yeah we both relieve coughs, sneezing, aches, fevers. and i relieve nasal congestion. overachiever. [ female announcer ] tylenol® cold multi-symptom nighttime relieves nasal congestion. nyquil® cold and flu doesn't.

relieves nasal congestion. exciting and would always come max and pto my rescue. bookstore but as time passed, i started to notice max just wasn't himself. and i knew he'd feel better if he lost a little weight. so i switched to purina cat chow healthy weight formula. i just fed the recommended amount... and they both loved the taste. after a few months max's "special powers" returned... and i got my hero back. purina cat chow healthy weight. hi, everyone. i'm thomas roberts. topping the news, march madness at this hour. the president meeting with congressional leaders about the

sequester, our government's latest manufactured crisis and there are no expectations of a true breakthrough. lawmakers escaped ahead of time even with $85 billion cuts and senate majority leader saying, there will be no backroom deal and no agreement to increase taxes. and here is house speaker john boehner and senate majority leader harry reid yesterday. >> it takes a lot of pizazz. they have done nothing. >> my response will be the same thing i told you today, it's time to do their job and pass a bill. >> so all but a done deal with congress wrapping up for the week. >> right now we should not have

waited until the day that these are coming into effect before calling members of congress together. >> ronald reagan should be rolling over in his grave. shame on everybody who agreed this was a good idea on our side. >> all right. so it's ultimately going to be up to the president to put pen to paper zone as the sequester into law before midnight. >> my understanding is that the law has a provision that requires the president to order the sequester if he's ever hopeful. >> and joining me right now is south carolina democratic james clyburn. i want to remind everybody as we talk about this meeting that is taking place today at the white house with the president and congressional leadership, it was just on wednesday that we saw

you with the president at the rosa parks statue unveiling. was there anything said about the sequester and was there any talk about that? >> no. if you'll recall -- thank you for having me on this morning. in that picture, if you recall, republicans were there, too. the speaker and either mcconnell, we all stood together and the president cheered with us, some of what he would expect to discuss today. and that was it. but as you can see, i'm not in today's meeting. i think it was just the four leaders, two on the house side and two on the senate side.

i'm not privy to what is being discussed. >> this picture shows all of you with your heads together, intense looks on the faces there. but nothing was said in reference to the sequester? no one brought it up? >> well, as i said, the president had said to us, shared with us some of what he would like to discuss in today's meeting and i suspect he'll be discussing that. i have no idea. so i'm not at liberty to say what may or may not have been discussed by us. >> okay. forgive me if i missed that point but nothing that was revealed to you during that time? >> nothing that i will reveal. >> nothing that you will reveal. okay. at least i tried to press you on that. >> thank you. >> we'll hopefully be hearing from the congressional leadership. we'll be paying attention to that. we also have jay carney's briefing coming up in this hour.

we'll pay close attention to that. talk about what this means to your home state. as we look at south carolina, $12.5 million in education funding. 11,000 potential civilian if you are lows from defense jobs. 300 children could lose access to health care. how do you go back to your constituents and explain the job you are trying to do for them in washington, d.c. and why they may face these cuts as we reach this point in time, march 1st? >> well, you know, i've been talking with my constituents now for quite some time you may recall last week we were not in washington. i was in my district the entire time talking with people, listening, sharing impressions at that time and that is that the republicans are refusing to have a discussion of a fair and balanced approach to reducing the deficit. you may recall, i was on the

super committee. when we could not get anything done because there's a 13th member floating up and down the halls of congress. so i shared all of these experiences with my constituents and i think they know that we cannot get to where we need to be unless everybody has their cards on the table. we cannot continue the whole cards, not put them all on the table and let's have some real reasonable discussions about how to move forward. >> but as we heard yesterday from lindsey graham, that basically means revenue. take a listen. >> to my democratic colleagues, we're not going to raise any

more taxes to spend the money on the government. the next time i raise taxes we're going to get out of debt. we're $17 trillion in debt and every time you want to raise taxes to pay for the government we've already got. >> to hear that there's no revenue on the table, at least that's what they are saying publicly, something may be discussed behind closed doors but should we consider the fact that march 27th, at the end of this month, that we are going to see some type of government shutdown? >> i would hope that would not occur. to fashion something that would get it beyond this crisis, it is manufactured. it is not a crisis that flows from things. it has been manufactured and i would hope that we would put our

