Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
"Cold-Blooded Execution"; Voting Under Way in Three Primaries; Sharper Video May Back Zimmerman; Republican End Game; Obama Speaks At AP Luncheon
Aired April 03, 2012 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Live from CNN headquarters in Atlanta, where it's 12:00 noon, 9:00 a.m. on the East Coast, I'm Suzanne Malveaux.
I want to get you up to speed for this Tuesday, April 3rd.
A man on a mission, the cold-blooded execution -- that is how police chief describes the suspect in a school shooting rampage in Oakland, California. Investigators say 43-year-old One Goh wanted to kill a specific school administrator but she wasn't there. So, police say he shot seven other people execution-style.
New details about the alleged shooter's background when we go live to California in just a couple of minutes.
And, is it the beginning of the end? Mitt Romney hoping to rack up major delegate numbers tonight when Wisconsin, Maryland, Washington, D.C. tally up the votes for the Republican nomination. The big prize: Wisconsin, 42 delegates on the line and a winner-take- all contest
Could this put Mitt Romney in the driver's seat? Rick Santorum, he is vowing to hang on.
We're going to get a live report on where candidates stand in just a minute.
In northern Wisconsin, a quick thinking 80-year-old landed a twin engine plane after her husband lost consciousness flying it. She's not even a pilot but she managed to radio for help and took a midair flying lesson. Now, she survived with minor injuries. However, her 81-year-old husband was pronounced dead at the hospital, not known exactly when he passed away.
Your tax dollars hard at work in Vegas. Now, an Obama administration official is paying for it with her job. The head of the General Services Administration, Martha Johnson, she has now resigned.
Reports show that the agency spent more than $800,000 on a seminar near Sin City just a couple years ago, and the GSA catered lavish meals, even brought in a mind reader -- all in our dime.
James Murdoch, the son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, stepping down as chairman of British broadcasting giant BSkyB. You might remember him from last summer's "News of the World" phone-hacking scandal. That's the tabloid that he shut down. He has consistently denied knowing about the scale of spying that went on, including eavesdropping on celebrities, politicians, even victims of crime.
I want to go back to the school shooting that happened in Oakland. We are getting new details about the man that police say shot seven people execution-style.
Thelma Gutierrez, she is there.
I understand you have some new information. What can you tell us -- what's going on behind you?
THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Suzanne, take a look right behind me, you can see that there are forensic investigators who just arrived a few minutes ago, they are in front of Oikos University. We understand that several law enforcement agencies will join together to process this crime scene.
This is a large area, Suzanne. We're talking about the crime scene in that classroom where the people were actually shot execution- style, and then the other victims who fell in the rampage in the second chain of events when the gunman returned to the campus and people dropped in various areas out there.
And so, this is going to be a big job. And they are pulling together several agencies to process this area.
Now, the other thing happening here, Suzanne, is that police are actually traveling the routes between this particular university and the Safeway store because they are trying to look for the murder weapon -- they believe is a .45 caliber handgun that was used in this rampage.
MALVEAUX: Thelma, are we learning anything new about the suspect's possible motive?
GUTIERREZ: Yes, we are. The police chief told us earlier today that he believes that what set 43-year-old One Goh off was the fact he was very upset at a school administrator for dismissing him from the nursing school earlier in the year.
They say that he specifically came to this school yesterday morning on a mission. He was looking for that administrator. She was not here at the time. He got angry, took the receptionist as a hostage and went into that classroom where he shot the students.
MALVEAUX: Do we know more about his demeanor when he was arrested or about the school and the victims?
GUTIERREZ: Well, what we know about his demeanor is that according to detectives, he was very calm. They said eerily calm. He talked to them. He recounted in great detail the chain of events that took place here at the school.
We also talked to an eye witness at the Safeway store. She told us the same thing. She said she actually made eye contact with him. She saw him being cuffed and arrested and thought he had been arrested for shoplifting he looked so calm. She said she had no idea that this was the man who was suspected in this terrible tragedy.
MALVEAUX: All right. Thelma Gutierrez -- thank you, Thelma.
In just a few minutes, President Obama is going to address a room full of news big wigs at the American Society of News Editors Convention. He is expected to discuss among some things the budget, transparency of the government, unemployment, super PACs, other issues.
President Obama addressing the group. He last addressed them he was running for president. That happened four years ago. The group has heard from every sitting U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge.
