'We Urge Members to Vote for This Common Sense Approach'

Statement  by the Press Secretary on Senate Action on the Buffet Rule

The President proposed the Buffett Rule to ensure a very basic principle of fairness: millionaires shouldn’t pay less in taxes as a share of their income than middle class families pay. The President believes our system must ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share, while protecting 98 percent of Americans from seeing their taxes go up at all.  And we can’t accept the Ryan Republican approach that hands out massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of investing in the things we need to grow our economy, create jobs and help the middle class. In the next few weeks, Members of Congress will get a chance to vote on the Buffett Rule, and show the American people whether they are willing to make sure the middle class gets a fair shake. We urge Members to vote for this common sense approach.

Image courtesy of http://greenfreelibrary.blogspot.com

Carney: 'The Senate Has Done Its Part...'

Press Secretary Comments on House Passage of the 90-Day Surface Transportation Extension

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has issued the following statement on the Senate's bipartisan effort to pass the 90-Day Surface Transportation Extension.

While it is critical that we not put American jobs and safety at risk and hurt our economic recovery by allowing funding to run out, it is not enough for us to continue to patch together our nation’s infrastructure future with short-term band-aids. States and cities need certainty to plan ahead and America’s construction workers deserve the peace of mind that they won’t have to worry about their jobs every few months.

The Senate has done its part, passing a bipartisan bill with 52 Democrats and 22 Republicans that would keep American workers on the job maintaining our roads, bridges, and railways. As soon as the House gets back to work, they should do their part and pass that bill in similarly bipartisan fashion.

More information on the bill is available here: H.R. 4239

West Wing Week 12/23/11 or "#40Dollars"

White House Briefs

White House Briefs

Carney: 'This Congress Needs to Do Its Job'

Press Secretary Comments on House Vote on the GOP Payroll Tax Cut Plan

This Congress needs to do its job and stop the tax hike that’s scheduled to affect 160 million Americans in 18 days. This is not a time for Washington Republicans to score political points against the President. It’s not a time to refight old ideological battles. And it’s not a time to break last summer’s bipartisan agreement and hurt the middle class by cutting things like education, clean energy, and veterans’ programs without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.

This is a time to help the middle class and all those trying to reach it by extending a tax cut worth $1,000 for the average family. The President has been very clear: Congress should not finish their business before finishing the business of the American people. They cannot go on vacation before agreeing to prevent a tax hike on 160 million Americans and extending unemployment insurance. That is simply inexcusable in this economy. It is our expectation that in the eleventh hour Congressional Republicans and Democrats will come to an agreement to protect the middle class and finish their budget work for the year.

White House Briefs

White House Briefs

President Obama on Deficit Reduction

President Obama delivers brief remarks on the status of efforts to find a balanced approach to deficit reduction from the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House.

Federal Budget Battle Update

PRESS BRIEFING

BY PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:22 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY: Okay, let’s get started. Ben.

Q A quick follow. I guess from all that, I’m wondering whether today’s meeting accomplished anything.

MR. CARNEY: Yes, it was a good meeting. It was a good meeting because the President sat down, the Vice President sat down with Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, the chairmen of the appropriations committees, and they spoke directly and at length about what issues are on the table, what needs to be resolved. And I think the Speaker has said that he’s willing to work towards finding a deal, and the President obviously made clear that he thinks it’s essential that we find a deal.

And he wants nonstop work on this -- today, tomorrow, the next day -- until it gets done. And as he said from here, that if progress isn’t being made on the Hill, then he wants to invite that same group of lawmakers back to the White House tomorrow, and again the next day, until we get this done -- because it is simply irresponsible and unacceptable not to finish this business when we are this close to a deal.

Q But he’s not willing to stay in town for the meeting tomorrow?

MR. CARNEY: The President called the meeting today. If there’s a meeting tomorrow, we’ll see when that happens and who’s in attendance. It will be here. We are engaged extensively in making this happen. The President just stood before you and said he would make every member of his team, including himself, available to the leaders on the Hill to help bring this compromise to a conclusion so we can move on to the other issues that confront us, which are substantial and, in many ways, far more significant than last year’s business, six months left in the fiscal year.

Q So he’ll cancel his trip if necessary?

MR. CARNEY: Chip, I don’t have an announcement to make since the President said he will call a meeting if it’s necessary. So I would suggest that maybe you guys want to focus on the slightly bigger picture than the President’s schedule. The President just came and spoke to you about this. He just spoke to the Speaker of the House and the Leader of the Senate, to the chairmen of the appropriations committees, and the American people about this. I think his commitment and focus on this is apparent for anyone who was watching, both here and in the room. And he has demonstrated his willingness to do whatever he can do to ensure that the necessary people sit down and do the necessary work in a reasonable way to reach a compromise to get the people’s business done.

