Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
President Obama Holds Town Hall in New Hampshire
Aired February 02, 2010 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you are serious about climate change, you have got to figure out, is there technology that can allow us to sequester coal and the emissions that are sent out?
The reason for that is not just for the United States. China is building a coal-fired plant once a week just about. India is doing the same, because coal is cheap. And unless we can come up with some energy alternatives that allow us to franchise that technology, so that they are equipped to burn that coal cleanly, we're going to have problems no matter what we do in this country when it comes to the environment.
OK? So, technology is key. And, by the way, we can make significant profits and create huge jobs just upgrading traditional technologies. Then you have got the whole clean energy sector, which is ready to take off if we provide the kind of seed capital, the kind of R&D credits that are necessary.
This past recession almost killed a lot of our homegrown clean energy sectors. And the industry will tell you. You talk to the wind industry or the solar industry. If we hadn't passed the Recovery Act and all the support for clean energy, a lot of them would have completely gone under, and we would have been ceding leadership, as we already have, unfortunately, to a lot of countries like Spain and Germany and Japan that are doing a lot more work on it.
So, this is a huge engine for job creation, and we have got to make those investments.
Third thing you said, energy efficiency, we are one of the least efficient advanced economies when it comes to energy usage. And it's estimated that we could probably lop off 30 percent of our energy consumption just on efficiency, without changing our lifestyles significantly.
I say significantly because you have to start buying LED batteries -- or LED light bulbs, but it's still a light bulb. You don't have to sit in the dark. You don't have to use gas lanterns. You just have to make the investment.
And one of the things that a company like ARC Energy is doing is trying to bring down the unit costs for each of those light bulbs. A school building like this, guarantee you that we could make this school probably 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent more energy- efficient, but the problem is, school budgets, a lot of times, don't have the money to put the capital up front to make it more energy- efficient.
So, are there ways we can help universities and schools and other institutions more efficient? We could retrofit every building in this country that was built, you know, over the last 50 years and get huge increases in energy, huge decreases in greenhouse gas emissions.
But it requires some seed money. It requires some work. And that's why part of our jobs package is actually -- it's a very simple concept. Hire people to weatherize homes that will save those homeowners heating bills or cooling bills. And, at the same time, put people back to work and train them in things like insulation and heating systems.
So, there's a lot of opportunity there. Now, here's the only thing I would say. The most controversial aspects of the energy debate that we have been having, the House passed an energy bill, and people complained about, well, there's this cap and trade thing.
And you just mentioned, you know, let's do the fun stuff before we do the hard stuff. The only thing I would say about it is this. We may be able to separate these things out. And it's conceivable that that's where the Senate ends up.
But the concept of incentivizing clean energy, so that it's the cheaper, more effective kind of energy, is one that is proven to work and is actually a market-based approach.
I mean, a lot of times, people just respond to incentives. And no matter how good the technology is, the fact of the matter is, if you're not factoring in the soot that's being put in the atmosphere, coal is going to be cheaper for a very long time for the average industry, the average company.
We can make huge progress on solar. We can make huge progress on wind, but the unit costs, energy costs that you get from those technologies relative to coal are still going to be pretty substantial. They are going to get better, but it might take 20, 30, 40 years of technology to get better.
And so the question then is, are we -- does it make sense for us to start pricing in the fact that this thing is really bad for the environment? And, if we do, then can we do it in a way that doesn't involve some big bureaucracy and a control-and-command system, but just says, look, we're just going to -- there's going to be a price to pollution?
And then everybody can adapt and decide which are the -- which are the best energies, and that's -- that's -- by the way, remember acid rain? That's how that got solved, was -- basically, what happened, the Clean Air Act slapped a price on sulfur emissions. And what ended up happening was all these companies who were saying this is going to be a jobs killer, et cetera, they figured it out. They figured it out a lot cheaper than anybody expected, and it turns out now that our trees are OK up here in New Hampshire.
That's a good thing.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: So, we should take a lesson from the past and not be afraid of the future.
Oh. There is a signal that I only have time for a few more questions. OK. I'm going to try to take two more. It is a young lady's turn.
Well, wait, wait. I shouldn't be biased against the folks back here. Here you go.
QUESTION: Hi. I'm Judy Loftus (ph). I teach at Nashua High School South. I...
(APPLAUSE)
I teach in the careers and education program. And that's a career and technical program that prepares students for lives working to work with children, to make a difference from preschool up to elementary age.
I have a couple questions. First of all, what are you going to do about No Child Left Behind? We have had a lot of legacies from the last administration, and, as an educator, I have seen the impact of that in my school, and it hasn't been a positive impact.
We're focused more on testing and worrying about test scores than what's right for kids.
(APPLAUSE)
And the second is, what are you going to do to help my students, who want to be teachers, who want to make a difference in this world, be able to afford a college education and not be saddled with so much debt that they are working, as many teachers in Nashua are, two jobs to make ends meet, to pay their student loans?
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Good. It's a good question.