We're looking at live tape as they set this up. We will, of course, take that live as soon as he starts making his remarks in Washington, D.C. when they begin.
We've got one day, three big primaries.
Here to tell you what is on the line: CNN political director Mark Preston.
Mark, great to see you.
Wisconsin, Maryland, Washington, D.C., so my old stomping ground there. What is the big -- it's a big night. It's a big night for Romney.
MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: It is a big night. And, you know something -- every one of these primaries has been a big night because it's the inevitability factor.
Will Mitt Romney finally lock up the nomination? He doesn't have the delegates to do so but he has the momentum, he has the Republican Party standing behind him. And in some ways, he has the news media who seem to want to wrap up this race for the Republican presidential nomination.
MALVEAUX: Some in the news media.
PRESTON: Some in the news -- not us, of course.
MALVEAUX: We could -- yes, we get to see this thing go on and on and on.
PRESTON: Of course.
MALVEAUX: There have been upsets before. Could we see a Santorum upset tonight?
PRESTON: No, no, no. Well, look, yes. OK, let's lay it out.
Rick Santorum is not on the ballot in D.C. Mitt Romney is going to win that. He'll win all the delegates. In Maryland, where a lot of Republicans tend to be more centrist, they work for the government, they work for contractors, surrounding the metropolitan D.C. area, Mitt Romney is going to get a bulk of those delegates.
Rick Santorum is putting his eggs in the basket in Wisconsin, hoping that his blue collar values will be able to trump the fact that Mitt Romney is doing better in the polls in.
MALVEAUX: All right. So mark, at least he told Piers Morgan he's not going anywhere. Here's what he said last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The month of May is rich with delegates and are strong states for us -- states like Texas and Arkansas and Kentucky and Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina. Those are the states that we know we can get this back to where it is right now, which is a lot closer than what Mitt Romney and the pundits are spinning. It's a very close race. And by the end of May, we expect this race to be very close to even.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: What do you think, Mark? Could he still be viable in a couple months or so? Is that possible?
PRESTON: Look, it's possible but it's improbable. And the reason being is you've got to look at the percentage of what's left for delegates on the table and what is the percentage to win the delegates.
If we could just look at the numbers really quickly, Mitt Romney is leading the delegate race right now. Mitt Romney only needs about 47 percent of the remaining delegates to win. But you know something, in order for Rick Santorum to wrap up this nomination, he needs 72 percent of the delegates. And it gets worse for Newt Gingrich and for Ron Paul.
So, if you're a betting man, a betting woman, you're not putting your money on Rick Santorum to win the race just on the delegate count. No.
MALVEAUX: And speaking of Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, like, OK, so what is the end game there? Are we just talking about pride that they are still in this for the long haul?
PRESTON: Yes, there's a couple things. One, for someone like Ron Paul, he's leaving office at the end of the year. He really enjoys being out there and quite frankly, his presidential run has been more about a message than perhaps winning the nomination. Liberty, let's end the Fed, what-have-you.
For someone like Newt Gingrich, someone said it, explained to me very simply, it's really hard to give up going out and addressing huge crowds having Secret Service protection and really enjoying what you're talking about. In some ways, that might be what we're seeing from Newt Gingrich.
MALVEAUX: So, he's still delivering a message. He's still trying to influence the campaign in some ways. But behind the scenes, he probably realizes that it's not for him.
PRESTON: Well, unless something were to happen, if Mitt Romney were to have a major stumble, could Newt Gingrich end up in the convention, could he potentially win the nomination? Look, there's all the scenarios to play out that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum could potentially win the nomination. No question about that.
But the fact of the matter is if you're going to play the odds, it's Mitt Romney easily.
MALVEAUX: All right. Should we play the odds?
PRESTON: I love betting.
MALVEAUX: All right. I'll just leave it up to you.
PRESTON: Let's roll the dice and see what happens.
MALVEAUX: We'll roll the dice, we'll watch tonight. Thanks, Mark.
Here's a rundown of some of the stories that we are covering:
First, the surveillance video of the man who shot Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, it has now been enhanced. We're going to look at what it might tell us what happened that night.
And a new smart phone app, little too revealing for some. Gives user locations and information on women nearby. Some are calling it a stalker app and a creepy invasion of privacy.