Jeff.

Q Jay, how do you envision getting a deal if both sides are digging in their heels on the same things that they’ve been digging in their heels on for weeks?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we have made clear, as the President said, that our willingness to come to meet the Republicans more than halfway has been amply demonstrated by any baseline you want to measure it at this point. Between zero and 100, 73 is a much more than halfway. Between zero and 61, 33 is substantially more than halfway. And we continue to want to work on the details to make sure that the composition of the cuts is one that we can live with and that we can all agree on.

But the President has some very clear principles going into this about what cannot and should not be cut, and he believes that in a choice between community health care centers, or medical research, or Head Start, or education funding on one hand, or highway funds that are set aside for earmarks on the other hand, or military spending that the Pentagon has indicated is wasteful and it does not want or need -- in that choice, if those are the choices on the table, it’s pretty clear where he stands, and he believes that there’s a case to made for reaching a kind of compromise, having demonstrated our willingness to come as far as we have and to make cuts in programs that we support, that we can come the final distance, the final few billion dollars, if you will, to get this work done.

Q It’s just, we’ve heard that a bunch, so I’m just wondering how -- if you’re not moving away from that position and the Republicans aren’t moving from theirs, how do you come together?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we come together by calling a meeting and working it out -- by meeting today, by meeting this afternoon, the Speaker and the Senate Leader -- Majority Leader, by meeting tomorrow if necessary, by meeting and continuing to work out these details. And again, if the composition of the cuts is the issue, we have offered a number of different ways to bridge the gap. And the kinds of cuts we’re offering are real and substantial. The Speaker of the House, in the meeting today, acknowledged that there has never been an appropriations bill that does not also include cuts in so-called mandatories. One out of every 10 dollars in H.R. 1 is a cut in mandatories. So there’s no disagreement on the fact that that’s got to be part of this composition.

So there are ways to get there, and there’s more than one way to get there that still achieves an agreement between both sides.

Jake.

Q Given that the White House has now issued a memo to agencies and departments telling them to prepare a contingency just in case there is a government shutdown, can you share with the American people what a shutdown -- I understand you are confident that it’s not going to happen, you’re cautiously optimistic there’s going to be a deal, but can you share with the American people what a shutdown would mean to them?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the President I think laid out in some specifics that would happen if an agreement were not reached and the impact that it would have on small businessmen and their ability to secure a loan; on families visiting national parks; on a variety of different areas.

As the week progresses, the Office of Management and Budget will make more clear to the agencies and share more details about what steps need to be taken in terms of which portions of the government would continue to operate and which would shut down.

But again, I will cite the Speaker of the House who said recently that a budget shutdown would cost more than it would save. So any notion that shutting down the government for some period of time is actually a good thing because it saves money is incorrect, as the Speaker himself said.

And independent economists are out there making clear what the impact on the economy would be on the uncertainty it would create for businesses, and that would obviously be harmful at a time when we are beginning to see some real progress in terms of economic growth, sustained growth, and sustained job creation.

So we clearly do not want a shutdown. We take leaders of the Congress, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader at their word that they do not want a shutdown, which is why we believe that there is still reason to hope that if everyone sits down at the table and is reasonable, that we can find an agreement.

Q Do you have any idea of how many federal employees would be furloughed?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t. I don’t have those specifics.

Q One last question. Admiral Mullen said that the most significant threat to our national security is the debt. Does President Obama agree?

MR. CARNEY: President -- the President certainly agrees that it is essential to address our long-term deficit and debt. He has made clear --

Q But does he think it’s the most significant threat to our national security?

MR. CARNEY: I think we’ve got a lot of significant threats to our national security and certainly the economic health of this country, and one thing he’s made clear about the need to be competitive in the 21st century is that our stature in the world, our national security, depends on our security at home and our economic security, and certainly that we are committed, the President is committed to addressing our long-term deficit and debt issues because they are so vital to our capacity to continue to grow and out-compete the rest of the world.

And he has, as he said right from this podium moments ago to Julianna, he is looking forward to the debate about fiscal year 2012 and our longer-term budget and fiscal priorities, because he thinks it’s vital and important. And it’s another reason why it’s so important to just get this business done of funding the last six months of 2011.

Q I guess the question is, if it is such an urgent threat, whether or not it’s the top one or one of 10, why not just find $20 billion, $30 billion more in cuts, and meet the Republicans where they are, given that we all know that this is --

MR. CARNEY: Wait, wait, you -- Jake, you know better than anybody else this debate that we’re having about fiscal 2011 is about 12 percent of the budget.

