and competition. Our consistent policy has been to seek to balance these two elements in a way that increases both the quantity and quality of our cooperation with China as well as our ability to compete.  At the same time, we seek to manage disagreements and competition in a healthy – and not disruptive – manner.  Doing so also means encouraging Beijing to define its national interests more in terms of common global concerns and to take responsibility for helping the international community address global problems. 

Through our high-level consultations with Beijing, such as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, our approach toward China has yielded important results that advance U.S. national security interests. We have elicited significant and sustained Chinese cooperation regarding Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.  On the economic front, we coordinated with Beijing to jump start the global economic recovery in 2009 and to build the G20 into the leading global economic institution.  U.S.-China military relations have been gaining momentum, including through a very successful visit by Secretary Panetta in September. 

In addition, we’ve managed challenges in a way that has remained true to our interests and values. This includes speaking candidly about the importance of upholding universal human rights, while maintaining stability in the broader relationship.

We’ve been clear that as China takes a seat at a growing number of international tables, it needs to assume responsibilities commensurate with its growing global impact and its national capabilities.  One of our policy goals is therefore to work with China to strengthen institutions – from the G-20 to APEC to EAS – and enhance the ability of these institutions to address regional and global challenges.  Getting the U.S.-China relationship right is a long-term effort, and we will continue to make this a priority in President Obama’s second term and as China’s new leadership takes the reins.  

The final element of our strategy involves advancing the region’s economic architecture.  As the President has stated, we seek economies that are open and transparent and trade that is free and fair.  And we seek an open international economic system, where rules are clear and every nation plays by them.  Toward this end, and building on APEC’s leadership on lowering tariffs on environmental goods, we continue to work with our APEC partners toward a seamless regional economy.

Moreover, we’re determined to move ahead with the high-standard Trans-Pacific Partnership.  The TPP is widely viewed as the most significant negotiation currently underway in the international trading system.  Beyond its original seven members, the TPP has now expanded to include Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico and Canada.  Japan and other nations have expressed interest in joining as well. 

The TPP will deepen regional economic integration not only by lowering tariffs, but by addressing 21st century trade and investment issues.  This includes good regulatory practices, ensuring that state-owned enterprises compete on a level playing field, market-based trade in digital goods and innovation, and addressing challenges faced by small businesses.  And I know that the President looks forward to working with his fellow TPP leaders to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion.

All of this is the backdrop for the President’s upcoming trip.  Again, I think it’s telling that Asia will be the first trip that President Obama makes since his re-election.  It sends a powerful signal that—as it was in his first term—the Asia Pacific will continue to be a strategic priority in President Obama’s second term.  In a sense, this trip is a microcosm of the key elements of the President’s approach to the region.

The President begins by visiting Thailand, our oldest friend in the region, with our diplomatic ties dating back to 1833.  Building on Secretary Panetta’s visit there today, the President will meet with Prime Minister Yingluck to reinforce our overall bilateral relationship, support the continued peaceful restoration of democratic order after a turbulent period, and deepen our cooperation on security, counter-proliferation, development and the environment.

Next, the President will make an historic visit Burma – a country whose leaders, after decades of repression, have chosen to embark on the path of reform and democratization.  The President’s visit at this time reflects his conviction that engagement is the best way to encourage Burmese authorities to further action.  In becoming the first U.S. President to visit Burma, the President is endorsing and supporting the reforms underway, giving momentum to reformers and promoting continued progress. 

When the President hosted Aung San Suu Kyi in the Oval Office, he told her that the goal of the United States is to engage the government in a way that encourages collaboration with domestic stakeholders and the international community and incentivizes continued reform.  As such, the President’s meetings in Burma with government, opposition—including Aung San Suu Kyi—and civil society, will demonstrate that the U.S. can be counted on as a partner when a government makes the right choices.

The President’s meetings—as well as his speech to the people of Burma—will also be an opportunity to reaffirm the progress that still must be made.  This includes the unconditional release of remaining political prisoners, an end to ethnic conflicts, steps to establish the rule of law, ending the use of child soldiers, and expanded access for humanitarian assistance providers and human rights observers in conflict areas. 

The President will also lay out specific measures to support democratic transformation, assist Burma’s development, and for helping Burma tackle some of the difficult challenges it faces.  For example, we’re looking at a framework for U.S. assistance that will focus our programs on priority areas such as building democratic institutions, helping establish the rule of law, promoting human rights, and ensuring all stakeholders are included in the reform process. We are also working with the Burmese government on building national action plans on countering corruption and fostering national reconciliation among ethnic minorities.

One of the key messages the President will bring is that as remarkable as the decision by Burma’s leaders to reform may be, success will depend on the engagement and empowerment of the people of Burma.  The United States has long been a supporter of Burma’s civil society and grassroots activists, and we want to make sure that they continue to be empowered, and are taking part in the country’s transformation.

Another key challenge is the plight of the ethnic Rohingya minority.  We are deeply concerned about the situation in Rakhine State, where the Rohingya have endured discrimination and violence that has spiked in recent months.  We’ve condemned the violence and called for calm and a meaningful dialogue to address the legitimate needs that are at the core of the problem.