Then, President Obama going after Mitt Romney by name in a new ad. So, what about Santorum, Gingrich? We're going to dig deeper with our political roundtable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: A new twist in the controversy over the death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. A surveillance video that seemed to support one side last week appears to tell a different story now. Enhanced footage of George Zimmerman, he is the man who admitted shooting the teenager, appears to show a bump, a mark, an injury on the back of his head.
I want to bring in Martin Savidge. He is in Sanford, Florida, to explain about this higher resolution surveillance video.
Does it help or hurt Zimmerman's claim of self defense?
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Suzanne.
Well, it would seem, you know, if we remember back last week when this video was released, there was a lot that was made out of the fact it appeared that George Zimmerman, this is only about a half hour after the shooting with Trayvon Martin, he appears to be absolutely fine. In other words, no real indication of this life and death struggle he told authorities ensued before he shot the 17-year-old.
But then we took the video and enhanced it. We tried to slow it down, we zoomed in, we tried to clarify it, and adjust a few things. And then when you look at the back of his head you, do see markings. Now, it's not an indication of how severe a bruising or a mark or indication this is, but it does seem to lend credence to at least the story that he tells.
So it's interesting as you point out how last week this video worked against George Zimmerman, but now as a result of the enhancement, it appears to at least support a portion of the story he's told authorities, Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: I assume that will be part of the investigation.
I want to talk about the other developments, the state attorney who initially handled the case -- he is now lashing out at the family of the victim, the Martin family attorney told an outright lie in the letter to the Justice Department. What can you tell us about it?
SAVIDGE: Yes, this all exploded yesterday. It began with a letter from Ben Crump. He is the attorney that represents Trayvon Martin's family. He was asking the Justice Department to investigate what he says was a meeting that took place on the night that Trayvon Martin was shot, a meeting that took place between the chief of police here in Sanford, and the state attorney who oversees this area.
And the implication there is that as a result of that meeting, they decided not to charge George Zimmerman. Well, the state attorney, who's name is Norm Wolfinger, would not take that laying down. He fired back and said, "I'm outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter by Benjamin Crump to the Assistant District Attorney General Roy Austin dated April 2nd, 2012. I encourage the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting occurred."
So, it's very rare that you hear from a state attorney especially when they say like we're going to have no comment while this investigation goes on. But he was extremely upset over what that letter was that Ben Crump sent and the allegation of a meeting. The state attorney says there was no such meeting.
MALVEAUX: Do we have any sense of whether or not that attorney will come back and fire back against the state attorney there?
SAVIDGE: Well, you know, they are trying to allude that something went on because they cannot understand why in the case of Trayvon Martin being shot, that George Zimmerman has not been arrested, has not been pulled in and charged. And so, they are trying to apply something else went on. Their investigation is continuing at this point, I'm sure it's not the last time we're going to hear this allegation by Ben Crump, the attorney.
MALVEAUX: All right. Martin Savidge -- thank you, Martin.
If you ever had an awkward encounter with a stranger 18 bar or restaurant, your smart phone may be to blame. We're going to tell you about a new app that allows other users to actually pinpoint your exact location.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: All right. So, you use your phone, you take pictures, log on the Facebook, get directions when you're lost. Well, you may not know it but it's not just your friends and family that can find where you are. Any one can.
A controversial app called Girls Around Me, yes, that's right, tracks women, pictures, names, all of it, so strangers can follow them. It has been dubbed the "stalker app."
HLN contributor Mario Armstrong joins us.
First of all, we understand that the app has been taken off the iTunes store this weekend. But still, it doesn't mean that it makes all of your information safe. Explain how this work.
MARIO ARMSTRONG, HLN COTRIBUTOR: Yes. So, Suzanne, here's the deal -- this app basically would pull information that was already publicly available from individual's Facebook accounts and Foursquare accounts. So, the app essentially aggregated all of this information.
So, if you went to a location and you checked in on Facebook or on Foursquare and you posted that information publicly, this app could pull that information in so that you can actually pull up on your phone and see who is physically around you and all of that public information about that particular person, what their interests are, if they're available to date, their photos, their full names and so on.
MALVEAUX: OK. So this deals with strangers having access to your information, not like your voluntarily giving in information out to the folks that you want to be aware of where you are, correct?
ARMSTRONG: That is somewhat correct. So, you're right. I mean, strangers could get this information and you didn't know that this app was aggregating that data.