Q That’s what I’m saying, it’s a pittance.

MR. CARNEY: There is nothing you can do in cutting discretionary spending in anything like a responsible way that will address, will deal in any marked way with our long-term deficit and debt issues. Everyone agrees on that.

This is not the vehicle through which to have -- to address the longer-term debt issues. Our entitlement programs, the tax reform we need, the tax expenditures that are an issue, the defense spending that is an issue -- that is not the box in which we are now deciding the funding for six months of the year. But he is committed to addressing those issues, as he has made clear since his State of the Union address and he made clear when he appointed the fiscal commission last year. And he will do that.

Dan.

Q Why does everything have to go down to the wire, whether we’re talking about the budget, whether we’re talking about what happened in lame duck session? Everything seems to come down to the wire and everyone is trying to cut a deal. Why does it have to be that way?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would suggest that we’re all in many ways students of Washington, and there are a lot of answers to that question. But I think what the President made clear just now is that it does not have to come to that. It does not have to come down to brinksmanship. It does not have to come down to a shutdown, showdown, especially when we are this close to an agreement; that the American people expect us to be responsible, to say, you know what, I’m going into this room and I know I’m not going to get 100 percent of what I want, because last I checked, no faction, no party controlled 100 percent of the government that -- in Congress or the White House.

So the system is built for compromise, for finding common ground, for reaching a consensus around things that serve the greater good, and in this case, reduce the deficit more substantially. And more substantial discretionary spending cuts than have ever been proposed in nominal terms we have accepted, right? No debate. No debate. Larger as a percentage of -- as large as a percentage of the GDP since any cuts proposed since 1982; no debate.

So I think the question of who’s for spending cuts, are we for spending cuts, are they for spending cuts -- we’re all for spending cuts. We’re all for reducing the deficit and the need to address that.

And there is not that much that divides us on how we get there to that figure that we talked about, the $73 billion that the President mentioned, which, by the way, is the same figure which the Speaker of the House, the leader of the Republican Party in the House, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, initially proposed.

So when we talk about our engagement and willingness to compromise, willingness to move off our starting position, I think we have amply demonstrated that. And we, as the President said today, are ready and prepared to meet around the clock to get this done.

Q Why does it always have to be --

MR. CARNEY: Dan, I don’t have the answer to that question. Why does Washington work the way it works? Clearly it shouldn’t work the way it works.

Q But we see the White House in these situations where they’re fully engaged, where meetings are happening, people are coming to the White House, or people from the White House are going up to the Hill at the last minute. Why is this not happening --

MR. CARNEY: Would that it were not so.

Q Why isn’t this pressure happening early in the process so that it doesn’t have to come down to this?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would -- as you know, the calendar of where we have come -- the conversations that led to the target figure of $73 billion happened more than a week ago. We got there more than a week ago. So -- and it was -- we were told that the appropriators could work it out from there. And we have stayed engaged in -- even as that process has taken place. So we certainly don’t endorse this approach. It would certainly be better for all of us, for -- and for the American people, most importantly, if we were able to do this in regular order, if we had come to this agreement two months ago, three months ago, or four months ago. But we certainly need to come to agreement now.

Athena.

Q You talked this morning about people being reasonable, and the President just spoke about the American people want Congress and the White House to act like grownups and to not be playing games. So who’s being unreasonable right now?

MR. CARNEY: I think the President also said that we’re not interested in pointing fingers and blaming. The American people aren’t interested in that; we’re not interested in it. We’re interested in getting this done. We have demonstrated our willingness, as I mentioned to Bill today, earlier this morning, that you cannot -- whichever ruler you use, you cannot disagree with the proposition that we have come more than halfway. You just can’t -- unless you have a form of math that’s not familiar to me or anyone else in this building.

So we believe we are being reasonable. We continue to believe that if we’re reasonable and they’re reasonable, a deal is possible. And that’s why we look forward to these -- having these meetings today, tomorrow, the next day, as necessary.

Q So just one follow-up. If, as the President said, not everyone can get 100 percent of what they want, he’s talked about some things that he’s not willing to budge on, like Head Start positions and EPA. What do you want to see the Republicans budge on, and what specifically are Democrats --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think I’ve been specific -- I think I’ve been specific and the President mentioned also that one area that we see potential savings that we have not agreed on yet is the $600 million plus in the current Republican proposal, which is for funds set aside for transportation highway project earmarks. We think in a choice between that and closing down community health care centers, we’d rather see the earmarks cut; Pentagon spending that the Pentagon says -- military spending the Pentagon says it doesn’t want and doesn’t need and is wasteful -- all things considered, we’d rather see that cut than education, Head Start, or medical research.