(APPLAUSE)
(LAUGHTER)
The short-term proposals that I have put forward are designed to accelerate job growth, that inspire a company that's right on the brink of hiring, but it's still kind of uncertain, should I make that investment? Should I bring in somebody on to the work force?
Well, maybe if I get a $5,000 credit or maybe if I can get a loan from SBA, I'm going to go ahead and take the plunge. So, we're trying to induce hiring to start a little quicker than it's been -- than has taken place so far.
But, long term, the question you ask is the most vital one for how our economy performs. Look, this is a very straightforward proposition here. Countries that have a highly skilled work force, that innovate, that excel in science and technology are going to dominate the future, and countries that don't are going to see over time their standard of living decline.
It's -- it's pretty straightforward. If we're the country that's innovating and creating new products and at the high end of the product chain, then everybody here is going to have enormous opportunity. And, if we're not, we don't.
So, what does that mean? On the education front, our elementary schools, our secondary schools have been slipping. We used to have the best. Now we have pockets of the best, and then we have mediocrity, and then we have some schools that are just terrible.
We have got to make sure every child is getting a good, solid education. And what that means is...
(APPLAUSE)
... it means we continue to invest in early childhood education, which my budget does. It means -- so that our kids are prepared when they start school.
It means that we help schools with just their basic budgets. And, as I said, the Recovery Act prevented a lot of layoffs and really patched holes in a lot of school budgets.
It's not sexy. It doesn't get a lot of credit, but it made a huge difference. We have got to make sure, though, also that the single most important factor in an elementary and secondary school education is fulfilled, and that is we have got excellent teachers in the classroom who are getting paid a good salary and are getting the support that they need.
(APPLAUSE)
Now -- now, traditionally, what's happened is the debate between the left and the right has said, well, the left just says we just need more money in the schools and everything will be OK, for new equipment, new computers, smaller class sizes. You know, that that's been the argument on the liberal side.
The conservative side has said, the whole problem is bureaucracy, teachers unions. You have got to blow up the system.
What -- what my administration believes, it is not an either/or proposition. It's both hands. We need more money, but we need to spend the money wisely, and we need to institute reforms that raise standards and push everybody in a school, principal, teacher, student, parent, to pursue excellence.
So, last year, what we did is, we started with something called Race to the Top, and it's a pretty simple proposition. We carved out a little bit of money that doesn't just go to general revenue, Title I and all the general federal support for schools.
And we said, this money, this Race to the Top money, you get it only if you're working to make for excellent teachers. You're collecting good data to make sure that your students are actually making progress in the schools, you're dealing with the lowest- performing schools in your school district, you have got ideas that are showing concrete results in improvement, not in absolute test scores, but in the progress that that school is making, we're going to fund those improvements.
And we have already seen reforms across 48 states just because we incentivized reform. That's a good thing. This year is when reauthorization for what's called No Child Behind would be coming up as part of the broader education legislation that's up for reauthorization.
And what we're saying there is, on the one hand, we don't want teachers just teaching to the test. On the other hand, we also want to keep high standards for our kids. And I think the best way to do that is to combine high standards, measurable outcomes, but have an assessment system that you work with teachers on, so that it's not just a matter of who is filling out a bubble, and you're also taking into account where do kids start, because not every kid is going to start at the same place, so you want to see where do they end up at the end of the year.
(APPLAUSE)
So, I just -- I just had a meeting with my team this -- this week about this, trying to find ways that we could improve the assessment system, so we're still holding schools accountable, we're still holding teachers accountable, but we're not just holding them accountable for a score on a standardized test, but we have a richer way of assessing whether these schools are making progress, all right?
So, that's the answer to the No Child Left Behind.
On the college front, here's the deal. We have already increased Pell Grants, and we want to increase them again. We have already increased both the size of each grant that's permissible, but also number of grants available, so more students can get to them.
The next step -- and this is legislation that's pending that we are strongly supportive of, and I think our entire congressional delegation from New Hampshire is strongly supportive of. What it would do is, it would say to every student all across America -- and this is especially important for somebody who wants to go into teaching, not a high-salary profession -- that you will never have to pay more than 10 percent of your income on student loans. And...
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
And to every student, we would say that, after 20 years, your debt would be forgiven, as long as you were making payments commensurate with your income.
But, if you went into public service, we would forgive those student loans after 10 years. And teaching obviously is one of our most important public services.
(APPLAUSE)
So we think this is a fair deal, because what it says is, you won't go bankrupt if you decide to go to college. But what it also says is, you can make the choice for the lower salary, but greater fulfillment, greater satisfaction pursuing your passion. You can do that, and it's not going to be cost-prohibitive.
Now, you may ask, how are we going to pay for it? Remember, we were -- we said we're going to pay for everything from here on out, pay as you go, pay-go, right?
So, here's how we're going to do it. It turns out that, right now, a lot of the student loan programs are still run through financial institutions and banks. So you have got this middle man, and they get billions of dollars per year managing loans that are guaranteed by the federal government.