Here's the thing, though, if you are individually posting information publicly, you need to be aware that other apps out there exist that can do this and it's legal for them to do it.
MALVEAUX: So, how do you prevent something like this from happening? Let's say you don't want everybody. You know, somebody coming out, yes, you know, I got information. I found out you're over here at the Home Depot or something, I don't know.
ARMSTRONG: No, you're right. You know, this is a big issue because, look, morally this thing is all wrong as far as I'm concerned. You know, I mean, find girls and find women and using an app that pulls information that's publicly available. I think this is a great wake-up call for us, though, because it reminds us of three important tips that we need to think about.
Number one, we need to review all of our security settings, especially on social networks like Facebook and Foursquare where they are pulling this information from. Number two, you want to make sure that not only are you controlling your settings, but that we're educating ourselves.
I don't want people just being in fear as a way of educating ourselves. We need to learn how these tools work. This isn't going away. We'll have more apps that will do these things so. How can we be better about them?
And third but not least, Facebook, check your Facebook settings, because there are apps that you're letting have access to your Facebook settings. And you can control those privacy features based upon the individual app.
MALVEAUX: And, Mario, I guess we should mention the company says, you know, that wasn't their intention, although I think their site they've got women in provocative poses and these kinds of things that have happened, you know?
ARMSTRONG: That's right. I absolutely agree with you.
(CROSSTALK)
ARMSTRONG: Look, they tripped over themselves on this, Suzanne. I'm glad that it got exposed. This is something that we all need to be aware of.
We've got this cultural divide in terms of what's private and what's not private. And if your information is out there publicly available, people can use that public available data.
So, if you don't want it public, don't make it public.
MALVEAUX: All right. Good warning. Thank you, Mario. Appreciate it.
ARMSTRONG: Thank you, Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Lots of folks talking about Sarah Palin on the "Today" show this morning. She's not the only political draw making a TV cameo. We're going to tell you where the first lady is going to be popping up. The hint here: it's on one of my favorite shows.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: All right. So, is today going to seal the day for Mitt Romney? The Republican front-runner has all but predicted victory in the primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington, D.C. But a lost in any of the three could give new life to his rival Rick Santorum.
Here to talk about it is Republican strategist and editor of conservativeblackchick.com, Crystal Wright, and Democratic strategist Estuardo Rodriguez.
Estuardo, it's good to see you. It's your first time here on CNN NEWSROOM. Welcome.
Crystal, I want to start with you. What's at stake tonight?
CRYSTAL WRIGHT, CONSERVATIVEBLACKCHICK.COM: Well, what's at stake is I think that Mitt Romney is going to put the nail in the GOP nomination coffin. I think he's going to wrap this up. He is ahead in Wisconsin, Maryland and D.C. are all favored to go into Mitt's column. And, you know, the states represent a more moderate, higher education -- a population that is you know, highly educated, less blue collar workers.
And in Wisconsin we don't have a lot of evangelical Christians so Santorum really I think needs to sail bye-bye. I mean, it's no -- he doesn't have a prayer's chance. I don't have a crystal ball. I'm not a soothsayer. But right now, Romney is more than halfway there.
So I say sail away, what's the song, just sail away, Santorum. I mean, he's looking angry. There's no way he can pull this off.
He really is going to need a miracle from God and we know Santorum is highly religious, so maybe he's going to call in the prayers and God will answer. I don't know.
MALVEAUX: Oh, my goodness gracious.
WRIGHT: I think Romney is really on the road to sealing up this nomination. You know, it's like the more people hang on, they look like they are holding on to sour grapes and miracles that aren't going to be.
MALVEAUX: Estuardo, man, you got something to work with here.
(LAUGHTER)
MALVEAUX: Crystal's laying it all out there.
ESTUARDO RODRIGUEZ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I had no idea I had such a religious spiritual person on the other side there.
WRIGHT: I am. I am religious.
MALVEAUX: There's this new Obama ad, right, that basically is now calling Romney out by name, this is the first time that they have done this. I want you to watch this ad briefly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, BARACKOBAMA.COM, POLITICAL AD)
NARRATOR: He's raising mileage standards and doubling renewable energy. In all of these fights, Mitt Romney stood with big oil for their tax breaks, attacking higher mileage standards and renewables.
