Sunday, July 31, 2011

Obama's Statement On Latest Debt/Default Deal

#Compromise will "end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America..."
President Obama on Sunday night made a statement on the ongoing debt and default negotiations, after Leaders from both chambers of Congress came up with an agreement to cut almost $1 trillion in spending over ten years from the federal budget. It extends the debt limit through 2013, and creates a bipartisan committee to examine an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction efforts, including tax and entitlement reform. It also puts in place an enforcement mechanism if Congress fails to act to make further reductions. (Above: The President during his remarks in the briefing room)

"Is this the deal I would have preferred? No," the President said, but added "most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America."

The White House Fact Sheet on the deal is here. The updated text of the Budget Control Act of 2011 IS HERE.

The President thanked citizens for their help in calling on Congress to act responsibly.

"It’s been your voices -- your letters, your emails, your tweets, your phone calls -- that have compelled Washington to act in the final days," he said.



The President's statement:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________

For Immediate Release
July 31, 2011

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

8:40 P.M. EDT


THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. There are still some very important votes to be taken by members of Congress, but I want to announce that the leaders of both parties, in both chambers, have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default -- a default that would have had a devastating effect on our economy.

The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years -- cuts that both parties had agreed to early on in this process. The result would be the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President -- but at a level that still allows us to make job-creating investments in things like education and research. We also made sure that these cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on a fragile economy.

Now, I've said from the beginning that the ultimate solution to our deficit problem must be balanced. Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they’re still around for future generations.

That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act. And over the next few months, I’ll continue to make a detailed case to these lawmakers about why I believe a balanced approach is necessary to finish the job.

Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months. And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.

Now, this process has been messy; it’s taken far too long. I've been concerned about the impact that it has had on business confidence and consumer confidence and the economy as a whole over the last month. Nevertheless, ultimately, the leaders of both parties have found their way toward compromise. And I want to thank them for that.

Most of all, I want to thank the American people. It’s been your voices -- your letters, your emails, your tweets, your phone calls -- that have compelled Washington to act in the final days. And the American people's voice is a very, very powerful thing.

We’re not done yet. I want to urge members of both parties to do the right thing and support this deal with your votes over the next few days. It will allow us to avoid default. It will allow us to pay our bills. It will allow us to start reducing our deficit in a responsible way. And it will allow us to turn to the very important business of doing everything we can to create jobs, boost wages, and grow this economy faster than it's currently growing.

That’s what the American people sent us here to do, and that’s what we should be devoting all of our time to accomplishing in the months ahead.

Thank you very much, everybody.

END 8:44 P.M. EDT
##

*Photo by David Linemann/White House
read more "Obama's Statement On Latest Debt/Default Deal"

White House Executive Chef Cris Comerford Visits Moscow For Club des Chefs des Chefs Summit

President Obama is a gastronomic adventurer and has a personal relationship with his chefs, Top Toque says...
President Obama is a very "adventurous" eater who often interacts with his White House chefs, Executive Chef Cristeta Comerford said from Moscow on Saturday. Comerford is attending the annual weeklong summit of the Club des Chefs des Chefs, the elite fraternity of chefs who cook for Heads of State and Royal Families. She is the only woman chef in the superstar collective, and traveled to Beijing and Hong Kong for the group's meeting last summer. (Above: Comerford speaking to reporters in Moscow)

"He's...very like what I say very amicable, and so if he likes a dish or anything like that he would say like: Whoa, you know, that's a great dish, let's do that one again," Comerford told AFP about President Obama, describing him as "very open to food, very adventurous."

"He's very what I would say kind of like warm, a loving person," Comerford added.

A 16-year White House veteran, Comerford has been the President's Executive Chef since the start of his Administration, and was previously EC for President George W. Bush. August marks Comerford's sixth anniversary as Top Toque.

Club des Chefs des Chefs was founded in 1977 by Gilles Bragard to give the world's culinary elite a professional association to exchange ideas and techniques gleaned from years of working under the most challenging circumstances possible. During their annual meetings, the chefs cook for each other, socialize, and spotlight the cuisine of the host country. During a meeting with reporters in Moscow, Comerford and other chefs described their experience with their bosses. (Above: Comerford is to the right of the center of this group photo of the Club, taken at last year's summit)

Kremlin chef has never had a conversation with Medvedev...
Comerford's relationship with President Obama is very different than that of Jerome Rigaud, the French chef who has cooked for Russian Federation President Dmitri Medvedev for the last three years at the Kremlin. Rigaud said he often sees Medvedev but they have never had a personal conversation.

"I have met him numerous times, but I haven't had the chance to talk to him," Rigaud told AFP.
President Obama famously escorted Medvedev to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, Virginia during the Russian leader's visit to the White House in June of 2010.