So think about this. You the taxpayers are guaranteeing that this is going to be paid back. These institutions are essentially taking no risks, and yet they are still extracting these huge profits.
And what we have said is, look, cut out the middle man. You take those billions of dollars, give it directly to the students. With the money that we save, we can make sure that nobody goes bankrupt because they are going to college, because we need every single person to go to college.
(APPLAUSE)
We think it's a good idea. We're going to make it happen, all right?
(APPLAUSE)
All right. I have only got -- I have got one last question. Oh, and it's a guy's turn. It's a guy's turn.
All right, this gentleman over here. We figured -- are you a student? Oh, you look like a student. That's why I called on you.
(LAUGHTER)
You have got a baby face.
QUESTION: It's my young face.
Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Ronnie Camille (ph). I live in Nashua, New Hampshire.
Three weeks ago, as you know, there was an earthquake in Haiti. I traveled to Haiti to visit my family. And I know times are tough for the American people. And, as president, what will you do to ensure that Haiti will be continued -- will receive help, because many people down there have yet to receive help?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I appreciate that you went down. I appreciate what the students did here at Nashua North.
(APPLAUSE)
There's been an outpouring of incredible generosity in response to this earthquake. And it's a testament to the American people.
Our military and our government has responded, I believe, in exemplary fashion. We got Marines and aid workers and helicopters and food and, you know, clean water facilities. We got those down in record time. The devastation and the fact that Haiti already had such poor infrastructure to begin with makes it that much harder.
So, yes, there are still a lot of people there who are going through enormous hardship, but America should be proud of what we have done so far. We really should.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, part of the point you're making, though, is, you know, the headlines start to drift in another direction, right?
So, it was 24/7 Haiti for about a week. And then the media decided it was time to move on to something else. So now you're not hearing about it is as much. And what can happen is that everybody's memories of the devastation start fading away, and then, pretty soon, people are asking, why are we giving money to Haiti?
So, what we have to do is to build a strong consensus around a long-term recovery plan for Haiti that is not just shouldered by the United States, but the entire international community.
I'm going to be working with...
(APPLAUSE)
I'm going to be working with countries like France and Brazil and Canada, the European Union, Japan, China. We want to get countries that have capacity and resources to come together with the United Nations, with the Haitian government to determine how can we see, if out of this incredible tragedy, we can start actually rebuilding in a way that makes life even better for people over the long term than it was before the earthquake.
And that's going to require improving our schools. That's going to require improving the infrastructure in Haiti. That's going to require providing the ability of Haitians to sell their products like textiles into advanced countries in an advantageous situation, so that they can start rebuilding their commerce and their industry.
It's in our interest to do so, though. I want everybody to do it. We do it because it's right, but we also do it because, when the United States sends the USS Vinson to Haiti to allow a bunch of helicopters to unload food and Marines are helping, and we have got a hospital that's set up, that sends a message of American power that is so important, because too often what other countries think of when they think of the United States and our military is just war.
But when they see us devoting these resources and the incredible capacity that we have to help people in desperate need, that message ripples across the world. And it means that when you have got a guy like bin Laden out there screaming, blow up America, you know, it's a lot harder for that seed to take root when people have been seeing images of America making sure that people in desperate need are helped.
So it's part of our national security.
(APPLAUSE)
It's the smart thing to do.
It's great to see you, Nashua. I love you guys. Thank you. Appreciate it.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: And there you have the president of the United States in Nashua. He's been talking to what has been for the most part, as we have been watching this, a complimentary audience.
He did face some tough questions earlier. And one of the things that I'm going to want you -- if you just started listening recently, one of the things I'm going to want you to hear is the president continuing what has been a -- what has been very much a consecutive series of days where he's been heavy-handed against Republicans, accusing them of not being as cooperative as perhaps they should be.
As a matter of fact, we have got some sound I want to cue up. You may not have heard this. I would like for you to be able to see this now. This is the president earlier today. He's talking specifically about six or seven Republicans who had a measure that they were, well, in favor of.
And then, when the president said he was in favor of it, as he describes it, the Republicans walked away from it. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Last week, the Senate blocked a law that I had supported to create a bipartisan fiscal commission that would come up with a set of recommendations for cutting our deficits in the long term.
This is a difficult thing. It's only going to be solved if we do it together. This law failed by seven votes, when seven Republicans who had co-sponsored the bill, had co-sponsored the idea suddenly walked away from their own proposal after I endorsed it. (LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: So, they make a proposal. They sign on to the bill. I say, great. Good idea. I turn around. They are gone.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: What happened?
Now...
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: ... look, it's one thing to have an honest difference of opinion on something. There's nothing wrong with that. But you can't walk away from your responsibilities to confront the challenges facing the country because you don't think it's good short-term politics. We can't afford that.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: David Gergen is joining me now to go through this speech the president has delivered, this town hall presentation, as is our other senior political analyst, Gloria Borger.