So, when you see this ad, remember who paid for it and what they want --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: So, Estuardo, I mean, it seems obvious now that the White House perhaps agrees with Crystal here. They moved on into the general election. Does that look like the strategy?
RODRIGUEZ: You know, definitely the president needs to be focusing now on Romney. There is no doubt about it. As Crystal said, you know, who knows what might happen. But let's be clear, the numbers are what they are and they are going to add up for Mitt Romney at this point. I don't see anything miraculous happening tonight.
But what we do also have to realize is that it's not just Obama against Romney here. It's Obama against the super PACs. These super PACs are going to play a huge role here. And as we know, they have already come out attacking the president on the energy plan that the president has been pushing. And it's not -- it's not -- it's not a good move for the president to wait any longer, especially when he's being attacked by the super PACs.
It's important now in the consumers out there are trying to deal with the gas prices, that the president hit back and make it clear who is supporting Romney. And it's big oil. Big oil and the Republican leadership, day in/day out on Capitol Hill been advocating for bigger tax breaks, renewing or extending the tax breaks and helping big oil when they are right now enjoying some of the greatest profits they had in decades.
So, it's a clear move for Obama to push back and tie Romney to big oil. That's what this ad does. That's what voters need to be clear about who they are voting for.
MALVEAUX: Crystal, let's jump in here because let's talk about some of the attack ads that you've got. You know, you've got Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, essentially attacking Mitt Romney. Is it time for them to wrap that up, be quiet, shut up and move on?
WRIGHT: Yes. But I want to go back to something Estuardo said. You know, big PACs are really good for the president, too. So, let's not try to act that President Obama isn't taking PAC money. I mean, remember, he flip-flopped on that.
But anyway, I do think -- I think back to the contender still in the field, at a certain point, Newt Gingrich and Santorum are going to have to ask themselves, you know, either you're going to win more races and really be a contender or you're going to have to bow out.
So, that's really -- or you're going to -- you know, Hillary Clinton faced this in May in 2008. She didn't want to go down as weakening Obama who was the candidate, and she didn't want that to be the exclamation on her run in 2008. So, she exited gracefully and she got secretary of state. I think Newt and Rick need to really do some hard thinking here and think about how we as Republicans need to be putting political cash behind our nominee. Not wasting --
MALVEAUX: Do you think either one of them would get a position?
WRIGHT: Yes, I do.
MALVEAUX: Which one?
WRIGHT: Remember, Suzanne, we heard that Newt had a secret meeting with Romney I think a little over a week ago. You guys talked a lot about this. It was everywhere. I think that Newt, we'll see Newt get a cabinet position.
I wouldn't put out secretary of state or defense. Newt remember has a big personality. He's got a lot of ideas. He has a great record as speaker working with President Clinton. And I think he wants a plum job. He's not going to take any kind of manzy, panzy cabinet positions.
RODRIGUEZ: I can't imagine the way these guys have gone after Romney and said that he would be the worst candidate possible.
WRIGHT: Hillary Clinton did the same thing. Hillary Clinton did the same thing.
RODRIGUEZ: "Super PACs behind them -- every level. You're talking about -- let me say at this point, Suzanne, Romney has to focus on the real battle, defending his record as governor.
Forty seventh in terms of job creation in his state, he's campaigning on the fact he is big business and knows how to create jobs. He couldn't do it in his own state. How is he going to do it for the country?
He is the godfather of health care plan. How is he going to defend that if he is busy attacking what Obama has been able to do for middle class and low income families?
WRIGHT: Obama is the godfather of debt and joblessness.
MALVEAUX: I want to turn the corner here, weigh in on what we saw this morning. Sarah Palin, guest hosting network morning show, pulled out one of her famous phrases that we've heard, lame stream media complained about it back in 2008. Now she is a part of the lame stream media, is this help or hurt the Republican brand?
RODRIGUEZ: I'm going to say who knew that this is really just about envy. Who knew that she, all the attacks she had on the lame stream media for those years it turns out she wanted to be part of it.
And now she is and had a good time this morning poking fun at herself, but it really undercuts her credibility. How can you be for years attacking the lame stream media, then welcome the opportunity to sit in the same seat that Katie Couric once sat herself. It doesn't make sense.
WRIGHT: I think it's phenomenal. I think the reason why the "Today" show wanted Sarah Palin is because Katie was on "Good Morning America" and it's called oops, ratings.