politics aside and stop talking about whether ronald reagan and remember the last time we had this kind of discussion was when president clinton discussed about what was going to happen, what did happen was 22 million new jobs created and a big sur plus was created to boot. we are well on the road to a similar situation if we do not stimy this recovery about allowing the sequestration to set in. we cannot have a balanced approach when we talk about cutting the safety nets under seniors, not allow any cuts for our children, not allowing child care to take place for working men and women, this kind of

stuff is not the kind of stuff that allows civilized society to move forward in an ugly way. we have to be fair and balanced in trying to reduce deficit reduction. >> james clyburn, thank you for joining me. >> absolutely. >> joining me is political editor for the grio and karen finney, columnist for "the hill" and president of the winston group. as i know you all just heard the congressman there, i want to remind everybody, we hear from the left now, we've been hearing a lot from the right, senator john mccain appeared with charlie rose. take a listen. >> do you believe the administration may believe that republicans will be blamed for this? >> well, the polling data shows that that is certainly maybe the case. >> if they are willing to admit that they know where the blame

is going to fall yet they are unwilling to try and make a deal. >> part of the dynamic is that they want to see this budget cut. when you look at "the wall street journal" poll done yesterday, 53% said they either wanted the sequester to go through or more cuts as opposed to 37% saying less. when you look at the actual numbers from your own survey, you see that there's a public that may not be blamed but given credit. >> when you look at what charles krauthammer put out today, the purpose is to here's the reaction, march 1st, with he have to get through the entire month. >> right. >> before we do run out of money. but the first round is going to kick in. >> it is going to kick in and i actually thought that who was on "morning joe," a respected man

talking about the implications of these cuts, not just in the short term but he made a great point that a lot of this is planning that has to happen now for six months, 12 months down the road. they can't pretend that maybe it's not going to happen. they have to continue to plan as if it is going to happen. and so david i take a little bit of issue with what you said. i think the problem is that the cuts are indisdiscriminate. people support the idea of cuts but not the indiscriminate. that's where you will see the public question what is going on in washington. i think both sides are going to take a big hit for this. >> both sides are going to take a big hit and meanwhile the american people take a big hit with pink slips being formed for a lot of people however there's been talk about how this has been covered. barry, i want to get your take on this.

bob woodward felt harassed by gene sperling and david axelrod had an opportunity to speak with bob woodward. take a look. >> if you felt threatened, why didn't you say to gene, don't threaten me? >> what i said, david -- and come on. you were making -- putting words in my mouth. i said i don't think this is the way to operate. and you and iville had many discussions. you've never said to me, you're going to regret doing that. am i correct? >> yes, but this was a specific discussion about a specific point you had raised. it seemed like gene was in that e-mail certainly was very, very polite in the way that he pushed it aside. but i'm not putting words in your mouth, bob. it's your newspaper that said you were threatened. >> so the dynamic here has now

been taken to task about the e-mails that have been shown to everybody. the cordial fashion in which the exchange that went down, gene sperling said, i know you may not believe this but as a friend i think you will regret staking out that claim. then, woodward said, i for one welcome a little heat. i also welcome your personal advice. barry, how is this playing out with the real fact of sequester going on and the question that this is one big shiny distraction? >> i covered the white house with myself and i get much more harsh, intense threatening e-mails than myself. i never thought that e-mail particularly was not reflected. i know a lot of reporters get really strong e-mails. i was confused almost. what is he really talking about? i think the broader point of the sequester is woodward is very

focused on president obama's idea with the sequester. well, that's tentatively true but misses the broader point that the notion that the deficit should be reduced by spending cuts is an idea. and the concept is a republican concept and less important and what wins. >> right now, both the left and right have joint parentage over the sequester. our power panel, karen finney, david winston, thank you for your time today. coming up next, the obama administration takes a dramatic step in what could be the most groundbreaking supreme court decisions ever. plus, msnbc's co-host of the cycle joins me on why she goes to the biggest conservative gathering of the year and why chris christie completely didn't get invited.

first, does the bob woodward controversy enlighten the sequester debate in any way? tweet me or find us on facebook. ha ha ha! no no no! not today! ha ha ha! ha ha ha! jimmy how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? happier than dikembe mutumbo blocking a shot. get happy. get geico.