We welcome both of you.
It seems to most of us who have been watching this consistently that the president has been more aggressive in some of his assaults. And he's doing it, some would say, with a bit more of a velvet glove, sharing anecdotes like that one. He does it with a smile on his face, but there's no doubt that, since the State of the Union, he has been more pointed in his criticism of Republicans and what he calls them not cooperating with him.
David, have you seen this as well?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely.
You remember when he went to Ohio two, three weeks ago, he said he was going to fight, and he said 20 times he was going to fight, and after the Massachusetts election victory by Republicans.
And so here we have him. He's combative. And he's out fighting on the stump, and he's gone on offense. The White House, I must tell you, has been making the argument he's finding his groove again, that he's -- that he's been on offense since the State of the Union, and he's -- these town halls are working.
Now to me he looks much more like a candidate, and it also says he's going to be mixing it up over the next few months with the Republicans, because, you know, he's been back on his heels. He wants to come out fighting, push back. And he's pretty effective at it, by the way. He's a good speaker. SANCHEZ: Gloria, two of our colleagues -- Wolf Blitzer told me yesterday he believes this is a result of what happened in Massachusetts.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure.
SANCHEZ: And agreeing with David, I was talking to Jessica yesterday, who told me that he believes -- that she believes that in fact that's what the president is doing again. He is campaigning. What's your take?
BORGER: Well, he is.
And what he's doing is bringing out the reformer again in him, because that's what worked for him on the campaign trail. And it's -- you know, it's kind of a difficult line to walk when you're trying to be the outsider and the reformer, when you're also the president of the United States in Washington. But that's what he's trying to do.
Another thing they are trying to do, from talking to the folks at the White House, is really draw the line and say, compared to what? OK, maybe I didn't succeed with health care yet, maybe I have got these other proposals on the line, but compared to what? Compared to the Republicans? Do they have any better ideas? Have they been saying no to a lot of ideas? Have they been reaching out to me any more than I have been reaching out to them?
So I think he's trying to say, OK, look at me, but also shine the spotlight on my opponents.
SANCHEZ: If he has a serious problem, it's going to be the fiscal problem. "The New York Times" today reported that this deficit issue is going to linger until at least the year 2020.
It's not going away, and it's not about this year or next year. It's about years into the future, David. Is this part of the Obama strategy for dealing with this, a return to populism, dare I use that word?
GERGEN: I think it is, Rick, but it's -- it's broader than populism in this particular case.
It's -- look, the president is in trouble. His health care bill failed. You know, he got the loss in Massachusetts. He's back on his heels. His numbers are down. The only way he's going to make progress on his agenda here in Washington is to get his popularity up in the country and to rally people behind him.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But you can't be a popular spender. You can't be a big spender and be popular, right?
GERGEN: Well, that's right.
BORGER: Sure. GERGEN: But I think he's -- Rick, in the last few days, his numbers have come up slightly in the polls. Gallup is showing him up slightly. He's back in the 50 percent range again, after being below it, so he's getting a little traction.
But what you have to do in the White House when you're down like that and you have got an opposition that has momentum -- there's an old saying in politics. If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
And that's what he's trying to do. He's trying to mobilize voters to put pressure on Republicans, so he can more of his agenda done. Does it solve the deficit problems? I don't think his proposals come anywhere close to solving the deficit problems.
SANCHEZ: Well, he has -- and, Gloria, I want you to listen to this, David, you as well. He has done something significantly different of late. We talked about the more assertive, the more aggressive President Obama.
Here's the President Obama who is coming out and saying, yes, I have got a deficit problem. You know why I have got a deficit problem? I have got a deficit problem because of George W. Bush. Here he is talking about that and then we will look at some numbers. This is Obama earlier this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I was very pleased when the House Republican Caucus graciously invited me to attend their retreat last week.
(LAUGHTER)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: We had a good time for more than an hour. For more than an hour, we had a frank exchange about the issues facing our country, and we aired some of our grievances. We shared some ideas.
There were plenty of things on which we didn't agree, but there were also some things on which we did and even more things that we should agree on, if we could just focus on solving problems, instead of scoring political points.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Again, that was the president earlier today talking about the conversation he had with Republicans earlier this week.
Point of fact is, he came out and told the Republicans, look, I had a deficit of $1.2 billion given me by George W. Bush.
BORGER: Right.
SANCHEZ: And some people are telling him, look, don't be talking about what the other guy did. Just concentrate on what you're doing. It seems like maybe the president is saying, no, I need to bring that up, because he is.
BORGER: Well, yes. You know, he's reminding people, look, I just didn't start this deficit problem. This deficit problem was here when I came.
Now, at a certain point, voters will say -- and I don't know whether we're there yet, but, a certain point, voters say, stop blaming the guy before you, OK?
SANCHEZ: Right.
BORGER: You're in charge now. You have been in charge a year.
However, to be fair to the president, he was handed a terrible economic crisis. Nobody disagrees that we had to spend some money to get out of it. They may disagree with parts of the stimulus package, right, but nobody disagrees that we had to do something.