And Sarah Palin draws media attention, she draws ratings up, upward and she's an activist that liberals can't stand because you know what, like Matt Lauer says she excites the base. She gets people to the polls, and I'm sorry that you're not a Palin fan, but you know what, she's a winner.
RODRIGUEZ: A spectacle, really.
WRIGHT: I think Obama has become a spectacle with his Supreme Court threat.
RODRIGUEZ: You're going to say Obama is a spectacle.
WRIGHT: He is spectacle.
RODRIGUEZ: -- of prime sector job growth.
(CROSSTALK)
RODRIGUEZ: Well, I'm just pointing out here, look. Sarah Palin honestly the turnout that she gets is because it's become entertainment. That's not activism.
Just bringing people to see what crazy thing or off the base thing you're going to say next is entertainment. That's what she does well and where she is now and God bless her she can make money and I'm sure she'll enjoy many years of it.
MALVEAUX: So you think it's a smart thing that Michelle Obama is going on one of my favorite shows "The Biggest Loser" to talk about health and that kind of thing. Obviously, she is a big draw.
WRIGHT: I think it's smart. Look, first, the first lady has done a great job. Focusing the national attention on childhood obesity and getting Americans to think about getting off the couch, getting off their butts and exercising. I think look, she's probably doing this for ratings too and to jack up her husband's approvals because Michelle Obama look, she's a likable woman. So this is a good thing. It's time. Come on, let's be honest now.
RODRIGUEZ: I cannot equate advocating for a healthier lifestyle and addressing childhood obesity to going on the "Today" show and poking fun at yourself. Sarah Palin this morning was about self mockery.
WRIGHT: No, she wasn't. So every time President Obama goes on like Jay Leno and I guess he's about self mockery too.
RODRIGUEZ: No. Goes on and talks about job growth in this country.
WRIGHT: There is no job growth. That's self mockery.
MALVEAUX: We're going to have you guys on again. We're going to have you --
RODRIGUEZ: At the end of the week after the job numbers come out let's talk again.
MALVEAUX: All right, we're going to have you talk again. Crystal and Estuardo, thank you so much. Appreciate it. A lively conversation, we'll have you both back, put on the gloves. Here it goes.
WRIGHT: No gloves.
MALVEAUX: All right, thanks, guys.
You can watch CNN's special coverage as voters in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington, D.C. make their choice for the Republican presidential candidate.
Our coverage beginning at 7:00 Eastern tonight with "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" followed by "ANDERSON COOPER 360" at 8:00 and Piers Morgan at 9:00.
And President Obama is speaking now before news editors in Washington, slated to take some questions. Let's listen in.
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Feel free to transmit any of this to Vladamir if you see him. Clearly, we're in the beginning months of another long lively election year. There will be gaffes and minor controversies. There will be hot mics and Etch-a- Sketch moments.
You will cover every word that we say, and we will complain vociferously about the unflattering words that you write unless of course you're writing about the other guy in which case, good job.
But there are also big fundamental issues at stake right now, issues that deserve serious debate among every candidate, and serious coverage among every reporter. Whoever he may be, the next president will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression.
Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit.
A debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts and unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down. And in the face of all these challenges, we're going to have to answer a central question as a nation.
What, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of security for people who are willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country? Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well while a growing number struggle to get by or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot?
And everyone does their fair share. And everyone plays by the same rules. This is not just another run of the mill political debate. I've said it's the defining issue of our time and I believe it. That's why I ran in 2008. It's what my presidency has been about. It's why I'm running again.
I believe this is a make or break moment for the middle class and I can't remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear. Keep in mind, I have never been somebody who believes that government can or should try to solve every problem.
Some of you know my first job in Chicago was working with a group of Catholic churches that often did more good for the people in their communities than any government program could. In those same communities I saw that no education policy, however well crafted, can take the place of a parent's love and attention.
As president, I have eliminated dozens of programs that weren't working and announced over 500 regulatory reforms that will save businesses and taxpayers billions. And put annual domestic spending on a path to become the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower held this office. Since before I was born. I know that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector not Washington, which is why I've cut taxes for small business owners 17 times over the last three years.
So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. My mother and the grandparents who raised me instilled the values of self reliance and personal responsibility that remain the cornerstone of the American ideal.
But I also share the belief of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, a belief that through government we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. That belief is the reason this country's been able to build a strong military to keep us safe and public schools to educate our children.