The government has taken some constructive steps, including playing a helpful role in restoring calm, allowing humanitarian access to the many of the affected areas, and making a clear pledge to bring instigators of the violence to justice.   We expect the Government of Burma to keep its commitments in each of these areas.  Our Ambassador, Derek Mitchell, has been working very closely with the government on how to proceed and ensure the safety and welfare of the people of Rakhine State, and I expect the President to address this as well.

Following Burma, at the East Asia Summit in Cambodia, the President will address a broad set of issues of concern to the Asia-Pacific Region -- from maritime security and law enforcement to disaster response and humanitarian assistance, development, infectious disease, education, food security, and energy. 

Invariably, the leaders will also discuss problems caused by competing sovereignty claims in the South China Sea.  The President, as he did last year in Bali, will reinforce key principles: the need for peaceful resolution of disputes, unimpeded lawful commerce, freedom of navigation, and a rejection of the threat, or use of, force or economic coercion to settle disagreements.  In particular, we support ASEAN’s efforts to develop a robust Code of Conduct that will provide a rules-based framework for resolving and preventing disputes.  While we have been clear that the United States does not take sides on disputed sovereignty claims – in either the South China Sea or the East China Sea - the President’s message will reinforce that we do have a very strong interest in seeing that these disputes are managed in a manner that supports regional peace, stability, and prosperity.

In this sense, the President’s trip marks the beginning of the next phase in our rebalancing effort, both toward the Asia Pacific and within the Asia Pacific.  And that’s where I want to conclude today.  I know there have been some observers—in the region and in the United States, perhaps some in this room—who have asked whether our efforts are sustainable over the long term.  I’m here today—and the President will reaffirm on his trip—to say that when the President says the United States will play a larger and long-term role in the region, he means it.

This starts at home, because as the President has observed, “at no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its military and political primacy.”  The President therefore remains focused on sustaining our economic recovery and working with Congress to make the difficult but necessary decisions to put our fiscal house in order. 

After a decade of war, for example, there will be some reductions in the U.S. defense budget.  But guided by our new defense strategy, our defense spending and programs will continue to support our key priorities—including our presence and missions in the Asia Pacific.  In Canberra last year the President pledged that reductions in U.S. defense spending will not come at the expense of the Asia Pacific.  He has kept that commitment, and he will continue to do so. 

In the coming months and years, we are going to continue to allocate our resources to maintain a strong, flexible and broadly distributed regional presence.  This includes weighting our naval posture towards the Asia Pacific region – adding both additional presence and capability.  In the coming years, we will continue to build up Guam as a strategic hub in the western Pacific; establish fully capable Marine Air-Ground Task Forces in Japan, Guam, Australia, and Hawaii; rotate up to four Littoral Combat Ships out of Singapore to improve our ability to counter a range of transnational threats in the region; and invest in the capabilities appropriate for deterring and defeating aggression and reassuring allies and partners. 

By 2020, we will position 60 percent of our naval fleet in the Pacific.  And throughout Southeast Asia and Oceania, we will continue to develop maritime security and law enforcement partnerships and a presence that supports unimpeded commerce and freedom of navigation. 

As I’ve outlined today, our rebalancing, however, is defined by far more than our defense posture.  It will continue to be defined by deeper economic and political engagement.  That includes standing up for the freedom and dignity of the people of the region.  That means continuing to support democratic transitions, as we have done in the Philippines and Indonesia and now are doing in Burma.  It means speaking candidly—in public and in private—about the need to uphold universal human rights. 

We’re under no illusions.  Our rebalancing toward the Asia Pacific—and within the region—is no short-term effort.  It is a long-term undertaking that will continue to demand and receive our focused attention and persistence.  And as the President will make clear once again over the coming days, the region will continue to be a foreign policy priority for the Obama Administration in the years to come. 

Thank you very much, and, with that, I’d be happy to take a few of your questions.

Remarks by the President in a News Conference

East Room

1:34 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Please have a seat.  I hear you have some questions for me.  (Laughter.)  But let me just make a few remarks at the top, and then I'll open it up.

First of all, I want to reiterate what I said on Friday.  Right now, our economy is still recovering from a very deep and damaging crisis, so our top priority has to be jobs and growth.  We’ve got to build on the progress that we’ve made, because this nation succeeds when we’ve got a growing, thriving middle class. 

And that’s the idea at the core of the plan that I talked about on the campaign trail over the last year:  Rewarding manufacturers and small businesses that create jobs here, not overseas; providing more Americans the chance to earn the skills that businesses are looking for right now; keeping this country at the forefront of research, technology, and clean energy; putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, and our schools; and reducing our deficit in a balanced and responsible way.

Now, on this last item, we face a very clear deadline that requires us to make some big decisions on jobs, taxes and deficits by the end of the year.  Both parties voted to set this deadline.  And I believe that both parties can work together to make these decisions in a balanced and responsible way.  