SANCHEZ: And it was -- let me correct myself. I think I just said $1.2 billion. I wish it was $1.2 billion. It's $1.2 trillion.
BORGER: No, you wish. You wish.
This is a terrible problem, and a terrible problem for them politically, because the American public is worried about the deficit. They weren't so worried about the deficit until they have seen all of these spending programs, and until healthcare really became a huge issue, and they're worried about all the money that health care might cost in the short term even though it could save us money in the long term.
SANCHEZ: But I talked to McCain's adviser yesterday and had him here on this show, and Doug told me -- in fact, he told me on the air, David, I don't know if you were listening to this, because I think this made news. He told me if John McCain, hi guy would won, they probably wouldn't have done anything different than what this president has done in his first year.
Where he's critical of what this president is doing is what's going to happy about beyond this year, that he's embracing these deficits and basically making them part of his administration and his problem.
GERGEN: Well, John McCain sure as heck wouldn't have done a health care bill and proposed or spent eight or nine months doing it. He might have done much the same thing in Afghanistan, and he might have done much the same thing on the various bailouts.
SANCHEZ: I'm talking about the spending, the fact that Obama took it from 1.2 to 1.4.
GERGEN: Well, actually I don't think that John McCain would have done a lot of those things. I don't think he would have signed two appropriations billings as President Obama did last year, that between them raised domestic spending by some 20 percent, and, you know, had a whole lot of earmarks included in them. So I do think he would have been leaner.
Now, whether he would -- it's still true the country preferred President Obama. Now, President Obama inherited as Gloria said this terrible budget deficit left by George W. Bush and his administration.
SANCHEZ: That is a fact.
GERGEN: That is a fact.
But it's also true he's now got the con, he's in the saddle, and people are looking to him to get these deficits under better control because they are going to bankrupt the country if we allow them to continue climbing the direction they are taking right now.
And the fact is, Rick, I must tell you, I think John McCain right now would be tougher on getting these deficits under control and the Democrats have got to take responsibility now to get these entitlement programs under control. They have got the watch. Yes, they need Republican help. I agree with that, Gloria.
BORGER: They need Democratic help.
GERGEN: He needs Democratic help. The Democrats have got to show some guts here and get these deficits under control.
BORGER: That's the problem that this president has is -- which is that he can't get his own party under control. It was fine for him to go to the Republican caucus last week and duel with House Republicans, but he needs to do that with his own certain Democrats.
GERGEN: I agree.
BORGER: He proposed a discretionary spending freeze of non- defense money, and there were Democrats who said we don't like it, but if you're going to do it, how about freezing defense spending. So this is a president with a problem with his own party as well, so he may have to visit their caucus.
SANCHEZ: There's no question. You guys have been great, really enjoyed the discussion. Thanks for joining us both, Gloria, David. We'll be back with more in just a little bit.
Meanwhile, let me tell you what else we're going to have in just a little bit. There are more fireworks in Washington. I don't know if you got a chance to see this. I'm going to show you a confrontation, which is exactly what it is.
It says Senator Judd Gregg literally going ballistic. He says the small business loans that Obama is pushing, look, he came out and said it, using this word, "illegal." That's what he says, right, to Peter Orszag's face.
We'll have the latest with new developments on the three prisoners being held in Iran. We've just gotten a bulletin from the Iranian government. I'm going to share with you the information and have it right here. Stay right there. We're coming back with more news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back to "The List." I'm Rick Sanchez. We're coming in a little late obviously because of the president's town hall in Nashua, New Hampshire.
I mentioned to you a few moments ago that we received a bulletin from the Associated Press having to do with an announcement from the Iranian government. I want to read to you what the bulletin says from the AP.
It says Ahmadinejad, the Iran can president, Ahmadinejad, is willing to release three jailed U.S. hikers in exchange for Iranians who are currently serving in American prisons.
Now, here's the hikers. I don't know if you remember this story. You people do. It is a Shane Bauer, Syria Shourd, and Josh Gattal. They were hiking in Iraq's northern Kurdistan region in July when they accidentally crossed the border, their families said. They have been there all ever since.
Iranian officials have previously said that they would be tried for espionage. Families, of course, are denying the accusations.
What's interesting about this story and one, frankly, I haven't yet been able to figure out, is this talk -- as a matter of fact, can you see where I've put that question mark myself, having some of our folks can make some phone calls -- in exchange for Iranians currently serving in American prisons.
What does he mean by Iranians currently serving in American prisons? David, Gloria, do you have any idea what he means by that, because you could stretch that definition to just about anything, couldn't you?
BORGER: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: I wonder if he's referring to accused terrorists who may have...
GERGEN: Rick, I -- I don't know exactly the circumstances, but I can almost guarantee they will not be accused terrorists. They are not going to be people at Guantanamo or anything like that. The administration wouldn't make that kind of deal.