So -- and then, but again, those are identified cuts. There are also things that we have put forward as alternatives to reaching them, in Medicaid savings, for example, or other areas that are real cuts. They can -- as the President tried to explain and did explain, that mandatories -- this is a terminology, a term of art on Capitol Hill -- but this is real money that affects real people in real ways. So we’re at the table and we’re interested in doing this for the American people.

Chip.

Q I know you hope and believe it won’t get to this, but if it does get to Friday and they don’t have a deal, what specifically do you object to in Boehner’s proposal for a one-week stopgap? Is it the $12 billion? Is it the Defense Department provision? What specifically is objectionable about that?

MR. CARNEY: What’s objectionable is the notion that we can continue to fund the government on a turnstile --

Q I understand that, but that proposal in particular.

MR. CARNEY: -- in turnstile, tollbooth fashion. It’s just -- it is no way to run a government. It is -- creates a lot of uncertainty for businesses and for the economy. And it is not necessary. And I’m not going to expand beyond what the President said. What he did say is if we are -- if we have a deal and because of rules up on the Hill we need a few more days to push the paperwork through, then he would certainly entertain signing a clean CR to keep the government open while that process works for a few days.

Q But they won’t agree to that, we know that.

MR. CARNEY: Well, we need to get the deal done then, don’t we? I mean, that’s why the President is -- had the meeting today, why he’s calling on leaders to continue meeting and to work on this problem, and why he’s making the Vice President and his entire senior staff available to help with that process.

Q And I know you suggested it’s not a pertinent question, but the President said if they can sort it out in today’s meeting, fine; if not, I want them back here tomorrow. Will he be here if John Boehner comes here tomorrow?

MR. CARNEY: Let me look at the schedule. Again, the meeting has not been called. We would --

Q That would be his hope?

MR. CARNEY: He said very clearly he would make himself available for meetings and for engagement in this process, as he has up to this point.

Q As OMB is making contingency plans, if you will, for a government shutdown, would the President like to see as many government workers as possible deemed essential personnel, or is that a decision that’s largely out of his --

MR. CARNEY: I think that’s a decision that’s based on existing rules or guidelines. I haven’t heard the President address the issue of the number of federal workers who would continue to come to work if there were a cutoff in funding. I think that’s guided by the numbers.

Q No way he can influence that --

MR. CARNEY: I don’t know, honestly. But I think that that’s very much a side issue today.

Q On the Middle East, any progress toward the President’s hopes of getting an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement within, now, I guess, six months made at today’s meeting with President Peres?

MR. CARNEY: Well, he had a very good meeting with the Israeli President, which he discussed, and he remains hopeful that progress will be made and that -- because he believes firmly that the solution of having a secure Israel living side by side with a sovereign and secure Palestine is a goal shared by both sides, and that it is best reached in negotiations between the two sides. And he encourages progress -- he encourages progress to be made on those negotiations.

Q But no --

MR. CARNEY: No news of specifics or anything out of today’s meeting.

Q On the Justice Department decision to try folks at Gitmo before military commissions, the reaction to that has been critical from both sides -- the right saying you could have come to this decision a year ago; the left saying you promised you wouldn’t do this. What is your reaction, if you will, to the reaction?

MR. CARNEY: Well, look, what’s important is that the President believes that it is not helpful to remove Article III courts as a tool in our toolbox to prosecute terrorists. Because there is not the prospect in the short term of convincing Congress to do that, to remove those obstacles, then he believes it is essential to bring the accused to justice. It’s the right thing to do for the victims’ families and it’s the right thing to do, period.

So he is proceeding with a military commission process, which has been reformed in a way that makes it more effective and responsive. And he supports the Attorney General’s decision to proceed in that direction.

Q The Attorney General said he really didn’t like the idea of trying these folks before commissions. Does the President agree?

MR. CARNEY: The President agrees that Article III court -- it is not a good thing that Congress is preventing the use of Article III courts for this purpose. And he also agrees with the Attorney General’s decision that it is time -- given the circumstances we find ourselves in on this issue, it is time to move forward with prosecuting these suspects.

Keith.

Q Is there any amount of progress that can be made in these negotiations that would cause the President to sign a CR? Or are we at the point where there’s either a deal or there will be a government shutdown?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think the President made very clear that if we -- if we get to a point where an agreement is in hand, but the system won’t allow for it to be processed and voted on in time, then he would entertain a clean CR of several days to allow that process to take place.

Q But there has to be an agreement? There’s no --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I won’t -- I’m not --

Q -- we’ve made enough progress --

MR. CARNEY: I won’t improve upon the President’s words on that.

Q And just lastly, does the White House feel that basically there was a deal with Boehner on the number and that Boehner has reneged on this deal?