Chef Mark Flanagan, who cooks for the British Royal Family at Buckingham Palace, said that Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II prefers local ingredients, and this was on full display when she honored President Obama with a State Banquet in May of 2011.

"She's a fan of local and seasonal food. It changes throughout the year. We are very fortunate in the UK because we have fantastic products -- really!" Flanagan said about The Queen. He called cooking for the Royal Wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge a "career highlight."

Comerford, Flanagan, and Rigaud speak about their bosses in this AFP video:



read more "White House Executive Chef Cris Comerford Visits Moscow For Club des Chefs des Chefs Summit"

Saturday, July 30, 2011

President Obama Will Attend 50th Birthday Fundraisers In Chicago, White House Says

Press Secretary: Debt ceiling crisis will be "resolved" before Aug. 3 events; Birthday fundraisers include dinner & celeb musical performances...
President Obama will attend two previously scheduled DNC fundraisers in his hometown of Chicago on Wednesday, August 3, Press Secretary Jay Carney has announced, because the White House is certain that the debt ceiling "crisis" will be "resolved." The fundraisers are pegged to the President's milestone 50th birthday the next day, and include a big party at the Aragon Entertainment Center with dinner and performances by Chicago natives Jennifer Hudson, Herbie Hancock and OK GO.

The debt-ceiling deadline for the US defaulting is August 2. President Obama on Friday called for Congress to send him a bill he can sign by Tuesday.

"We’re confident that this will be resolved," Carney said on Friday of the debt ceiling negotiations. "Obviously if it’s not, we’ll address the schedule accordingly. But as of now, we’re confident that it will be resolved."

The negotiations have stalled in part because the President is insisting that any debt-ceiling raise goes through 2013, to avoid an election-year fight over the issue. The President will return to Washington on August 3, after the fundraisers, Carney said. The President has cancelled fundraisers throughout July due to the debt wrangling.

The Birthday Bash details...
The 50th Birthday Bash fundraiser at the Aragon Ballroom as first reported by Chicago Sun Times' Lynn Sweet includes dinner with the President, and performances by Jennifer Hudson, Herbie Hancock and OK GO. Tickets for the events range from $50 per person to $35,800 per couple.

Top donors, at $35,800 per couple, get dinner and seating in either the left or right balcony level for the concert, and a reception and private briefing at Obama Campaign HQ in the Prudential building. $10,000 gets a souvenir photo with President Obama at a reception and preferred seating at the concert. For $1,000, donors gets seated in a "premium section" with a "hosted bar." A general admission ticket, to stand on the floor, is $200.

Songstress Hudson will reportedly perform at an afternoon concert, with limited tickets available for $50. She's appeared at Obama fundraisers before, and also performed at the White House.

The events are a benefit for the Obama Victory Fund 2012, a joint Obama 2012 re-election campaign/Democratic National Committee fund. The campaign is also running 50-for-50 pegged to the President's milestone birthday. Supporters are being asked to bring in 50 new supporters by August 4th.

The cancelled fundraisers...

President Obama's last campaign fundraiser was on June 30th in Pennsylvania; he stopped in a Joe's Water Ice in Philadelphia before wooing donors. The President did not attend two fundraisers last Monday in Washington, DC; Vice President Joe Biden and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took over one of the events, at Adour resturant at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, DC. The President also postponed fundraisers in California and Washington state in recent weeks, as well as an event at the New York home of film mogul Harvey Weinstein.

*Photo by Chuck Kennedy/White House
read more "President Obama Will Attend 50th Birthday Fundraisers In Chicago, White House Says"

Friday, July 29, 2011

President Obama Urges Americans To Pressure Congress To Resolve Debt Ceiling Negotiations

Exactly three months before the default deadline, bipartisanship was on full display at the White House...
President Obama made remarks this morning on the "increasingly urgent" status of the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations, which after weeks of wrangling have now entered the 11th hour. It's a curious coincidence that the default deadline of August 2nd is exactly three months to the day after the President and First Lady Obama hosted a bipartisan dinner for Congressional leaders at the White House on May 2nd. The guests seated with the President at the big East Room event, which also included Cabinet Secretaries and senior White House officials, were the major players in the debt drama: From left, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH); Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

During brief remarks at the dinner, the President made a prophetic statement:

"Obviously we’ve all had disagreements and differences in the past. I suspect we’ll have them again in the future," he said.

This morning, the President pointed out that "there are multiple ways to resolve this problem," but it requires the kind of bipartisan goodwill that seemed to be on display at the dinner. He noted that House Republicans are wasting time trying to pass a bill "that a majority of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have already said they won’t vote for."