There may be people arrested for other reasons who are here, but I think the larger point -- hey. It sounds like a goodwill gesture. We ought to welcome it, but it doesn't get around the big problem, and these guys are too many people in Iran are still dead set on making nuclear weapons.
BORGER: You always just wonder if there's a quid pro quo in these things, and I'm interested in the fact that the quid pro quo presented and reported, according to the Associated Press, CNN has not confirmed this, but we consider the Associated Press to be a reliable news organization, and they're reporting that he's willing to exchange prisoners.
Let's leave that aside. As we get more information. I'll share it with you.
Let me ask you about health care. The president was talking today more about health care than I've seen him talk about in a long time. I was taken aback. He said to the people there at this town hall meeting, listen to the merits of the bill and not the insurance companies, not what they are saying about it, or the pundits on the left or on the right on television. That's what he said, Gloria.
BORGER: Yes. You know, he was talking about health care more because he was asked about health care an awful lot, Rick. And I should tell you since we last spoke I got an e-mail internally at CNN to say, we were talking about how the president ought to talk to Democrats. He is going to talk to Democrats tomorrow.
He's going to talk to the Senate Democratic caucus, their issues caucus. So I'm sure he'll be talking about the future of health care reform and the future of his jobs bill, because they have been fighting over in the Senate about how to handle his jobs bill.
SANCHEZ: Let's cut to the chase on this. It looked like last week, at least I heard a lot of folks suggesting this in newspapers and television, that health care was all but dead, at least any significant health care reform. David?
GERGEN: Well, I think the chances of getting universal health care coverage...
SANCHEZ: Standardization and they're -- that's the discussion. It's a goner.
GERGEN: ... are all gone, yes, all but gone.
But I will tell you this. There are people working, Senator Reid and others on the Hill are working this week to see what potential avenue would exist to bring some sort of changes through the Senate under what's called a reconciliation process. And it's a very complex process, and I -- I can -- I can't begin to understand it.
SANCHEZ: Nor do we have the time to explain it.
GERGEN: Nor do we have time to talk about it, right, but it's very difficult to get it through. But they are looking could you if you really push get something through reconciliation that would convince House Democrat, OK, go ahead and pass the health care bill with these changes.
Now, everybody knows that it's a long shot, it's the longest of long shots, but it's interesting they haven't totally given up yet, and they -- we may well see something pop here in the next few days. BORGER: You know, it's really, in the end, it's in their own self-interest to pass something, Rick, because if they don't, they will look like they cannot be a governing majority.
And people in this country would say wait a minute, they control the House, the Senate, the White House, and they can't even pass something that's a little smaller with some Republican support? Again, it's a problem for them.
Now, the Republicans have to decide whether it's in their own self-interest to work with the Democrats at this point, because not working with the Democrats has been working out just fine for them, as we've seen in all these elections.
SANCHEZ: You're saying a little bit of something is better than a lot of nothing. It's interesting.
BORGER: Yes.
SANCHEZ: You would hear a lot of Democrats out there saying why is it that when Democrats are in power, like in this case the president of the United States, it is so hard to get the other side of the aisle to come over and cooperate, when it seemed like when President Bush -- President George W. Bush was in charge during his administration, it seemed like they had so much certitude that it really didn't matter what the critics said?
BORGER: Well, I think the Democrats here may have been hampered ironically by having 60 seats in the Senate. You know, when you've got that kind of a majority, there's a sense that, well, we don't have to -- you know, we don't have to deal so much with the other folks because we can pass whatever we want. You have a large majority in the House. You have almost a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
SANCHEZ: What have they passed?
BORGER: Well, that's the problem, see, because the Democrats don't walk in lock step, right. And when Ronald Reagan had to go work with Democrats after he lost 26 seats in the House in 1982, it worked out kind of well for him. After Bill Clinton lost seats and lost control of the House, he got welfare reform done.
GERGEN: Yes, Rick, in fairness they did pass a number of smaller bills.
BORGER: That's right, that's right.
GERGEN: It had to do with women and equality in the work force.
BORGER: Children's health.
GERGEN: And also children's health and that sort of thing.
SANCHEZ: Not the kind of thing historians will be writing about.
GERGEN: That's right, because he made health care such his signature issue, almost an obsession in his first year, and to have that fall or fail towards the end of the year and then have the Senate loss in Massachusetts to put an exclamation point at the end of it was -- it was a big blow for him historically.
And historians, you're right, they look at the big picture, and they are going to judge him. And right now he's in some trouble. I think he's in considerable trouble. He's trying to fight back.
But I think if you look at the big things he's all about, which is health care or a cap and trade bill, you know, or the other kinds of immigration bill, business regulation bill, trying to get a consumer protection agency, all of those initiatives are in deep trouble.
And plus he's get these deficits, this ocean of deficits, and he's got unemployment that they predicted yesterday was going to hang up there. It's going to be 7.9 percent the predicted by the time he tries to run for reelection. That's tough stuff.