MR. CARNEY: Well, what we have said is that -- as the Vice President said that evening on Capitol Hill that there was an agreement that $73 billion was a target that the appropriators could work off of. We agree that there was -- until everything was agreed upon, nothing was agreed upon. But there was an agreement. And as I said this morning, those appropriators have been working off that principle, and they didn’t get it out of thin air.

So we believe that that is an instructive number because of its -- what it represents in terms of substantial spending cuts; also because of what it represents in terms of the original position of the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House Budget [Appropriations] Committee. And we have demonstrated our willingness to accept cuts that in an ideal world we would not support in order to reach a compromise and find common ground because nobody can get 100 percent of what they want in a process like this. And we have recognized that.

Yes.

Q It’s hard to square that statement with --

MR. CARNEY: Can I just --

Q -- we’re not interested in blame.

MR. CARNEY: Got to raise your hand. Yes.

Q Thanks, Jay. Can you just expand on the President’s response to the Ryan plan and how he may respond after this budget, current budget fight is over? On the entitlement reform, tax reform issue?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we are committed, as the President has said, to reducing America’s long-term deficit, because it’s essential to growing our economy and winning the future. Congressman Ryan is correct in identifying the fact that we cannot do that if we just look at 12 percent of our budget. A narrow slice of domestic spending, cutting that will not get us to where we need to get in terms of dealing with our long-term deficit. And that, I remind you, is what has occupied so much of our attention today and for the last weeks and months.

But while we agree on his ultimate goal, Congressman Ryan’s goal, we strongly disagree with his approach, because any plan to reduce our deficit substantially must reflect American values of fairness and shared sacrifice.

We believe that Congressman Ryan’s plan that he put forward fails that test. It cuts taxes for millionaires and special interests, while placing a greater burden on seniors who depend on Medicare or live in nursing homes; families struggling with a child who has serious disabilities; and workers who have lost their health care coverage.

The President believes, again, that the goal is important and he shares the goal, but he believes there is a more balanced way to achieve that goal, to put Americans on a path to prosperity, if you will.

Look, but despite all our differences, what the President made clear here and what we have made clear every day from this White House, and the President said in his State of the Union, we need to come together as Democrats and Republicans to tackle this issue. There is no way that a Republican plan -- purely Republican plan or a purely Democratic plan -- is going to get through a divided Congress and be signed by the President. It has to be a bipartisan compromise. And he looks forward to resolving this issue, the six months remaining of last year’s business, precisely so that he can engage and have that debate that he talked about moments ago.

Q So is he saying that he -- it’s a non-starter for the President?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we’d say that we strongly disagree with this proposal. I want to remind you, because I took this question in another form earlier this morning from you, asking about our response or -- to Congressman Ryan’s proposal and that it is a budget -- a fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, which, by the way, the President put forward his a couple months ago. So -- but he has recognized and said again today that we need to address these long-term deficit issues, and he looks forward to engaging in that debate. But he believes that the plan that Congressman Ryan put forward today fails the test of balance that is essential to make sure that there are shared sacrifice in the decisions we make, and shared sacrifice as we go forward and we reduce our deficit in a way that puts us on a fiscally sustainable path for the future; allows us to be competitive and to win the future.

I’ll take a couple more. Jon-Christopher.

Q Yes, thank you. Regarding Prime Minister Cameron’s visit to Pakistan, has the President and Prime Minister Cameron discussed a coordinated approach to the challenges that face Pakistan as they relate to the war in Afghanistan?

MR. CARNEY: As we’ve read out many times, the President and the Prime Minister have spoke -- have had telephone conversations quite frequently of late. I do not know if they have spoken specifically about Pakistan. But -- so I don’t have anything specifically in reaction to the Prime Minister’s trip.

Q Can I just follow up? What’s been the essence of the latest conversations that they’ve both had in terms of --

MR. CARNEY: Well, they spoke on numerous occasions about Libya in the process of reaching agreement on U.N. Security Council resolutions and coordinating and working together as partners in that process.

Q Thank you, Jay.

MR. CARNEY: Bill.

Q Jay, back to the shutdown, possible shutdown. The Stars and Stripes is reporting -- advising members of the military that they may be required to -- and civilians who work at the Pentagon -- they may required to come to work on Monday if there’s a shutdown and not get paid. Is that your understanding?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t understand the specifics. My understanding is that uniform service men and women will get paid, but I would not take the specifics from me. I think you ought to address that to the OMB or DOD.

Q Has that been decided the military would --

MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have specifics on that, but it’s my understanding that uniformed men and women will continue to get their paychecks.

Thank you very much, all.

Q Jay, can you just comment on Kaine announcing his plans to run for the Senate?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything on that right now. Let’s save it for tomorrow. Thank you.