That belief is why we've been able to lay down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. That belief is why we've been able to support the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives and unleashed repeated technological revolutions and led to countless new jobs and entire industries.
That belief is also why we sought to ensure that every citizen can count on some basic measure of security. We do this because we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any moment might face hard times, might face bad luck, might face a crippling illness or a layoff.
So we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee health care and a source of income after a lifetime of hard work. We provide unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss and facilitates the labor mobility that makes our economy so dynamic.
We provide for Medicaid, which makes sure that millions of seniors in nursing homes and children with disabilities are getting the care that they need. For generations nearly all of these investments from transportation to education to retirement programs have been supported by people in both parties.
As much as we might associate the G.I. Bill with Franklin Roosevelt or Medicare with Lyndon Johnson it was a Republican, Lincoln, who launched the Transcontinental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, land grant colleges.
It was Eisenhower who launched the Interstate Highway System and new investment in scientific research. It was Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan who worked with Democrats to save Social Security.
It was George W. Bush who added prescription drug coverage to Medicare. What leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that these investments aren't part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another.
They are expressions of the fact that we are one nation. These investments benefit us all. They contribute to genuine durable economic growth. Show me a business leader who wouldn't profit if more Americans could afford to get the skills and education that today's jobs require. Ask any company where they'd rather locate and hire workers, a country with crumbling roads and bridges or one that's committed to high speed internet and high speed development.
It doesn't make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly or the sick or those who are actively looking for work. What makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell.
Or when entrepreneurs don't have the financial security to take a chance and start a new business. What drags down our entire economy is when there's an ever widening chasm between the ultra rich and everybody else.
In this country broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. That's how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known.
That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made. That's why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
And yet for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if we convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, our economy will grow stronger.
They keep telling us that if we just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we'd all be better off. We're told that when the wealthy become even wealthier and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it's good for America and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That's the theory.
Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we've tried their approach. On a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001, and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not.
The wealthy got wealthier. We would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didn't trickle down. Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing.
There was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didn't have to abide by strong enough regulations or they found their ways around them. And what was the result? Profits for many of these companies soared, but so did people's health insurance premiums. Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. Families were enticed and sometimes just plain tricked into buying homes they couldn't afford. Huge, reckless bets were made with other people's money on the line and our entire financial system was nearly destroyed.
So we've tried this theory out. And you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility. Might moderate their views a bit. You would think they'd say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders. Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts. Maybe when we know that most of today's middle class jobs require more than a high school degree, we shouldn't gut education or lay off thousands of teachers or raise interest rates on college loans or take away people's financial aid.
But that's exactly the opposite of what they've done. Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. In fact, that renowned liberal, Newt Gingrich, first called the original version of the budget "radical" and said it would contribute to right wing social engineering. This is coming from Newt Gingrich. And yet this isn't a budget supported by some small group in the Republican Party. This is now the party's governing platform. This is what they're running on.
One of my potential opponents, Governor Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency. He said that he's very supportive of this new budget. And he even called it "marvelous," which is a word you don't often hear when it comes to describing a budget. It's a word you don't often hear generally.
So, here's -- here's what this marvelous budget does. Back in the summer, I came to an agreement with the Republicans in Congress to cut roughly $1 trillion in annual spending. Some of these cuts were about getting rid of waste, others were about programs that we support but just can't afford given our deficits and our debt. And part of the agreement was a guarantee of another trillion in savings for a total of about $2 trillion in deficit reduction.
This new House Republican budget, however, breaks our bipartisan agreement and proposes massive new cuts in annual domestic spending. Exactly the area where we've already cut the most. And I want to actually go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly. So bear with me. I want to go through this because I don't think people fully appreciate the nature of this budget.
The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants. Research grants for things likes Alzheimer's and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students and teachers.
Investments in clean energy technology that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth. If this budget becomes law, and the cuts were applied evenly starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food.
There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn't have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.
Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn't be able to afford to launch new satellites and that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.
That's just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget. Now, you can anticipate, Republicans may say, well, we'll avoid some of these cuts since they don't specify exactly the cuts that they would make. But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas.
This is math. If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research, that means they've got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. The converse is true as well. If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college. Perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall, but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there is no secret plan or formula that will be able to protect the investments we need to help our economy grow.