SANCHEZ: He's fighting the numbers, he's fighting the trends, he's fighting the Republicans.
GERGEN: Right.
SANCHEZ: And as we just learned from Gloria moments ago, tomorrow he'll be fighting the Democrats as well.
(LAUGHTER)
BORGER: I wouldn't -- you know what though? It's interesting. This has all happened very early for him.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
BORGER: And so he's got plenty of time.
SANCHEZ: Right.
BORGER: Don't count him out. Plenty of time. He's got a few years here. He's going to have a bad mid-term election.
SANCHEZ: David is shaking his head. He's running out of time, David?
GERGEN: I do think like John Kennedy he can rebuild his presidency. And this is a man of considerable hope and promise, but I do think this -- it's really hard in the situation he's in now.
I can't remember a president whose poll ratings went up significantly in his second year. The poll ratings started the year where there's likely to be about what it is when we have the November elections this year, and if he loses a lot of seats, think, Rick, how much harder it becomes for governing for him in the last two years in the first term. He's got his work cut out for him and he knows it, and he's fighting.
SANCHEZ: And the other side is tough.
GERGEN: Very.
SANCHEZ: I want to show you guys something. I'm going to take a break, and I think we've got that piece queued up now. I want everybody at home to watch this. This is fireworks. This is Judd Gregg, senator from New Hampshire, ironically. He goes all but ballistic today when the president sends his budget guy up there, Peter Orszag, to explain a new plan which he's hoping Congress will pass.
And Judd Gregg gets in his face and says, well, you'll hear it. Stay right there. I want you to see this. It's as animated, as passionate as anything you've seen from any of the elected officials in quite a long time. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: You just saw that promo there for "Larry King" talking about "don't ask, don't tell." Don't ask, don't tell is a policy that some referred to as really an open homosexual ban in the military.
We just got a tweet that we think is significant. I want to share it with you because it comes from the biggest of the bigs. This is the chairman of the joint staffs, Admiral Mike Mullen, as you know. "Stand by what I said -- allowing homosexuals serving openly is the right thing to do. It comes down to integrity."
As you know, he was, in fact, today, testifying on this. No absolute decision has been reached yet, but obviously it's now in discussions. The president said during his state of the union that he wanted -- he wanted it changed. He wanted no -- he wanted the policy, the ban, if you will, to be removed.
So we're going to do something for you on this. First of all, Barbara Starr is going to file where this is in a little while, from the Pentagon, a wonderful report that you want to see.
And then we'll talk to two people, one a member of the military who is not able to serve and says he wants to because he was called out as being gay, another person who is going to join us who is going to say, no, he's wrong, we should not have it, it's too difficult, too expensive, won't work. We should not have gays in the military.
Interesting discussion. Stick around. I think you're going to want to see both sides of that argument represented well here.
Now, to that video I was promising earlier. This is Judd Gregg of New Hampshire essentially getting in the face of Peter Orszag as he's up there trying to describe how he wants to take some of the money from TARP and give it to small businesses so they can improve their lot. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER ORSZAG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT: The purpose of TARP was to address problems in our financial markets. One of the -- and it has been remarkably successful in bringing credit spreads back down to normal levels. One of the lingering problems in our financial markets, however, is access to credit for small businesses. It's why in this budget...
SEN. JUDD GREGG (R), NEW HAMPSHIRE: No, no, no. You can't make that type of statement with any legitimacy.
ORSZAG: OK.
GREGG: You cannot make that statement. This is the law.
ORSZAG: Small business are not suffering from lack of credit?
GREGG: Let me tell you what the law says. Let me read it to you again because you don't appear to understand the law. The law is very clear. The monies recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the treasury for the reduction of the public debt. It's not for a piggy bank because you're concerned about lending to small businesses.
ORSZAG: Senator, it would require...
GREGG: And you want to get a political event when you go out and make a speech in Nashua, New Hampshire. That's not what this money is for. This money is to reduce the debt of our children, that we're passing on to our children.
And You ought to at least have the integrity to be forthright about it and say that's what you're doing, you're adding to the debt that our kids will have to pay back, when you're claiming at the same time --
ORSZAG: Senator, with respect...
GREGG: That you're being fiscally responsible.
Let me ask you another question, because clearly we're not going to agree and you won't follow the law.
ORSZAG: I'm sorry. Excuse me, we will be following the law. This would involve legislation.
GREGG: Then you won't be able to do it unless Congress gives you the authority to do that.
ORSZAG: Yes, exactly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's how laws are made, usually. Congress passes them.
GREGG: Did the senator from make a statement? The senator is wrong. This is the law that stands today on the books.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congress can amend the law tomorrow.
GREGG: There's a law on the books, senator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: This is something. Gloria, what do you make of that?
BORGER: Look, what Senator Gregg is saying is that the law as it's written says when these TARP funds are recouped, they're supposed to be used to pay down the deficit, and they're not.
SANCHEZ: Right.