the house lp fund the government on march 27th. i'm hopeful that we won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we're dealing with the sequester at the same time. the house will act next week and i hope the senate will follow suit. thanks. >> speaker -- >> why did you wait until friday to meet with the president? >> that was speaker john boehner who came out from the white house this morning with the president also in attendance, mitch mcconnell, harry reid, nancy pelosi. the speaker is saying that there is not an option for revenue being on the table. one thing that was kind of the biggest thing to come out of that is the fact that they will be pushing for this continuing resolution coming up in the

house and as we've now gotten to the march date of sequestration, that means that the first rounds start now but we get through the entire month of this and it will go until march 27th. then we run out of money. that's when we could see a government shutdown. but we see the fact that the speaker there talking about they will push a continuing resolution bill to the house and then we move on to the senate. i'm getting word that nancy pelosi has left the white house as well. we may not be seeing her come to the microphones and we'll continue to see if other leadership steps out. jay carney having his press briefing this morning at 11:30. we'll keep you posted on that one as well. >> well, a bold step by the obama administration is moving the needle on marriage equality. the supreme court yesterday urging the court to strike down proposition 8. this marks the first time that a sitting president has ever urged the nation's high court to allow guy gay couples to marry but the

obama administration went a step further by suggesting that it's unconstitutional for states to offer civil unions to gay couples but deny them the right to marry. the push for marriage equality in california is causing prominent americans, clint eastwood has urged the supreme court to overturn prop 8 and its organizers of the conservative cpac are snubbing key republican players. other republicans, like my next guest, are boycotting it. joining me now is co-host of "the cycle" and explain why you decided not to go. >> i've enjoyed a long relationship with cpac. it's a highlight of my year to go and speak with other young conservatives especially but it's just become increasingly uncomfortable for me to endorse an event that is in some ways excluding and in many ways

marginalizing gay conservatives. they have worked doubly hard. they have risked much more than we have in fighting to an advance in -- >> the group you're talking about is go proud? >> both of which i've worked for in the past. they have worked incredibly hard to advance conservative principles and we should be we regarding them with positions of prominence, not inviting them into the tent and then stuffing them into the back room. >> one thing that's interesting is how many republican names have signed on. you're one of the names that's included on that. now, the administration is making the case under the filing deadline. do you think this is going to help the gop re-evaluate and certainly not from the white house, knowing that there are prominent republican names, and

they are reading the waves. >> the problem is that there has never been conservatives to support gay marriage. they are really in line with gay rights and many conservatives believe that. the problem is they have been changed by the party leaders. they have been told to remain quiet, that they are not as conservative and i think that a number of republicans coming out in support of this, we can be rooms for your opinions here. it doesn't mean all conservatives have to embrace gay marriage but you have to embrace gay conservatives and you have to embrace conservatives who support gay marriage. we can't keep doing these purity tests, these purity tests to try to exclude hardworking

conservatives who are begging to be let in. who are begging to be on our side. >> there's one politician and not getting the invitation. >> we're going to have the most diverse and i think representative view of america this year at cpac. we've got tim scott, arthur davis, marco rubio for the first time ever. i'm highlighting ten young conservative across the nation, african-americans, hispanics, women. i think the whole theme of the conservative movement needs to move with the demographic reality and we're going to be painting that picture at cpac. >> and that was this morning on "morning joe." we were just told the president is going to be joining the briefing at 11:35 with jay carney so we want everybody to

stick with us for that. the president just wrapping up that meeting with congressional leadership on the sequester. hopefully we'll be a fly on the wall, so to speak, of what happened there. but as we hear al cardenas -- t all right. someone like yourself. they want a female demographic. what are they really doing? i haven't gone back in a couple of days. they have 41 speakers listed, 12 of which were female. i think that they are continuing to add speakers along but where is their devotion to widening the tent. they say they want it but there's the actual deed. >> well, al's right in that it's an important project to sort of being at least visibly and policywise more inclusive party and movement and to their credit they've invited a lot of women

to speak. i was invited to speak. i was scheduled to speak and he rattled off a list of great, diverse conservatives. that's important. but i think the purity test is evidenced in issues like go proud. there is a certain third rail that you still can't cross apparently but that is outdated way of seeing the party and it's going to run use in the future if we ever want to win elections again we can't keep doing this. >> and this was your choice. you weren't pressured? >> yeah. i'm glad you brought that up. there's this idea that somehow this network pressured me out of speaking at cpac. not even possible. but didn't happen. and i also worked for glenn beck. i don't know if it gets more conservative than glenn. my employers on either side were not a factor of this. >> we go back and forth and obviously people don't know you because there's no way to

convince this woman. >> to do anything i don't want to do. true. >> we're on the same wave length. thank you. as always, you can be watching s.e. as she hosts "the cycle" weekdays at 3:00 p.m. eastern. breaking news here at msnbc, the president expected to speak about the sequester negotiations at 11:35 a.m. minutes from now during the press briefing there. we will, of course, take you there as soon as it happens and we're going to be right back with more in a moment. ♪ ♪ ♪ we're lucky, it's not every day you find a companion as loyal as a subaru. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.

a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions,

bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com.