END 2:51 P.M. EDT

White House Briefs

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

Henry S. Ensher, Nominee for Ambassador to the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, Department of State

Henry S. Ensher most recently served as the United States Senior Civilian Representative in southern Afghanistan. Immediately prior to that assignment, he was Director of the Office of Afghanistan Affairs in the Department of State. Mr. Ensher joined the Foreign Service in 1983 and his overseas assignments include Hermosillo, Jeddah, Muscat, Damascus, Vienna, Algiers, Tel Aviv and Baghdad. He also directed political affairs for Iraq within the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in 2006. Mr. Ensher received his B.A. from Loyola Marymount University.

Kenneth J. Fairfax, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan, Department of State

Kenneth Fairfax is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and currently serves as the Minister Counselor for Economic Affairs at the American Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. Prior to this assignment, Mr. Fairfax served as Principal Officer and Consul General at the U.S. Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City, a position he has also held at the U.S. Consulate General in Krakow. Prior to that, he served as Counselor for Economic Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. His other overseas assignments include Vancouver, British Columbia, Seoul and Pusan, Korea. He began his Foreign Service career in 1987 as an Economics and Commercial Officer at Embassy Muscat. Mr. Fairfax has also served as the Director for both Nuclear Materials Security and Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Affairs at the National Security Council. Prior to joining the State Department, Mr. Fairfax worked as an economic consultant and in the computer industry in the San Francisco Bay Area. He holds a B.A. with High Honors from Oberlin College.

Deepa Gupta, Nominee for Member, National Council on the Arts

Deepa Gupta is a Program Officer for Media, Culture and Special Initiatives at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in Chicago. In this role, she manages the Foundation's grantmaking in arts and culture in Chicago and the MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions. She previously served as a senior associate at McKinsey and Company. She is a board member of the National Kidney Foundation of Illinois and an advisory board member of the Cure JM Foundation. Ms. Gupta earned her M.B.A. from the Kellogg School at Northwestern University and an M.P.A. from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She has an A.B. in Public Policy and Biology from the University of Chicago.

President Obama announced his intent to appoint the followinf individuals to key Administration posts:

Nisha Desai Biswal, Appointee for Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China

Nisha Desai Biswal currently serves as Assistant Administrator for Asia at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Prior to this position Ms. Biswal served as the Majority Clerk for the State Department and Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations in the U.S. House of Representatives which has jurisdiction over the State Department, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other aspects of the international affairs budget. Ms. Biswal provided staff support to Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey and Subcommittee Chairwoman Nita Lowey in managing the appropriations and oversight of the U.S. international affairs budget. Ms. Biswal was the Director of Policy and Advocacy at InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S. based international humanitarian and development non-governmental organizations. She previously served on the professional staff of the House International Relations Committee where she was responsible for South and Central Asia policy as well as oversight of the State Department and USAID. Ms. Biswal worked at the U.S. Agency for International Development where she served as Special Assistant to the Administrator. During her four years at USAID, Ms. Biswal also worked in the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, the Office of Transition Initiatives, and served as chief of staff in the Management Bureau. Ms. Biswal has also worked with the American Red Cross both in their Washington headquarters and overseas as an international delegate in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Ms. Biswal holds a B.A. from the University of Virginia.

Michael C. Camuñez, Appointee for Member, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Michael C. Camuñez currently serves as Assistant Secretary for Market Access and Compliance, Department of Commerce. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Camuñez served as Special Counsel to the President in the Office of the White House Counsel. He has also served as Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel. Mr. Camuñez also worked on the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Project as part of the Agency Review Team. Prior to joining the administration, Mr. Camuñez was a partner in the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, where he represented Fortune 500 companies, officers and directors in a range of matters involving domestic and international commercial disputes. He also advised U.S. companies doing business abroad in Latin America and Europe on corporate compliance, anti-corruption, and the risks associated with foreign investment and multinational business transactions. From 1991-1993 he served as the Program Officer and Director of the National Service Demonstration Program at the bipartisan U.S. Commission on National Service in Washington, DC. From 1993 to 1995 he served as the Senior Policy Advisor for national service in the Clinton Administration, where he helped lead the effort to establish the Corporation for National Service and its signature program, AmeriCorps. He has also served on numerous boards, including as President of the Mexican American Bar Foundation in Los Angeles County and as a member of the Stanford Law School Board of Visitors. He was appointed by Democratic and Republican governors to the board of California’s public service commission, which he chaired from 2005-2007 with California First Lady Maria Shriver. From 2007 until his appointment in the administration, Mr. Camuñez also served as a member of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission. He is a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy, the West Coast Affiliate of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Stanford Law School.