BORGER: And what the president is proposing is to take $30 billion of this money and use it for small businesses, and you have to change the law to do that. It's true.
It's clear that Senator Gregg, who you remember, as the president pointed out today, was somebody the president wanted to run his commerce department until he withdrew from that.
Senator Gregg feels really strongly about this. He's one of the guys that deficit commission, remember, and says use this to pay down the debt. It's why Republicans could oppose this.
SANCHEZ: Some people would watch this argument, David, and watch Judd Gregg, who is a Republican, and say why is a Republican coming out against a proposition to help small business? I mean, that's one of the buzz words of the represent party.
GERGEN: I think that's right, Rick, but I think there's something larger going on here. I think Judd Gregg, it's sticking in his craw that President Obama is up in his home state promoting this bill.
BORGER: Right.
GERGEN: This bill for $30 billion. And, you know, so that's part of it.
SANCHEZ: I hadn't thought of that. You know, so -- so, look, all politics is local, right? You're on my turf, buddy.
GERGEN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: I'm going to show you up.
GERGEN: Exactly right.
SANCHEZ: That's interesting.
GERGEN: And I also think he's pretty unhinged about the budget itself. He said elsewhere today, he was very harsh about the president's new budget, said it was malfeasance and said it was going to wind up with the country in insolvency. He's pretty tough about this.
But I have to tell you, in fairness to Peter Orszag, he was making a point. We know we need to change the law, but we still want to do it.
I think Peter Orszag and President Obama are on the right side of the politician nationally about helping small business and getting more credit to small businesses and community banks. That is a popular -- going to be a popular item.
But Judd Gregg has this larger issue on his mind.
BORGER: He's a real deficit hawk, Judd Gregg, as we all know.
SANCHEZ: To his credit, by the way.
BORGER: He's very consistent.
SANCHEZ: I think we can say this -- whether we're journalists or politicians, we all can look at the numbers and see that if this country doesn't figure this out we'll all going to be in trouble.
BORGER: Exactly, and he's very consistent on that, has been very consistent on that.
And I also think there's another political issue here going on, which is what he may also be upset about is that the president is trying to say I'm against Wall Street, and I'm going to use Wall Street's money for the good guys in small business.
And this puts Republicans on the spot, because who do Republicans want to side with? Judd Gregg may have a point here. He believes very firmly this money was intended to go to reduce the deficit. But who doesn't want to help small business? Everybody wants to help small business.
SANCHEZ: That's my point.
And by the way, this president does not have clean hands, does he, when it comes to Wall Street, right? I mean, look at the folks he's got handling his economy, where do they all come from? And look at where many of his campaign contributions come from. Those are facts, are they not?
GERGEN: Rick, you should come to Washington one of these days. Come out of Atlanta and come to Washington and you look for somebody with clean hands. You may have a long, long look.
(LAUGHTER)
BORGER: And I would also -- I would also, to be fair, have to say that we had this huge financial crisis. And I think the feeling was in this administration as they were recruiting people was that they needed to recruit people who actually understood it. And there aren't that many people around who actually understand the minutia.
So say what you want to say about Tim Geithner, but he's a former chairman of the New York Fed, might be controversial...
SANCHEZ: Or Summers or Bernanke. BORGER: Or Bernanke, but they do understand the problems that we face, and this was a president who didn't have time to appoint people who had a big learning curve here.
GERGEN: And give him credit, too. I think bringing Paul Volcker back into the mix now, and having him in the White House. And having him testify today I thought was really smart. If anybody has clean hands, it's Paul Volcker.
SANCHEZ: And what he's talking about now, this idea of taking money from Wall Street because suddenly we were reading reports that the folks on Wall Street were making bonuses again as big as the ones they had last year.
This idea that he has Peter Orszag presenting today is a direct result of some that criticism from that, from hearing people say you're very tied to Wall Street, are you not, Mr. President? And this is the response, right?
BORGER: Absolutely, which is why it sticks in Judd Gregg's craw just a little.
SANCHEZ: That makes sense now.
GERGEN: Don't go politic in my home state and rouse people against me.
SANCHEZ: I'm coming to visit to spend a day with you and you buy me lunch in Washington.
GERGEN: Looking forward to it, Rick.
SANCHEZ: All right, appreciate it. Gloria, thank you so much, David, same.
BORGER: Sure.
SANCHEZ: We'll be back in a little bit. More information on just a little while ago about what we're learning of these hikers who have been in Iran, captured by the Iranian government, and now the Iranian government is saying they're willing to release them, but they want a deal.
The deal is a bit confusing. We'll just be straight with you, we're not quite sure what the Associated Press means by this report that suggests that what the Iranians want is an exchange for Iranians currently serving in American prisons. That kind of leaves that out there. Hazy what exactly that means.
That and, of course, the big story we're following for you today having to do with a possible change in the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, which some call a flat-out open ban on gays or homosexuals in the military. We'll have that for you as well, with both sides represented.
Stay there, THE LIST continues. I'm Rick Sanchez. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