Yesterday, I had a chance to meet with labor and civic leaders for their input.  Today, I’m meeting with CEOs of some of America’s largest companies.  And I’ll meet with leaders of both parties of Congress before the week is out.  Because there’s only one way to solve these challenges, and that is to do it together.

As I’ve said before, I’m open to compromise and I’m open to new ideas.  And I’ve been encouraged over the past week to hear Republican after Republican agree on the need for more revenue from the wealthiest Americans as part of our arithmetic if we’re going to be serious about reducing the deficit.   

Because when it comes to taxes, there are two pathways available:  Option one, if Congress fails to act by the end of the year, everybody’s taxes will automatically go up -- including the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year and the 97 percent of small businesses who earn less than $250,000 a year.  That doesn’t make sense.  Our economy can’t afford that right now.  Certainly no middle-class family can afford that right now.  And nobody in either party says that they want it to happen.

The other option is to pass a law right now that would prevent any tax hike whatsoever on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income.  And by the way, that means every American, including the wealthiest Americans, get a tax cut.  It means that 98 percent of all Americans, and 97 percent of all small businesses won’t see their taxes go up a single dime.  The Senate has already passed a law like this.  Democrats in the House are ready to pass a law like this.  And I hope Republicans in the House come on board, too. 

We should not hold the middle class hostage while we debate tax cuts for the wealthy.  We should at least do what we agree on, and that's to keep middle-class taxes low.  And I’ll bring everyone in to sign it right away so we can give folks some certainty before the holiday season.

I won’t pretend that figuring out everything else will be easy, but I'm confident we can do it -- and I know we have to.  I know that that's what the American people want us to do.  That was the very clear message from the election last week.  And that was the message of a letter that I received over the weekend. 

It came from a man in Tennessee who began by writing that he didn’t vote for me -- which is okay.  (Laughter.)  But what he said was even though he didn’t give me his vote, he’s giving me his support to move this country forward.  And he said the same to his Republican representatives in Washington.  He said that he’ll back each of us, regardless of party, as long as we work together to make life better for all of us.  And he made it clear that if we don’t make enough progress, he’ll be back in touch. 

“My hope,” he wrote, “is that we can make progress in light of personal and party principles, special interest groups, and years of business as usual.  We’ve got to work together and put our differences aside.”

I couldn't say it better myself.  That’s precisely what I intend to do. 

And with that, let me open it up for your questions.  And I'm going to start off with Ben Feller of AP.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Can you assure the American people that there have been no breaches of national security or classified information in the scandal involving Generals Petraeus and Allen?  And do you think that you as Commander-in-Chief and the American people should have been told that the CIA chief was under investigation before the election?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I have no evidence at this point from what I've seen that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security. 

Obviously there’s an ongoing investigation.  I don't want to comment on the specifics of the investigation.  The FBI has its own protocols in terms of how they proceed, and I'm going to let Director Mueller and others examine those protocols and make some statements to the public generally.

I do want to emphasize what I’ve said before:  General Petraeus had an extraordinary career.  He served this country with great distinction in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and as head of the CIA.  By his own assessment, he did not meet the standards that he felt were necessary as the Director of CIA with respect to this personal matter that he is now dealing with, with his family and with his wife.  And it’s on that basis that he tendered his resignation, and it’s on that basis that I accepted it.

But I want to emphasize that from my perspective at least, he has provided this country an extraordinary service.  We are safer because of the work that Dave Petraeus has done.  And my main hope right now is, is that he and his family are able to move on and that this ends up being a single side note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career.

Q    What about voters?  Did they deserve to know?

THE PRESIDENT:  Again, I think you’re going to have to talk to the FBI in terms of what their general protocols are when it comes to what started off as a potential criminal investigation. One of the challenges here is, is that we’re not supposed to meddle in criminal investigations, and that’s been our practice. And I think that there are certain procedures that both the FBI follow, or DOJ follow, when they’re involved in these investigations.  That’s traditionally been how we view things, in part because people are innocent until proven guilty, and we want to make sure that we don’t pre-judge these kinds of situations.  And so my expectation is, is that they followed protocols that they already established.

Jessica Yellin.  Where’s Jessica?

Q    Mr. President, on the fiscal cliff, two years ago, sir, you said that you wouldn’t extend the Bush-era tax cuts, but at the end of the day, you did.  So, respectfully, sir, why should the American people and the Republicans believe that you won’t cave again this time?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, two years ago, the economy was in a different situation.  We were still very much in the early parts of recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  And ultimately, we came together not only to extend the Bush tax cuts, but also a wide range of policies that were going to be good for the economy at that point -- unemployment insurance extensions, payroll tax extension -- all of which made a difference, and is part of the reason why what we've seen now is 32 consecutive months of job growth and over 5.5 million jobs created and the unemployment rate coming down.

But what I said at the time is what I meant, which is this was a one-time proposition.  And what I have told leaders privately as well as publicly is that we cannot afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  What we can do is make sure that middle-class taxes don’t go up. 

And so the most important step we can take right now -- I think the foundation for a deal that helps the economy, creates jobs, gives consumers certainty, which means gives businesses confidence that they're going to have consumers during the holiday season -- is if we right away say 98 percent of Americans are not going to see their taxes go up; 97 percent of small businesses are not going to see their taxes go up. 