But there's more than one way to make a debt souffle, the President pointed out--or as he put it, "there are plenty of ways out of this mess."

"Senator Reid, a Democrat, has introduced a plan in the Senate that contains cuts agreed upon by both parties," President Obama said. "Senator McConnell, a Republican, offered a solution that could get us through this."

The human-made crisis, the President said, can rapidly be ended:

"Today I urge Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to find common ground on a plan that can get support -- that can get support from both parties in the House –- a plan that I can sign by Tuesday."

On Monday night, during a nationally televised press conference, the President urged Americans to put pressure on Members of Congress to act responsibly, and he repeated the call again today.

"To all the American people, keep it up. If you want to see a bipartisan compromise -– a bill that can pass both houses of Congress and that I can sign -- let your members of Congress know," President Obama said. "Make a phone call. Send an email. Tweet. Keep the pressure on Washington, and we can get past this."

Shortly after this morning's remarks, the President tweeted on his @BarackObama account:  "The time for putting party first is over. If you want to see a bipartisan #compromise, let Congress know. Call. Email. Tweet. —BO"

White House staffers then began to Tweet the names of GOP lawmakers for citizens to tweet their complaints to. 

UPDATE, 8:00 PM:  The President's Twitter account had lost 40,000 followers by late in the afternoon, according to NY Daily News.  Followers were infuriated by what they regarded as spam, though many others followed the President's command, and flooded Republican Twitter accounts with pleas for #compromise.  Mediaite estimated the loss of followers at about 10,000.  The President still had 9,362,880 followers at 7:30 PM Friday night.

The President's statement:



*Photo by Pete Souza/White House
read more "President Obama Urges Americans To Pressure Congress To Resolve Debt Ceiling Negotiations"

Sam Kass Honored With "Cutting Edge Award"

American Culinary Federation lauds Kass for his work on child nutrition initiatives...
White House Senior Policy Advisor for Healthy Food Initiatives Sam Kass has a new feather for his toque: This week, he was honored with the Cutting Edge Award from the American Culinary Federation. President Michael Ty presented Kass with the award on Sunday night during a gala at the organization's annual National Convention, held in Dallas, Texas. Ty hailed Kass' work on child nutrition initiatives as he gave the award, which is a symbolic knife. (Above: Kass and Ty with the award)

On Monday, Kass gave the keynote speech to the group, and spoke about First Lady Obama's Let's Move! campaign.  He also served as the emcee and a judge for the national cookoff for Mrs. Obama's Recipes for Healthy Kids Challenge, a contest for school teams to create recipes for the National School Lunch Program. (Kass during his remarks, above)

“Our nation is spending $150 billion a year on treating obesity-related diseases, and obesity is now the No. 1 disqualification for the military,” Kass said. “Our success as a nation will not be successful without the help of chefs.”

Kass is the mastermind behind the Let's Move! component Chefs Move to Schools, which marries professional chefs to their local schools, and encouraged the chefs to get involved, as well as adopt USDA's MyPlate icon as a guide for their meals. Many ACF chefs have signed on for Chefs Move, and members from regional chapters shared their success stories after Kass' keynote. Kass has spent much time lately spreading the word about MyPlate.

Kass' award presentation and a brief interview with him begins at 2:04 in this ACF video from the Convention:


*Videos and photos from American Culinary Federation
read more "Sam Kass Honored With "Cutting Edge Award""

Chef Vikas Khanna's Spicy Tale About Cooking At The White House

New York chef makes headlines announcing he's cooking a Presidential dinner for 200: NOT TRUE, says the White House...
The guest chefs given the high honor of serving their country by being invited to cook at the White House for President Obama and First Lady Obama have enjoyed much media attention. But in a new twist, a chef who was not invited to join this elite fraternity has churned up plenty of media attention for a faux Presidential star turn.

Vikas Khanna, owner and executive chef of New York's Junoon restaurant, told press outlets in his homeland, India, that he was "invited" to the White House to cook a "dinner for 200" guests that Mr. and Mrs. Obama will attend today, Friday, July 29th. Khanna's tale of cooking with the White House chefs, for a dinner on the scale of a State Dinner is not true, a top White House aide told Obama Foodorama. One of Khanna's own staffers also confirmed that his story is not true, but only after being informed that the White House had debunked it. (Khanna, above)

"I am organizing an essay competition for students in the White House, which will be followed by dinner for 200 people that I will cook with my team. US President Barack Obama and his family are expected to be part of the dinner," Khanna said in an interview with Mumbai's MidDay.