Susan H. Hildreth, Appointee for Member, Board of Trustees of the American Folklife Center

Susan Hildreth recently was appointed by President Obama as the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Before joining the IMLS, Susan H. Hildreth was the city librarian of The Seattle Public Library. She was previously appointed as California’s state librarian by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Prior to her position as California state librarian, Ms. Hildreth was at the San Francisco Public Library, where she served as deputy director and then city librarian. Her background also includes five years as deputy library director at the Sacramento Public Library, several years as Placer County's head librarian and four years as library director for the Benicia Public Library, all in California. She began her career as a branch librarian at the Edison Township Library in New Jersey. Ms. Hildreth is active in the American Library Association and served as president of the Public Library Association in 2006. She has a master's degree in library science from State University of New York, a master's degree in business administration from Rutgers University and a bachelor of arts, cum laude, from Syracuse University.

Gary Hirshberg, Appointee for Member, Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations

Gary Hirshberg is Chairman, President, and CEO of Stonyfield Farm, a leading organic yogurt producer and is managing director of Stonyfield Europe, a partnership with Groupe Danone, with brands in Canada, Ireland, and France. He serves as a member on the corporate boards of Honest Tea, Applegate Farms, The Full Yield, Peak Organic Brewing, O'Naturals, Sweetgreen, and Glenisk (Ireland). He is also a member of the board of Danone Communities Fund which is advancing sustainable micro-enterprises in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Senegal among other countries.

Edwin Schlossberg, Appointee for Member, Commission of Fine Arts

Edwin Schlossberg is the founder and principal of ESI Design, an internationally recognized firm that designs interactive environments for learning and communicating. Mr. Schlossberg specializes in integrated experiential museums and retail and large scale cultural facilities including the recently designed Shanghai Corporate Pavilion for the World Expo in Shanghai. He has written more than ten published works, has had numerous one man art shows and his work is in the collections of many major museums. He teaches and lectures widely including at Columbia University. He is on several non profit boards and founded the partnership desigNYC that matches designers and community organizations in need of pro-bono support. He graduated from the Columbia University with a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. in Science and Literature.

Lesley Weiss, Appointee for Member, Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad

Lesley Weiss is Director of Community Services and Cultural Affairs for NCSJ: Advocates on Behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia. Ms. Weiss coordinates democracy initiatives, community education and revitalization efforts in the countries of the former Soviet Union. She monitors government compliance in the areas of free emigration and religious and cultural rights. Ms. Weiss, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, travels frequently to the region where she works closely with government, NGO and community representatives on the restitution and preservation of Jewish communal property, cemetery restoration, and Holocaust remembrance and memorialization.

Albany Update

Gov's Executive Order to Reduce Cost of
State Agency Contracts

Governor Andrew Cuomo has issued an Executive Order which will reduce the cost of many personal services contracts (PSC) used by New York State agencies by 10 percent.

Under the order, agencies will be permitted to renew certain PSCs only if the contractor agrees to the reduction or with the approval of the Director of State Operations.

"My proposed budget calls for significant savings from State agencies and reducing the cost of contracts those agencies enter into will help achieve our goal," said the governor. "My administration will continue looking for ways to save taxpayers' money across all sectors of our government, and asking companies that do business with the State to find new efficiencies and lower their costs is a critical part of the process."

The state uses PSCs in areas including research and analysis, data processing, computer programming, engineering, environmental assessment, health and mental health services, and accounting.

State agencies will also be required to examine the roles currently assigned to PSCs and take all reasonable measures to ensure that the same services could not be acquired at a lower price.

These measures include discussing lower price options with current contractors, deciding whether re-bidding contract would achieve cost savings and working with the Director of State Agency Redesign and Efficiency to determine if savings could be achieved through bundling with other state agencies currently utilizing the same contractor.

The Spending and Government Efficiency Commission, created by Executive Order No. 4, will continue to review the state's practices regarding contracts for personal services to identify additional ways to reduce their number and cost.

Photo Author: United States
Permission: Public Domain

From The G-Man: Season 1, Episode 3

NY State Senator Joseph Addabbo, Jr: Uncensored!

New York State Senator Joseph Addabbo, Jr. appears on the show to discuss the following: the Arizona immigration law, turmoil in the New York State senate, financial reform, bailouts, corruption in politics, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, his father's legacy, and his controversial vote against "marriage equality" legislation in 2009. The interview was filmed on April 23, 2010, and is completely uncensored.

Note: The show's opening theme is "Feels So Right" by "Solution".

'My Country is Falling Apart, U.S. Could Be Next!'