If we get that in place, we are actually removing half of the fiscal cliff.  Half of the danger to our economy is removed by that single step. 

And what we can then do is shape a process whereby we look at tax reform -- which I'm very eager to do.  I think we can simplify our tax system.  I think we can make it more efficient. We can eliminate loopholes and deductions that have a distorting effect on our economy.  I believe that we have to continue to take a serious look at how we reform our entitlements, because health care costs continue to be the biggest driver of our deficits.

So there is a package to be shaped, and I'm confident that parties -- folks of goodwill in both parties can make that happen.  But what I'm not going to do is to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent that we can't afford, and according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy.

Q    You've said that the wealthiest must pay more.  Would closing loopholes instead of raising rates for them satisfy you?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think that there are loopholes that can be closed, and we should look at how we can make the process of deductions, the filing process easier, simpler.  But when it comes to the top 2 percent, what I’m not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don’t need it, which would cost close to a trillion dollars. 

And it’s very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars -- if we’re serious about deficit reduction -- just by closing loopholes and deductions.  The math tends not to work.  And I think it’s important to establish a basic principle that was debated extensively during the course of this campaign.  I mean, this shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody.  If there was one thing that everybody understood was a big difference between myself and Mr. Romney, it was when it comes to how we reduce our deficit, I argued for a balanced, responsible approach, and part of that included making sure that the wealthiest Americans pay a little bit more. 

I think every voter out there understood that that was an important debate, and the majority of voters agreed with me.  By the way, more voters agreed with me on this issue than voted for me.  So we’ve got a clear majority of the American people who recognize if we’re going to be serious about deficit reduction, we’ve got to do it in a balanced way. 

The only question now is are we going to hold the middle class hostage in order to go ahead and let that happen?  Or can we all step back and say, here’s something we agree on -- we don’t want middle-class taxes to go up.  Let’s go ahead and lock that in.  That will be good for the economy.  It will be good for consumers.  It will be good for businesses.  It takes the edge off the fiscal cliff.  And let’s also then commit ourselves to the broader package of deficit reduction that includes entitlement changes and it includes potentially tax reform, as well as I’m willing to look at additional work that we can do on the discretionary spending side.

So I want a big deal.  I want a comprehensive deal.  I want to see if we can, at least for the foreseeable future, provide certainty to businesses and the American people so that we can focus on job growth, so that we’re also investing in the things that we need.  But right now what I want to make sure of is that taxes on middle-class families don’t go up.  And there’s a very easy way to do that.  We could get that done by next week.

Lori Montenegro, Telemundo.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  On immigration reform, the criticism in the past has been that you did not put forth legislation with specific ideas and send it up to the Hill.  This time around you have said again that this will be one of the top priorities for a second term.  Will you then send legislation to the Hill?  And exactly what do you envision is broad immigration reform?  Does that include a legalization program?  And also, what lessons, if any, did Democrats learn from this last election and the Latino vote?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think what was incredibly encouraging was to see a significant increase in Latino turnout. It is the fastest-growing group in the country.  And historically what you’ve seen is the Latino vote, vote at lower rates than the broader population, and that's beginning to change.  You're starting to see a sense of empowerment and civic participation that I think is going to be powerful and good for the country.

And it is why I’m very confident that we can get immigration reform done.  Before the election I had given a couple interviews where I predicted that the Latino vote was going to be strong, and that that would cause some reflection on the part of Republicans about their position on immigration reform.  I think we’re starting to see that already.  I think that's a positive sign.

This has not historically been a partisan issue -- we’ve had President Bush and John McCain and others who have supported comprehensive immigration reform in the past.  So we need to seize the moment.  And my expectation is, is that we get a bill introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my inauguration.  And in fact, some conversations I think are already beginning to take place among senators and congressmen and my staff about what would this look like.

And when I say comprehensive immigration reform, it is very similar to the outlines of previous efforts at comprehensive immigration reform.  I think it should include a continuation of the strong border security measures that we’ve taken because we have to secure our borders.  I think it should contain serious penalties for companies that are purposely hiring undocumented workers and taking advantage of them.  And I do think that there should be a pathway for legal status for those who are living in this country, are not engaged in criminal activity, are here simply to work.  It’s important for them to pay back-taxes.  It’s important for them to learn English.  It’s important for them to potentially pay a fine.  But to give them the avenue whereby they can resolve their legal status here in this country I think is very important.

Obviously, making sure that we put into law what the first step that we’ve taken administratively dealing with the DREAM Act kids is very important as well.  One thing that I’m very clear about is that young people who are brought here through no fault of their own, who have gone to school here, pledged allegiance to our flag, want to serve in our military, want to go to school and contribute to our society, that they shouldn’t be under the cloud of deportation, that we should give them every opportunity to earn their citizenship.

And so there are other components to it, obviously.  The business community continues to be concerned about getting enough high-skill workers, and I am a believer that if you’ve got a PhD in physics or computer science who wants to stay here and start a business here, we shouldn’t make it harder for him to stay here; we should try to encourage him to contribute to this society. 