[ angry gibberish ] [ justin ] mulligan sir. mulligan. take a mulligan. i took something for my sinuses, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] truth is, a lot of sinus products don't treat cough. they don't? [ male announcer ] nope, but alka seltzer plus severe sinus does it treats your worst sinus symptoms, plus that annoying cough. [ angry gibberish ] [ fake coughs ] sorry that was my fault sir. [ male announcer ] alka seltzer plus severe sinus. [ breathes deeply ] ♪ oh, what a relief it is! [ male announcer ] try alka seltzer plus severe sinus day and night for complete relief from your worst sinus symptoms. breaking news. expecting remarks from the white house briefing rom. the president is going to take the podium to talk about what happened this morning behind closed doors of crossing leadership. we'll be back right after this. i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters...

my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost.. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership.

breaking news on msnbc. keeping a close eye on the briefing room where jay carney is expected to come out at any moment and the president is expected to speak at 11:35. this is all in reference to the meeting that took place this morning with congressional leaders a the white house. nancy pelosi, harry reid, mitch mcconnell and john boehner have all been there. they have now departed the white house. the house speaker, though, offered brief remarks about the house's next steps moments ago. take a listen. >> the house is going to move a resolution for march 27th. i'm hopeful that we won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we're dealing with the sequester at the same time. the house will act next week and i hope the senate will follow suit. >> joining me from the white house is nbc correspondent kristen welker.

any word on what went on behind closed doors? john boehner revealing his cards that no new revenue is on the table and they are going to continue to move forward with the resolution. >> reporter: that meeting lasted about an hour and if you listen to speaker boehner's tone, not a lot of optimism in talking about turning off the sequester. this suggests that no real tangible progress has been made. i would say at this point nothing has changed. this meeting is largely, by all accounts, what president obama has to say and it's no indication that there is anything more than that. remember, the sequester kicks in today. so a lot of people scratching their heads wondering why they haven't been meeting all week to try to get something accomplished and the reality is, what speaker boehner said, he's not going to give in on the issues of revenue. president obama digging in on that point. he wants any deal to include revenues and that's really where the sticking point lies.

conventional wisdom is that they will deal with this as part of the continuing resolution, which you heard speaker boehner say the house is going to vote on that next week. the deadline for that is at the end of march. this will likely drag on for a bit. now, in terms of what happened once the sequester kicks in, the number of government workers will be furloughed. there's a concern that some kids will get kicked off of head start. when does that happen? it doesn't happen immediately. the furloughs will go out. the notices will begin to go out but the actual workers won't be furloughed for about a month. so there is some time before people really start to feel the brunt of this. but if you listen to speaker boehner's tone, it doesn't seem as though there's a whole lot of progress made today. >> do we know exactly how long they were behind closed doors, how long this meeting took place? >> well, it lasted for about an hour which is actually longer than people expected. we thought the meeting would last for about half an hour. we're going to work vigorously

throughout the day to try to get a read on what happened and try to determine if there was any goal posts that moved in that direction. >> kristen welker at the white house, thank you. we're waiting for the president to come out and join jay carney in the white house briefing room. you can see reporters standing by getting ready for that. but we're going to talk more about what this means with two of our elected leaders. joining me now, republican congressman mike turner of ohio as well as congressman from kentucky, a member of the budget committee. it's good to have you with me. i want to start out that some house republicans are applauding speaker boehner for standing his ground, halting the talks on the cuts themselves. i want to ask you, are members of the tea party caucus in particular happy with the speaker's strategy so far? >> well, in the context of where we are, the president has called congressional leadership to the white house as props, as a background to his game of

sequester, the sequester that goes in place with his signature today that he proposed 2011 and has yet to put on the table a full proposal that's actioned by congress. what he's referring to is the president hasn't does his homework. the senate took up a bill that did not pass and actually raised spending. it did not offset sequestration and the president has a plan with undefied concepts. the president needs to get his homework done and a plan. >> the two house bills passed that they severely cut earned benefits, entitlements across the country for many americans and that's why they didn't move forward. >> well, we don't have an answer from the senate on that. the senate never took up the debate. that may be your answer but the senate never took these bills up for a debate and we certainly don't have a counter proposal for the president. you're standing here with the president having broken his campaign promise, having signed sequestration in place without putting forth a year and half of