The headline was "Shakahari Bhojan Served Fresh To The Obamas," and Khanna said he'd be cooking "dishes that I would have cooked for my hero, Mahatma Gandhi...There is an entire course on goat cheese. There will also be Gujarati food and some Punjabi dishes."

iFood.TV.com and the Hindustan Times both reported that "While talking to media after the announcement, Khanna said "It is a great honor for my family, my city and my motherland India." The Hindustan Times carried the story as a front-page feature, complete with the bare-chested photo of Khanna above: "Indian Chef Invited At White House" was the headline. DNAIndia.com had a massive puff piece with a huge photo gallery: "The Indian Chef Who Caught Obama's Eye." IndiaWest.com carried "Celebrity Chef Vikas Khanna To Cook At White House."

Khanna is catering an event in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building...
Khanna should have added Whopper to the list of delicacies he'll be cooking. Today, Khanna is actually doing the catering for a religious-based community service conference being held in part in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, according to his own aide at Junoon Hospitality.

Khanna will be cooking at a DC restaurant, and ferrying the food into the building that's located on the 18-acre White House campus, rather than rubbing shoulders with the Obamas' chefs in the residence. The President and First Lady are not listed as guests or participants in the conference, and no one from their staff was involved with "inviting" Khanna to "cook" at the White House, according to White House aides. Conference organizers tapped Khanna to cater.

One of Khanna's aides at Junoon Hospitality said he was on a trip to India when telling his spicy tale to the "local" media. He is represented by New York PR firm Bullfrog & Baum, and the overblown White House story was seeded into outlets that didn't fact check. The B&B group tossed Obama Foodorama's query about Khanna's claims to his staffer, Andrew Blackmore--Dobbyn of Junoon Hospitality. The fellow first sent an e mail that included this info:

Celebrity chef and philanthropist Vikas Khanna is cooking both lunch and dinner on Friday, July 29th at the White House...as part of Ms. Anju Bhargava's Hindu American Seva Charities (HASC) event “Energizing Dharmic Seva: Impacting Change in America and Abroad.” ...The meals will be based on the seva, the call to service, as represented by the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi...

But when told that the White House said the story is not true, a different Khanna staffer, Claire Fields, rapidly amended the information. From her e mail:

Chef Vikas Khanna...will be serving lunch and dinner at the Hindu American Seva Conference ...to be held at the White House, Eisenhower Executive Office Building ... Vikas will be cooking the food at the Aroma Indian Restaurant in Washington DC.

And suddenly, the President, the First Lady, and cooking in the White House kitchen with the chefs were dropped out of the mix. But not before a third Khanna aide offered to send Obama Foodorama his cookbook and videos of a film series he's created, "Holy Kitchens."

Khanna's outings in Indian media included other exaggerations: Junoon "was voted the “best ever Indian restaurant in New York” by the New York Times," gushed DNAIndia. No: The Times reviewed Junoon along with another NY Indian restaurant, and gave it a modest round of applause. Also included in many of the stories was the fact that Khanna was voted "hottest chef in New York" for his looks, in a contest run by US website Eater.com. That bit is, in fact, true, but "hot" has a new meaning now, as in "pants on fire."

The President and First Lady are beloved in India; Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was their first State Dinner honoree in November of 2009, and their trip to the country in November of 2010 caused further adoration. Khanna's narrative of a native son who has done so well in America that he's been invited to be a personal chef for the President would be a good one...if it wasn't false. Still, congratulations are due Khanna for catering on the White House campus. Perhaps one day Khanna will cook for Al Gore, inventor of the internets, and Gore can explain to him that misrepresentations in India media can now travel all the way to Washington, DC.

*Top photo of the President toasting by Chuck Kennedy/White House; second from Hindustan Times
read more "Chef Vikas Khanna's Spicy Tale About Cooking At The White House"

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Obama Talks Burgers, Fries, and Let's Move!

President explains First Lady's campaign; defends her dining excursions; hopes for birthday burger...
President Obama did a phone interview with NPR at the end of last week to discuss the debt ceiling negotiations. But Michael Martin, host of Tell Me More, took a big swerve from economic imperatives, and asked questions about the heady topic of the President and First Lady's predilection for hamburgers and French fries, a subject of global interest.

NPR just posted the full, unedited text of the interview, which reveals that the President worked in an exquisitely on-point discussion of Let's Move!, touted the wonders of White House fries, and expressed a foodie birthday wish for his rapidly approaching 50th on August 4th. (Left: The President carries bags from Five Guys into the White House in 2009; burger runs have been going on since the Obamas arrived in DC)

On Shake Shack and Let's Move...
First Lady Obama's recent visit to DC's Shack Shack garnered her international headlines after it was reported that her order of a ShackBurger, chocolate shake, French fries, and Diet Coke amounted to about 1,700 calories. It's also led to citizens being able to walk into the eatery and and order, off menu, "The Michelle Obama Special." Martin asked the President if he believes the media criticism over the burger outing, in light of Let's Move!, was "fair" or "out of bounds."