I think that the agricultural sector obviously has very specific concerns about making sure that they’ve got a workforce that helps deliver food to our tables. 

So there are going to be a bunch of components to it, but I think whatever process we have needs to make sure our border security is strong, needs to deal with employers effectively, needs to provide a pathway for the undocumented here, needs to deal with the DREAM Act kids.  And I think that’s something that we can get done.

Chuck Todd.  Where’s Chuck?

Q    Mr. President, I just want to follow on both Ben’s question and Jessica’s question.  On having to do with Ben’s question --

THE PRESIDENT:  How about Lori’s question?  Do you want to follow up on that one, too?  (Laughter.)

Q    No, I feel like you answered that one completely. 

Are you withholding judgment on whether you should have known sooner that there was a potential -- that there was an investigation into whether your CIA Director -- potentially there was a national security breach with your CIA Director -- do you believe you should have known sooner?  Are you withholding judgment until the investigation is complete on that front? 

And then the follow-up to Jessica’s question -- tax rates.  Are you -- is there no deal at the end of the year if tax rates for the top 2 percent aren’t the Clinton tax rates, period?  No ifs, ands, or buts -- any room in negotiating on that specific aspect of the fiscal cliff?

THE PRESIDENT:  I am withholding judgment with respect to how the entire process surrounding General Petraeus came up.  We don’t have all the information yet, but I want to say that I have a lot of confidence generally in the FBI, and they’ve got a difficult job.  And so I’m going to wait and see to see if there’s any other --

Q    -- that you should have known?  Do you think in hindsight --

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I mean, Chuck, what I’ll say is, is that if -- it is also possible that had we been told, then you’d be sitting here asking a question about why were you interfering in a criminal investigation.  So I think it’s best right now for us to just see how this whole process unfolded.

With respect to the tax rates, I just want to emphasize I am open to new ideas.  If Republican counterparts or some Democrats have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isn’t getting hit, reduces our deficit, encourages growth, I’m not going to just slam the door in their face.  I want to hear ideas from everybody.

Q    -- red line.

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, I believe this is solvable.  I think that fair-minded people can come to an agreement that does not cause the economy to go back into recession, that protects middle-class families, that focuses on jobs and growth, and reduces our deficit.  I’m confident it can be done.

My budget, frankly, does it.  I understand that -- I don’t expect the Republicans simply to adopt my budget.  That’s not realistic.  So I recognize that we're going to have to compromise.  And as I said on Election Night, compromise is hard, and not everybody gets 100 percent of what they want and not everybody is going to be perfectly happy.

But what I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we're going to sort of, kind of, raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified.  And the reason I won't do that is because I don’t want to find ourselves in a position six months from now or a year from now where, lo and behold, the only way to close the deficit is to sock it to middle-class families, or to burden families that have disabled kids or have a parent in a nursing home, or suddenly we've got to cut more out of our basic research budget that is the key to growing the economy in the long term.

So that’s my concern.  I'm less concerned about red lines, per se.  What I'm concerned about is not finding ourselves in a situation where the wealthy aren't paying more or aren't paying as much as they should, middle-class families one way or another are making up the difference -- that’s the kind of status quo that has been going on here too long, and that’s exactly what I argued against during this campaign.  And if there’s one thing that I'm pretty confident about is the American people understood what they were getting when they gave me this incredible privilege of being in office for another four years. 

They want compromise.  They want action.  But they also want to make sure that middle-class folks aren't bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges.  They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well.  And that’s going to be my guiding principle during these negotiations, but, more importantly, during the next four years of my administration.

Nancy Cordes.

Q    Mr. President, on Election Night, you said that you were looking forward to speaking with Governor Romney, sitting down in the coming weeks to discuss ways that you could work together on this nation's problems.  Have you extended that invitation?  Has he accepted?  And in what ways do you think you can work together?

THE PRESIDENT:  We haven't scheduled something yet.  I think everybody forgets that the election was only a week ago and -- I know I've forgotten.  I forgot on Wednesday.  (Laughter.)  So I think everybody needs to catch their breath.  I'm sure that Governor Romney is spending some time with his family.

And my hope is, before the end of the year, though, that we have a chance to sit down and talk.  There are certain aspects of Governor Romney’s record and his ideas that I think could be very helpful. 

Q    Such as?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, to give you one example, I do think he did a terrific job running the Olympics.  And that skill set of trying to figure out how do we make something work better applies to the federal government.  There are a lot of ideas that I don’t think are partisan ideas but are just smart ideas about how can we make the federal government more customer friendly; how can we make sure that we’re consolidating programs that are duplicative; how can we eliminate additional waste.  He presented some ideas during the course of the campaign that I actually agree with.  So it would be interesting to talk to him about something like that. There may be ideas that he has with respect to jobs and growth that can help middle-class families that I want to hear.

So I’m not either prejudging what he’s interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I’ve got some specific assignment.  But what I want to do is to get ideas from him and see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together.