A Joker-faced Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands

Dutch Journalist Explains Collapse and Warns America

A World Exclusive

Three days ago, an article on Bloomberg’s “Business Week” website reported that the Dutch government had fallen. Having developed a working relationship with a Dutch resident named Maarten van Dop, who holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Television Journalism, I decided to look into the matter more closely. In doing so, I discovered a number of striking similarities between the Netherlands and the U.S. regarding political party divisions and the rising tide of dissent among voters. Ultimately, I asked Maarten to provide an assessment, as a journalist and resident, of what really happened to cause the government’s demise. Not only did he graciously consent, he also pointed out that the United States of America appears to be headed in the same direction and urges all Americans to pay close attention to the events taking place in his country.

The following was authored by Maarten van Dop

“We were never in Iraq!”

The Dutch government supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They accomplished the latter mainly by mouth (‘politically’), and the first by a significant material and personal contribution. About a month ago, a report was presented on Dutch involvement in the invasion of Iraq. The report was supposedly independent, but officially commissioned by the government last year. A very unwilling government was forced to concede and allow an investigation to take place, thanks to pressure of an altered political constellation. The conclusions of the report did not mince matters or words: the Iraq war was illegal for lack of an international mandate. It went on to say that information was manipulated to serve political goals and parliament was not properly informed. Normally, this would be sufficient to make any prime minister secede his reign, especially when it’s still the same person. But the extraordinary circumstances induced by the economic recession gave this coalition excuse to remain seated, much to the dismay of the opposition.

“We’ll be getting the hell out of Afghanistan!”

The next topic for debate for this coalition was Afghanistan. The United Nations has requested the Netherlands to prolong Dutch presence in the southern province of Uruzgan. President Obama and Vice-President Biden have been appealing to reconsider a decision already made: this year, 2010, Holland withdraws its people from Afghanistan. The two major fractions in government stand opposite one another regarding this request. And now it seems the party opposing prolongation, has pulled the plug. It seems that way because, in actuality, a compromise had already been found, which was leave Uruzgan, but stay in Afghanistan; no more fighting missions, only reconstruction and facilitation for the Afghans. Ironically, this time around it was the economic recession that urged this coalition to bail out. A report from the National Bureau for Statistics showed a projection for the economy that made participating parties realize there was nothing left to be gained up until the next official elections in 2011.

Contradictions & Compromises

Holland is a land of contradictions. Amsterdam is our capital, but our seat of government is The Hague. The Queen is our Head of State, but she is not our leader. Think that’s weird? Ask about our policies on drugs. Or rather: don’t. It all stems from a system of compromise, which we proudly refer to as ‘Poldermodel’ - wherein everything is open to discussion and can be thusly solved. Every contestant is rewarded their share of the stake, but nobody gets the whole deal. Those who wheel more than they deal, end up on top. The Netherlands has a multi-party political system. The current coalition, which became an interim group last week, consists of three different parties. Until the 1990’s, governing coalitions used to consist of two parties that held a workable majority of representatives in parliament. A coalition would either be center-right (Christian Democrats & Liberals) or center-left (Christian Democrats & Socialists). All other parties were relegated to the opposition. However, the Dutch political landscape is becoming increasingly splintered, and the next coalition might even have more than three partners. The more people get to have a say, the less efficient decision-making will be. It’s the conundrum of democracy. Simultaneously, the people crave ‘strong leadership’ as the political spectrum becomes increasingly dispersed. Democracy depends as much on the competence of the eligible as on the competence of the electorate.

Dutch Tea (Party)

Disapproval for the “Poldermodel’ gave way to the rise of Pim Fortuyn, who was considered by many to be an outsider. Fortuyn entered the political arena in 2002, and the world watched in amazement as he single-handedly went from virtual unknown to heading in the polls in the upcoming election. He was shot dead a week before the election took place. His party, LPF, went on to become the second largest political party in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, the party was in complete disarray and the coalition collapsed after a mere 80 days of governance. Ever since Fortuyn’s murder, hosts of wannabe ‘strong leaders’ have graced the Dutch political scene. This time, the Party for Freedom (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, is heading the polls. The PVV is the equivalent of the rapidly expanding Tea Party in the Americas. If he wins big enough, and is not killed, he might well draw up to the ruling coalition. Sarah Palin would probably refer to him as a rogue politician. Thriving on nationalism and xenophobia, his main issue is to oppose the perceived ‘Islamizing’ of the Netherlands. Watch well, American Tea Party patriots. What you’re looking for is someone similar to this enigmatic leader. You’re looking for someone who will ‘unite the nation’, and we’ve got loads of those on sale.

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende photo source: Maarten van Dop

Permission: Maarten van Dop

Link to article: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-20/dutch-government-falls-over-extension-of-afghan-stay-update2-.html