Although the First Lady is running a national campaign that coordinates the anti-obesity efforts of twelve federal agencies, President Obama responded that his wife's food choices should be "a non-issue," and added that Mrs. Obama doesn't particularly care what the media thinks, anyway. The President's lengthy response included mentioning the impressive private sector commitments Mrs. Obama has gotten to make healthy food more accessible, the importance of healthy school meals, and empowering families to make better food choices:

"Michelle doesn't take that [criticism] too seriously. Michelle knows that – well, let me put it this way. Michelle's never hid the fact that her favorite food is french fries, or that she's going to have a burger once in a while. The whole point that she's been making — which is common sense, and so this should be a non-issue — is how do we make sure that our kids, in particular, have balanced meals on a regular basis?

Because it'll make them healthier; it'll make them do better in school; and it forms lifelong habits that will improve their quality of life.
And you know, I think that she has been adamant about saying that there's nothing wrong with having a treat once in a while. There's nothing wrong with going ahead and having a milkshake or a piece of pie, or whatever else you crave.

The question is, wha
t — what is it that on a regular basis you're doing, and what can we do as a society to make sure that, for example, folks in low-income communities have access to a grocery store that actually sells fresh – fresh produce?

And in fact, she — they did a wonderful announcement yesterday talking about food deserts, communities where you cannot – you know, in any reasonable way find fresh and healthy foods and if you do find it, then the prices are jacked up in those communities. And there was an announcement, cooperation from a whole bunch of retailers all across the country. They're going to – they're going to start building new stores that will not only create jobs but also give people healthier options.


And that's what this is all about- - empowering people to have better options so that they can make better decisions for their family. It's not about people not having a hamburger once in a while."


After the President's long answer, Martin pressed him further on Shake Shack, wanting to know if Mrs. Obama had ordered the sweet potato fries or the regular fries.

"You know, she likes both, actually," President Obama said, and added "and you should try them in the White House, too, because sometimes we make them, and they're outstanding."

"We're sweet potato lovers," Mrs. Obama announced last Fall, as she harvested four-pounders from her White House Kitchen Garden.

A birthday burger for the "cute" President?
To wrap up the interview, Martin asked how both the President and Mrs. Obama feel about the President's big half-century birthday.

"You know, I feel real good about 5-0. The – obviously, I've gotten a little grayer since I took this job but otherwise, I feel pretty good," President Obama said. "And Michelle, you know, says that, you know, she – she — she still thinks I'm, I'm cute, you know. And I guess that's — that's all that matters, isn't it?"

When asked by Martin what special gift he'd like, President Obama said a hamburger might be a nice idea.

"You know, maybe I'll have a good hamburger on my birthday," President Obama said, though the meaty wish came after the President noted that the best present of all would be a debt ceiling deal with Congress.

"That's kind of sad, I know," the President admitted.

Edited versions of the President's NPR interview first appeared on July 22.

*Top and Shake Shack photo by Eddie Gehman Kohan/Obama Foodorama; Five Guys photo by Chuck Kennedy/White House; last photo by Pete Souza/White House
read more "Obama Talks Burgers, Fries, and Let's Move!"

Obama Pays Tribute To Richard Estrada Chavez

President hails United Farm Workers leader as inspiration in battle for agricultural labor rights...
President Obama this morning paid tribute to Richard Estrada Chavez as an inspirational leader in the US farm labor movement; he was a driving force behind the creation of United Farm Workers. Estrada died on Wednesday, aged 81; he was the brother of farm labor icon Cesar Chavez and the husband of Dolores Huerta, co-founders of United Farm Workers.

Richard Estrada Chavez passed away in Bakersfield, CA, after complications from surgery, UFW said. Last year, he and other UFW leaders joined President Obama in the Oval Office as the President signed a Proclamation designating March 31, 2010, as Cesar Chavez Day. Chavez would have been 83. (Top: Chavez is second from right, partially hidden in back row)

The President's full statement:

Michelle and I were saddened to learn of the passing of Richard Estrada Chavez yesterday. Richard spent his life in the service of others alongside his brother Cesar and his wife, Dolores Huerta, co-founders of the United Farm Workers. It was Richard who designed the UFW's iconic eagle, a symbol of hope that has helped carry the struggle for the rights of farm workers forward for almost five decades.

Throughout his years of service, Richard fought for basic labor rights but also worked to improve the quality of life for countless farm workers. And beyond his work, Richard was a family man. I was honored to have Richard visit the Oval Office last year on Cesar Chavez Day with other family members, and will never forget the stories they shared. Richard understood that the struggle for a more perfect union and a better life for all America's workers didn't end with any particular victory or defeat, but instead required a commitment to getting up every single day to keep at it.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Richard's family and loved ones. We take comfort in knowing that the work he was passionate about will be continued by all he helped to inspire.

*Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
read more "Obama Pays Tribute To Richard Estrada Chavez"

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

First Lady Michelle Obama's Lukewarm Praise For McDonald's Nutrition Upgrades

Kids meals will automatically include a fruit/vegetable, alongside the French fries...
McDonald's Corporation this morning announced its "Commitments to Offer Improved Nutrition Choices," which will include a revamp of kids' Happy Meals to automatically include a small serving of fresh produce and a smaller portion of French fries. There are long-term plans to trim fat and calories from menu items, and to develop a nutrition education project. First Lady Michelle Obama issued a statement in response, calling the plan "positive steps" toward her Let's Move! goal of ending childhood obesity. But otherwise Mrs. Obama's response was tepid; she adopted a wait-and-see attitude, saying she "looks forward" to the company's "efforts in the years to come."

The company has put a toe into the Let's Move! pool, but the announced changes were neither broad enough nor deep enough to warrant Mrs. Obama inviting executives to the White House for their announcement, as she did last week when she joined executives from some of America's largest grocery chains for an East Room announcement of their commitments to open stores in food deserts. Instead, McDonald's USA president Jan Fields unveiled the corporate plans during a video appearance on ABC's Good Morning America.

Still, the plan warranted the First Lady's notice:

“McDonald’s is making continued progress today by providing more fruit and reducing the calories in its Happy Meals," Mrs. Obama said. "I’ve always said that everyone has a role to play in making America healthier, and these are positive steps toward the goal of solving the problem of childhood obesity."

“The commitments we’re announcing today will guide the future evolution of our menu and marketing," Fields said on the company's website.

"McDonald’s has continued to evolve its menu, and I look forward to hearing about the progress of today’s commitments, as well as efforts in the years to come," Mrs. Obama said.

Fruit and fries...a long time frame
The Illinois-based McDonald's serves millions of meals daily at 14,000 restaurants across the US.

"What we're doing is offering fruit to every child that comes into a McDonald's, so it is an automatic," Fields said. The automatic could also be a vegetable, such as carrots, GMA noted.

The First Lady last year urged the restaurant industry to consider the "automatic" healthy side approach to children's meals during a speech to the National Restaurant Association, and she also encouraged better marketing and smaller portions.

McDonald's "automatic" fruit or vegetable--about a quarter to a half cup serving--will still be accompanied by a serving of French fries, and this will be smaller than it is currently. To make room for the fruit, French fry holders in Happy Meals will now contain 1.1 ounces of potatoes, down from 2.4 ounces. Parents can skip the fries altogether and double up on the fruit or vegetable side, but this must be requested, Fields said.

The revamped Happy Meal will thus have about 20% fewer calories and less fat, thanks to the inclusion of produce and the smaller portion of fries, the company says, in a bit of magic nutrition math. It will be available in some markets in September, and nationwide by 2012. Fries will still be fried, and the sodium and fat content of the kids hamburgers and cheeseburgers remains unchanged.

But the company also pledged to reduce sugars, saturated fats and calories in its products through "varied portion sizes, reformulations and innovations" by 2020, without giving details of what this actually entails. By 2015, the company pledged to reduce sodium by 15%. Read the full details here.

Mrs. Obama, Let's Move! and the restaurant industry...
William Whitman, Vice President of Communications for McDonald's, was on hand for Mrs. Obama's address last year to the National Restaurant Association, and he was less than enthusiastic about the First Lady's suggestions. Whitman told Obama Foodorama that he "applauds Mrs. Obama's leadership," but pointed out that the Golden Arches had plenty of healthy options on its menu, including "premium" salads and "apple dippers," which are slices of apples served with a caramel sauce.

"I think the premise that there are good foods and bad foods is misguided," Whitman said.

But McDonald's has now changed its tune. For years, critics have assaulted everything from the toys the company includes in Happy Meals to the way it markets its food to children, to calorie counts and nutritional quality. GMA pointed out that a study last year by the Rudd Center for Food Policy at Yale University found that not one of the Happy Meal's possible food combinations met the standards for good nutrition for children under age 12, with the highest calorie option adding up to 700 calories, and many containing high levels of sodium and fat.

Fields assured her interviewer that it's a new day under the Golden Arches.



McDonald's estimates the announced changes to the Happy Meal will save an estimated 49 billion calories in American kids' diets annually. The company also announced that Fields and other executives will go on a "listening tour" in August to hear suggestions from parents and nutrition experts, and it will also launch an online forum for parents. McDonald’s also pledged to "promote nutrition and/or active lifestyle messages in 100 percent of its national kids’ communications, including merchandising, advertising, digital and the Happy Meal packaging."