Q    But when it comes to your relationships with Congress, one of the most frequent criticisms we’ve heard over the past few years from members on both sides is that you haven’t done enough to reach out and build relationships.  Are there concrete ways that you plan to approach your relationships with Congress in a second term?

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, I think there’s no doubt that I can always do better, and so I will examine ways that I can make sure to communicate my desire to work with everybody, so long as it’s advancing the cause of strengthening our middle class and improving our economy.  I’ve got a lot of good relationships with folks both in the House and the Senate.  I have a lot of relationships on both sides of the aisle.  It hasn’t always manifested itself in the kind of agreements that I’d like to see between Democrats and Republicans.  And so I think all of us have responsibilities to see if there are things that we can improve on.  And I don’t exempt myself from needing to do some self-reflection and see if I can improve our working relationship. 

There are probably going to be still some very sharp differences.  And as I said during the campaign, there are going to be times where there are fights, and I think those are fights that need to be had.  But what I think the American people don’t want to see is a focus on the next election instead of a focus on them. 

And I don’t have another election.  And Michelle and I were talking last night about what an incredible honor and privilege it is to be put in this position.  And there are people all across this country, millions of folks, who worked so hard to help us get elected, but there are also millions of people who may not have voted for us but are also counting on us.  And we take that responsibility very seriously.  I take that responsibility very seriously.  And I hope and intend to be an even better President in the second term than I was in the first.

Jonathan Karl.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be Secretary of State, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination.  As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi.  I’d like your reaction to that.  And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I’m not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term.  Those are things that are still being discussed.

But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work.  She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. 

As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.  If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me.  And I’m happy to have that discussion with them.  But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. 

And we’re after an election now.  I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.  We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information.  And we’ve got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress. 

And I don't think there’s any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that's a problem.  And we’ve got to get to the bottom of it, and there needs to be accountability.  We’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice.  They won’t get any debate from me on that.

But when they go after the U.N. Ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.  And should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity of the State Department, then I will nominate her.  That's not a determination that I’ve made yet.

Ed Henry.

Q    I want to take Chuck’s lead and just ask a very small follow-up, which is whether you feel you have a mandate not just on taxes but on a range of issues because of your decisive victory? 

But I want to stay on Benghazi, based on what Jon asked because you said, if they want to come after me, come after me.  I wanted to ask about the families of these four Americans who were killed.  Sean Smith’s father, Ray, said he believes his son basically called 911 for help and they didn't get it.  And I know you’ve said you grieve for these four Americans, that it’s being investigated, but the families have been waiting for more than two months.  So I would like to -- for you to address the families, if you can.  On 9/11, as Commander-in-Chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?

THE PRESIDENT:  Ed, I’ll address the families not through the press.  I’ll address the families directly, as I already have.  And we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day.  That’s what the investigation is for. 

But as I’ve said repeatedly, if people don’t think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don’t know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks.  Their number-one priority is obviously to protect American lives.  That’s what our job is.  Now --

Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Ed, I will put forward every bit of information that we have.  I can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe.  And that’s the same order that I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger, whether they’re civilian or military, because that’s our number-one priority.

With respect to the issue of mandate, I’ve got one mandate. I’ve got a mandate to help middle-class families and families that are working hard to try to get into the middle class.  That’s my mandate.  That’s what the American people said.  They said:  Work really hard to help us.  Don’t worry about the politics of it; don’t worry about the party interests; don’t worry about the special interests.  Just work really hard to see if you can help us get ahead -- because we’re working really hard out here and we’re still struggling, a lot of us.  That’s my mandate.

I don’t presume that because I won an election that everybody suddenly agrees with me on everything.  I’m more than familiar with all the literature about presidential overreach in second terms.  We are very cautious about that.  On the other hand, I didn’t get reelected just to bask in reelection.  I got elected to do work on behalf of American families and small businesses all across the country who are still recovering from a really bad recession, but are hopeful about the future. 

And I am, too.  The one thing that I said during the campaign that maybe sounds like a bunch of campaign rhetoric, but now that the campaign is over I am going to repeat it and hopefully you guys will really believe me -- when you travel around the country, you are inspired by the grit and resilience and hard work and decency of the American people.  And it just makes you want to work harder.  You meet families who are -- have overcome really tough odds and somehow are making it and sending their kids to college.  And you meet young people who are doing incredible work in disadvantaged communities because they believe in the American ideal and it should available for everybody.  And you meet farmers who are helping each other during times of drought, and you meet businesses that kept their doors open during the recession, even though the owner didn’t have to take a salary. 

And when you talk to these folks, you say to yourself, man, they deserve a better government than they've been getting.  They deserve all of us here in Washington to be thinking every single day, how can I make things a little better for them -- which isn't to say that everything we do is going to be perfect, or that there aren't just going to be some big, tough challenges that we have to grapple with.  But I do know the federal government can make a difference. 

We're seeing it right now on the Jersey coast and in New York.  People are still going through a really tough time; the response hasn't been perfect; but it's been aggressive and strong and fast and robust, and a lot of people have been helped because of it.  And that’s a pretty good metaphor for how I want the federal government to operate generally, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure it does.