This is not conjecture. I am not exaggerating. These are facts. And these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next. If this budget became law by the middle of the century, funding for the kinds of things I just mentioned would have to be cut by about 95 percent. Let me repeat that. Those categories I just mentioned, we would have to cut by 95 percent. As a practical matter, the federal budget would basically amount to whatever's left of entitlements, defense spending and interest on the national debt, period.
Money for these investments that have traditionally been supported on a bipartisan basis would be practically eliminated. And the same is true for other priorities like transportation, homeland security and veteran programs for the men and women who have risked their lives for this country. This is not an exaggeration. Check it out yourself.
And this is to say nothing about what the budget does to health care. We're told that Medicaid would simply be handed over to the states. That's the pitch. Let's get it out of the central bureaucracy. The states can experiment. They'll be able to run the programs a lot better.
But here's the deal the states would be getting. They would have to be running these programs in the face of the largest cut to Medicaid that has ever been proposed. A cut, that according to one nonpartisan group, would take away health care for about 19 million Americans. Nineteen million.
Who are these Americans? Many are someone's grandparents who, without Medicaid, won't be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle class families who have children with autism or down syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the people who count on Medicaid.
Then there's Medicare. Because health care costs keep rising and the baby boom generation is retiring, Medicare we all know is one of the biggest drivers of our long term deficit. That's a challenge we have to meet by bringing down the cost of health care overall so that seniors and taxpayers can share in the savings.
But here's the solution proposed by the Republicans in Washington, and embraced by most of their candidates for president. Instead of being enrolled in Medicare when they turn 65, seniors who retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second cheapest health care plan in their area. If Medicare is more expensive than that private plan, they'll have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional Medicare. If health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher, as, by the way, they've been doing for decades, that's too bad. Seniors bear the risk. If the voucher isn't enough to buy a private plan with the specific doctors and care that you need, that's too bad.
So most experts will tell you the way this voucher plan encourages savings is not through better care at cheaper cost. The way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors, cherry picking, leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional Medicare, where they have access to a wide range of doctors and guaranteed care. But that, of course, makes the traditional Medicare program even more expensive and raise premiums even further.
The net result is that our country will end up spending more on health care and the only reason the government will save any money, it won't be on our books, is because we shifted it to seniors. They'll bear more of the costs themselves. It's a bad idea and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.
Now the proponents of this budget will tell us, we have to make all these draconian cuts because our deficit is so large. This is an existential crisis. We have to think about future generations, so on and so on. And that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates. We're told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions. But the Republicans and Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. Not one. And by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.6 trillion in savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle class families. Tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for homeownership.
Meanwhile, these proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year. That's an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country, $150,000. Let's just step back for a second and look at what $150,000 pays for. A year's worth of prescription drug coverage for a seniors citizen, plus a new school computer lab, plus a year of medical care for a returning veteran, plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease, plus a year's salary for a firefighter or a police officer, plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable, plus a year's worth of financial aid, $150,000 could pay for all of these things combined. Investment in education, research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us.
For $150,000, that would be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. This budget says we'd be better off as a country if that's how we spent it. This is supposed to be about paying down our deficit? It's laughable. The bipartisan Simpson- Bowles commission that I created, which the Republicans originally were for until I was for it, that was about paying down the deficit. And I didn't agree with all of the details, I proposed about $600 billion more in revenue, and $600 billion - sorry, it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and about $600 billion more in defense cuts than I had proposed in my own budget.
But Simpson-Bowles was a serious, honest, balanced effort between Democrats and Republicans to bring down the deficit. That's why although it differs in some ways my budget takes a similarly balanced approach. Cuts in discretionary spending, cuts in mandatory spending, increased revenue. This Congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan horse disguised as deficit reduction plans. It is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who is willing to work for it. A place where prosperity doesn't trickle down from the top but grows outward from the heart of middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that's built to last. Education and training, research and development, our infrastructure, it is a prescription for decline. And everybody here should understand that because there's very few people here who haven't benefited at some point from those investments that were made in the '50s, and the '60s, and the '70s, and the '80s. That's part of how we got ahead.
And now, we're going to be pulling up those ladders up for the next generation. So, in the months ahead, I will be fighting as hard as I know how for this truer vision of what the United States of America is all about. Absolutely, we have to get --
(END LIVE FEED)