McDonald’s will also provide funding for grass roots community nutrition awareness programs, the company said, and launch a mobile app focused on nutrition information. It will happily double as an on-phone advertisement to dine at McDonald's, of course.

*Photo by Eddie Gehman Kohan/Obama Foodorama; GMA video. Updated.
read more "First Lady Michelle Obama's Lukewarm Praise For McDonald's Nutrition Upgrades"

Minnesota Team Wins Top Prize In First Lady's 'Recipes For Healthy Kids Challenge'

Turkey burgers win school lunch recipe contest...
After a heated culinary battle on Monday in Dallas, Texas, the team from Intermediate District 287, South Education Center Alternative (SECA), of Richfield, Minn, was named the grand champions in First lady Michelle Obama's Recipes For Healthy Kids Challenge, a nationwide competition launched last September as part of the Let's Move! campaign. SECA competed during an Iron Chef-style battle at the American Culinary Federation National Convention, and their Porcupine Sliders--healthy mini turkey burgers served on multi-grain buns--were dubbed best in show by a judging team that included White House Senior Policy Advisor for healthy Food Initiatives Sam Kass (above) and USDA's Food and Nutrition Service Administrator Audrey Rowe.

Kass served as Master of Ceremonies for the cookoff, treating audience members to a chop-by-chop account of the cooking action, as SECA and two other teams competed for the Grand Prize: $3,000.00 and a trip to the White House.

"This is exactly what the First Lady was hoping for, to create healthy dishes the kids are going to like," Kass said. "And these dishes were great. I would eat all of them any day."

Kass said changing childrens' eating habits will take time but the Challenge is great for raising awareness about childhood obesity, and a sign that Mrs. Obama's campaign is working, though more work needs to be done.

"The First Lady knows we're on the right path to solving this problem," Kass said. "It took decades to get here; it'll take decades to get out."

“All of the schools that participated in the competition have demonstrated once again that school meals can be healthy – and taste great too,” said Rowe. “This is an outstanding achievement for our kids and for our efforts to bring healthier meals and healthier lifestyles to schools across the nation.”

Awards were presented Monday evening at a special ceremony. The eight-member SECA team includes Theresa Guthrie, a teacher at the school; Wanda Nickola, the district's food service manager; chef Todd Bolton of Parasole restaurant in Edina, Minn.; Mary Lair, the school nurse; and students identified as Adilene D., Chris D., Dominic L., and Dolores P. The recipe is packed with nutritious elements: The turkey patties are made with spinach, dried cranberries and brown rice, and served on toasted multigrain rolls with lettuce and tomato. The recipe was dubbed the national finalist in the whole grains category of the competition. Chef Bolton has a son who attends the school. (Above: The Porcupine Sliders)

The team had one hour and 45 minutes to prepare their recipe during the competition, and won over the two other national finalist teams: Ira B. Jones Elementary School, from Asheville, N.C., which competed with Tuscan Smoked Turkey & Bean Soup; and Joshua Cowell School in Manteca, CA, competing with Central Valley Harvest Bake, a sweet and spicy dish made with Butternut squash and jalapeno peppers. Each team had to win a semi-final round to get to the Dallas cookoff.

USDA received more than 300 recipes entries for the Challenge, and the school-based teams of students and adults had to use USDA's new nutrition guidelines for the National School Lunch Program when creating their dishes; recipes had to be able to be easily incorporated into school lunch menus across the US.

The three teams' recipes, as well as as the top ten recipes in the Challenge, will have their entries published in the forthcoming Recipes for Healthy Kids Cookbook. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the finalists in June.

*Photo by Eddie Eehman Kohan/Obama Foodorama
read more "Minnesota Team Wins Top Prize In First Lady's 'Recipes For Healthy Kids Challenge'"

Michelle Obama Fundraises In Utah, Colorado

Breakfast in Park City, a reception in Aspen...
First Lady Michelle Obama will make a day trip to Park City, Utah, and Aspen, Colorado today for two high-end campaign fund-raisers for President Obama, with donation entry fees ranging between $1,000 to the legal limit of $35,800. The President has cancelled his own fundraising appearances in the near term, thanks to the debt ceiling battle. Vice President Joe Biden subbed in for his boss at a scheduled fundraiser Monday night at Adour restaurant in Washington, DC, as did Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. They spoke to about 25 big-ticket donors. DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FLA) also attended.