Christi Parson.  Hey. 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President, and congratulations, by the way. 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thanks. 

Q    One quick follow up --

THE PRESIDENT:  Christi was there when I was running for state Senate.

Q    That’s right, I was. 

THE PRESIDENT:  So Christi and I go back a ways.

Q    I've never seen you lose.  I wasn't looking that one time.  (Laughter.)   

THE PRESIDENT:  There you go.   

Q    One quick follow-up, and then I want to ask you about Iran.  I just want to make sure I understood what you said.  Can you envision any scenario in which we do go off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year? 

And on Iran, are you preparing a final diplomatic push here to resolve the nuclear program issue, and are we headed toward one-on-one talks?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, obviously, we can all imagine a scenario where we go off the fiscal cliff.  If despite the election, if despite the dangers of going over the fiscal cliff and what that means for our economy, that there’s too much stubbornness in Congress that we can't even agree on giving middle-class families a tax cut, then middle-class families are all going to end up having a big tax hike.  And that’s going to be a pretty rude shock for them, and I suspect will have a big impact on the holiday shopping season, which, in turn, will have an impact on business planning and hiring, and we can go back into a recession. 

It would be a bad thing.  It is not necessary.  So I want to repeat:  Step number one that we can take in the next couple of weeks, provide certainty to middle-class families -- 98 percent of families who make less than $250,000 a year, 97 percent of small businesses -- that their taxes will not go up a single dime next year.  Give them that certainty right now.  We can get that done. 

We can then set up a structure whereby we are dealing with tax reform, closing deductions, closing loopholes, simplifying, dealing with entitlements.  And I’m ready and willing to make big commitments to make sure that we’re locking in the kind of deficit reductions that stabilize our deficit, start bringing it down, start bringing down our debt.  I’m confident we can do it.

And, look, I’ve been living with this for a couple of years now.  I know the math pretty well.  And it really is arithmetic; it’s not calculus.  There are some tough things that have to be done, but there is a way of doing this that does not hurt middle-class families, that does not hurt our seniors, doesn’t hurt families with disabled kids, allows us to continue to invest in those things that make us grow, like basic research and education, helping young people afford going to college.  As we’ve already heard from some Republican commentators, a modest tax increase on the wealthy is not going to break their backs; they’ll still be wealthy.  And it will not impinge on business investment. 

So we know how to do this.  This is just a matter of whether or not we come together and go ahead and say, Democrats and Republicans, we’re both going to hold hands and do what’s right for the American people.  And I hope that’s what happens.

With respect to Iran, I very much want to see a diplomatic resolution to the problem.  I was very clear before the campaign, I was clear during the campaign, and I’m now clear after the campaign -- we’re not going to let Iran get a nuclear weapon.  But I think there is still a window of time for us to resolve this diplomatically.  We’ve imposed the toughest sanctions in history.  It is having an impact on Iran’s economy. 

There should be a way in which they can enjoy peaceful nuclear power while still meeting their international obligations and providing clear assurances to the international community that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon. 

And so, yes, I will try to make a push in the coming months to see if we can open up a dialogue between Iran and not just us, but the international community, to see if we can get this things resolved.  I can’t promise that Iran will walk through the door that they need to walk through, but that would be very much the preferable option.

Q    And under what circumstances would one-on-one conversations take place?

THE PRESIDENT:  I won’t talk about the details in negotiations.  But I think it’s fair to say we want to get this resolved, and we’re not going to be constrained by diplomatic niceties or protocols.  If Iran is serious about wanting to resolve this, they’ll be in a position to resolve it.

Q    At one point just prior to the election that was talk that talks might be imminent.  

THE PRESIDENT:  That was not true, and it’s not true as of today.

Just going to knock through a couple others.  Mark Landler.  Where’s Mark?  There he is right in front of me.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent.  Tomorrow you’re going up to New York City where you’re going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of how a warming globe is changing our weather.  What specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change?  And do you think the political will exists in Washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of a tax on carbon? 

THE PRESIDENT:  As you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change.  What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago.  We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago.  We do know that there have been extraordinarily -- there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.

And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions.  And as a consequence, I think we've got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.

Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks.  That will have an impact.  That will take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere.  We doubled the production of clean energy, which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation.  And we continue to invest in potential breakthrough technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere.  But we haven't done as much as we need to.

So what I'm going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several months, is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers, and elected officials to find out what can -- what more can we do to make a short-term progress in reducing carbons, and then working through an education process that I think is necessary -- a discussion, a conversation across the country about what realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not something we're passing on to future generations that's going to be very expensive and very painful to deal with.

I don't know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point, because this is one of those issues that's not just a partisan issue; I also think there are regional differences.  There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices.  And understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused, and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth, that if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody is going to go for that.  I won't go for that.

If, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth, and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that's something that the American people would support.

So you can expect that you’ll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this agenda forward.

Q    Sounds like you're saying, though, in the current environment, we're probably still short of a consensus on some kind of attack.

THE PRESIDENT:  That I'm pretty certain of.  And, look, we're still trying to debate whether we can just make sure that middle-class families don't get a tax hike.  Let’s see if we can resolve that.  That should be easy.  This one is hard -- but it’s important because one of the things that we don't always factor in are the costs involved in these natural disasters; we just put them off as something that's unconnected to our behavior right now.  And I think what -- based on the evidence we're seeing, is that what we do now is going to have an impact and a cost down the road if we don’t do something about it.

All right, last question.  Mark Felsenthal.  Where’s Mark?

Q    Thank you.  Mr. President, the Assad regime is engaged in a brutal crackdown on its people.  France has recognized the opposition coalition.  What would it take for the United States to do the same?  And is there any point at which the United States would consider arming the rebels?

THE PRESIDENT:  I was one of the first leaders I think around the world to say Assad had to go, in response to the incredible brutality that his government displayed in the face of what were initially peaceful protests.

Obviously, the situation in Syria has deteriorated since then.  We have been extensively engaged with the international community as well as regional powers to help the opposition.  We have committed to hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian aid to help folks both inside of Syria and outside of Syria.  We are constantly consulting with the opposition on how they can get organized so that they’re not splintered and divided in the face of the onslaught from the Assad regime. 

We are in very close contact with countries like Turkey and Jordan that immediately border Syria and have an impact -- and obviously Israel, which is having already grave concerns, as we do, about, for example, movements of chemical weapons that might occur in such a chaotic atmosphere and that could have an impact not just within Syria, but on the region as a whole.

I’m encouraged to see that the Syrian opposition created an umbrella group that may have more cohesion than they’ve had in the past.  We’re going to be talking to them.  My envoys are going to be traveling to various meetings that are going to be taking place with the international community and the opposition.

We consider them a legitimate representative of the aspirations of the Syrian people.  We’re not yet prepared to recognize them as some sort of government in exile, but we do think that it is a broad-based representative group.  One of the questions that we’re going to continue to press is making sure that that opposition is committed to a democratic Syria, an inclusive Syria, a moderate Syria.

We have seen extremist elements insinuate themselves into the opposition, and one of the things that we have to be on guard about -- particularly when we start talking about arming opposition figures -- is that we’re not indirectly putting arms in the hands of folks who would do Americans harm, or do Israelis harm, or otherwise engage in actions that are detrimental to our national security.

So we're constantly probing and working on that issue.  The more engaged we are, the more we'll be in a position to make sure that we are encouraging the most moderate, thoughtful elements of the opposition that are committed to inclusion, observance of human rights, and working cooperatively with us over the long term.

Thank you very much.

Q    -- spending side of the fiscal cliff.  On spending, the $1.2 trillion trigger, is that something that you can see having a short-term component -- because I remember you said it's not happening -- 

THE PRESIDENT:  That was a great question, but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out.  (Laughter.) 

So thank you very much, guys.

END  
2:26 P.M. EST

Weekly Address: Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts to Grow the Economy

Hello, everybody.

On Tuesday, America went to the polls. And the message you sent was clear: you voted for action, not politics as usual. You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. 

That’s why I’ve invited leaders of both parties to the White House next week, so we can start to build consensus around challenges we can only solve together. I also intend to bring in business, labor and civic leaders from outside Washington to get their ideas and input as well.    

At a time when our economy is still recovering from the Great Recession, our top priority has to be jobs and growth. That’s the focus of the plan I talked about during the campaign. It’s a plan to reward businesses that create jobs here in America, and give people access to the education and training that those businesses are looking for. It’s a plan to rebuild our infrastructure and keep us on the cutting edge of innovation and clean energy. And it’s a plan to reduce our deficit in a balanced and responsible way.

This is even more important because at the end of this year, we face a series of deadlines that require us to make major decisions about how to pay down our deficit – decisions that will have a huge impact on the economy and the middle class, now and in the future. 

Last year, I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars’ worth of spending, and I intend to work with both parties to do more. But as I said over and over again on the campaign trail, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue – and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes. That’s how we did it when Bill Clinton was President. And that’s the only way we can afford to invest in education and job training and manufacturing – all the ingredients of a strong middle class and a strong economy. 

Already, I’ve put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.  Now, I’m open to compromise and new ideas.  But I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced. I will not ask students or seniors or middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes. This was a central question in the election. And on Tuesday, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach – that includes Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. 

Now we need a majority in Congress to listen – and they should start by making sure taxes don’t go up on the 98% of Americans making under $250,000 a year starting January 1. This is something we all agree on. Even as we negotiate a broader deficit reduction package, Congress should extend middle-class tax cuts right now. It’s a step that would give millions of families and 97% of small businesses the peace of mind that will lead to new jobs and faster growth. There’s no reason to wait. 

We know there will be differences and disagreements in the months to come. That’s part of what makes our political system work. But on Tuesday, you said loud and clear that you won’t tolerate dysfunction, or politicians who see compromise as a dirty word. Not when so many of your families are still struggling. 

Instead, you want cooperation. You want action. That’s what I plan to deliver in my second term, and I expect to find leaders from both parties willing to join me. 

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

###