Mrs. Obama will attend a breakfast fundraiser in Park City at the private, gated community home of Mark and Nancy Gilbert. The event will be "surprisingly casual," Utah State Democratic Chair Jim Dabakis told reporters. Ticket prices start at $1,000. Bigger donation options include a $10,000 photo opportunity with Mrs. Obama, and a $35,800 donation for an opportunity to sit next to the First Lady for a short exchange and greetings. Between 200 and 300 people are expected.

The Aspen event is a reception at the private home of Jim and Paula Crown. About 100 people are expected to attend, according to Blanca O'Leary, chair of the Pitkin County Democratic Party.

Both events are hosted by Obama bundlers, reports Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet: Jim Crown was Obama's 2008 Illinois co-finance chairman. Mark Gilbert raises funds for the DNC.

Mrs. Obama has appeared at nine fundraisers since the 2012 campaign kickoff in April.

*Photo by Eddie Gehman Kohan/Obama Foodorama.
read more "Michelle Obama Fundraises In Utah, Colorado"

Monday, July 25, 2011

Transcript: Boehner's Primetime Debt Speech

House Speaker John Boehener (R-OH) gave a rebuttal to President Obama's primetime debt limit speech on Monday night, which aired immedieatly following the President's remarks. Boehner accused the President of creating a "crisis atmosphere" around the weeks-long negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.


SPEAKER BOEHNER ADDRESS TO THE NATION
JULY 25, 2011
AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

Good evening. I'm John Boehner. I serve as Speaker of the whole House -- of the members of both parties that you elect. These are difficult times in the life of our nation. Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why.

Before I served in Congress, I ran a small business in Ohio. I was amazed at how different Washington DC operated than every business in America. Where most American business make the hard choices to pay their bills and live within their means, in Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual.

I've got news for Washington - those days are over.

President Obama came to Congress in January and requested business as usual -- yet another routine increase in the national debt limit -- we in the House said 'not so fast.' Here was the president, asking for the largest debt increase in American history, on the heels of the largest spending binge in American history.

Here's what we got for that spending binge: a massive health care bill that most Americans never asked for. A 'stimulus' bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs. And a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours.

The United States cannot default on its debt obligations. The jobs and savings of too many Americans are at stake.

What we told the president in January was this: the American people will not accept an increase in the debt limit without significant spending cuts and reforms.

And over the last six months, we've done our best to convince the president to partner with us to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country. . .something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our government, and help small businesses get back on track.

Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support. It's called the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' Act. It CUTS and CAPS government spending and paves the way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which we believe is the best way to stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have. Before we even passed the bill in the House, the President said he would veto it.

I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the president to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law. I gave it my all.
Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president's demands changed.

The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more. . .you pay more. Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.

The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs. As the father of two daughters, I know these programs won't be there for them and their kids unless significant action is taken now.

The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen.

You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill - one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate.

Obviously, I expect that bill can and will pass the Senate, and be sent to the President for his signature. If the President signs it, the 'crisis' atmosphere he has created will simply disappear. The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut by more than one trillion dollars, and a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces.

The individuals doing this work will not be outsiders, but elected representatives of the people, doing the job they were elected to do as outlined in the Constitution. Those decisions should be made based on how they will affect people who are struggling to get a job, not how they affect some politician's chances of getting reelected.

This debate isn't about President Obama and House Republicans ... it isn't about Congress and the White House ... it's about what's standing between the American people and the future we seek for ourselves and our families.

You know, I've always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people. And right now, we have a government so big and so expensive it's sapping the drive of our people and keeping our economy from running at full capacity.

The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you're spending more money than you're taking in, you need to spend less of it,

There is no symptom of big government more menacing than our debt. Break its grip, and we begin to liberate our economy and our future.

We are up to the task, and I hope President Obama will join us in this work.

God bless you and your families, and God bless America.
read more "Transcript: Boehner's Primetime Debt Speech"

Transcript: Obama's Primetime Debt Speech

President Obama addressed the nation from the East Room, during a fifteen minute speech carried live on network and cable TV. The top transcript is as delivered; the second is as prepared for delivery.


THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
____________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release July 25, 2011

ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE NATION

East Room

9:01 P.M. EDT


THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt -- a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -– on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare -- and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about –- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?

That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -– millionaires and billionaires -– to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach -– an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, by myself, and by many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we’re left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington.

So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.

I think that’s a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We’ve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things -- without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth –- not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

END 9:16 P.M. EDT

##########

Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery
Primetime Debt Speech
Monday, July 25, 2011
Washington, DC


As Prepared for Delivery –

Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt – a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more – on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money – the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?

That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country – things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach – an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling – a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis – one caused almost entirely by Washington.

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.

I think that’s a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress – a compromise I can sign. And I am confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth – not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

###
read more "Transcript: Obama's Primetime Debt Speech"