this going forward a proposal that would replace it. he talks in broad concepts and says that he's blaming the republicans in the tea party. the fact is, he hasn't turned in his homework. the only thing that's done on sequestration in the white house. >> congressman, i assume you would disagree with what is being said here. the main thing that the left wants to see is a debate and a compromise on revenue. >> well, that's true, tom. i think we're having the wrong conversation. the conversation that my colleague is having and also that the president is having, how to replace sequestration, we ought to end sequestration. nobody wanted it. nobody wants it to occur. and we just ought to replace it the debate we're having is a debate that we had two months ago, that we had last week and next week and we'll have after march 27th. that's what with he do is decide how to spend the taxpayers money and how to send it to the

government. this is a continuing debate and shouldn't get it confused with the sequester which is across the board cuts that nobody wants. we ought to do our job, get out of that and the only way that the sequestration would go into effect if republicans hadn't voted for it. so let's say it's both of our faults that we're here and let's stop it. let's turn it off next week. we can do that. >> speaker boehner came out and said after it was signed he got 98% of what he wanted. congressman, the president came out placing blame on republicans and talking specifically in a statement about what republicans are willing to do and that is let wealthy americans off the hook, saying instead of closing a single tax loophole that benefits the well-off and well-connected, they chose to

cut vital services to our children, seniors, and our men and women in uniform. in ohio, $25.1 million cuts in education, 26,000 potential civil furloughs and 800 children could lose access to health care. do you feel a responsibility for your constituents back at home for what this is going to mean to them and how do you explain not coming up with a et abouter solution? >> first of all, i voted against this mess because i didn't believe the president. when he said that these cuts were irresponsible and they wouldn't happen, i didn't believe him. i believed we would be here right now breaking that promise to the american public and putting in place those cuts. but the problem is that the president is doing bait and switch. he proposed sequester because he wanted to continue trillion dollar deficits. no one believed that we could continue trillion dollar deficits. we have to have meaningful reform of spending in washington or our economy is simply not going to be able to sustain this. sequestration is not the way.

it's why i voted no. i believe it's as irresponsible as the president says it is but i also voted for two bills that would replace it. the president has not put forth one proposal that can go to the senate of the house floor. the senate has not replaced one bill to replace it. the president needs to get out his pencil, his piece of paper, and set aside the sequester that he proposed and i voted against. >> congress, it's going to be reminiscent for a lot of people, the fiscal cliff and struggle that took place with that. how do you go back to your constituents in kentucky and explain to them that once again washington is not doing its job? >> well, i've been doing this for several years now and it's a frustrating situation. like mr. turner, i voted against the budget control act and so i can tell them that this is not the way we do business. my constituents want a balanced approach. my constituents want to make sure that we don't take -- do

all of the deficit reduction on the backs of lower and middle-income americans and while the wealthy contributes to this program. plus, we've got plenty of room with what are called tax end spe expenditures. >> let me interrupt. the president has come to the microphone. >> as you know, i've met with leaders of both parties to discuss a way forward in light of the severe budget cuts that start to take effect today. i told them these cuts will hurt our economy, they will cost us jobs and to set it right, both sides need to be willing to compromise. the good news is, the american people are strong and they are resilient. they've fought hard to recover from the worst economic crisis since the great depression and we will get through this as well. even with these cuts in place, all across this country, we will work hard to make sure that we keep the recovery going. but washington sure isn't making

it easy. at a time when our business has finally begun to get some traction, hiring new workers, bringing jobs back to america, we shouldn't be making dumb, arbitrary cuts to things that businesses depend on and workers depend on like education and research and infrastructure and defense. it's unnecessary and at a time when too many americans are still looking for work, it's inexcusable. now, what's important to understand is that not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away. the pain, though, will be real. beginning this week, many middle class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways. businesses that work with the military, like the virginia ship builder that i visited on tuesday, may have to lay folks off. communities near military bases will take a serious blow. hundreds of thousands of

americans who serve their country, border patrol agents, fbi agents, civilians who work at the pentagon all will suffer significant pay cuts and furloughs. all of this will cause a ripple effect throughout our economy. layoffs and pay cuts mean that people have less money in their pockets and that means they have less money to spend at local businesses. that means lower profits. that means fewer hires. the longer these cuts remain in place, the greater the damage to our economy. a slow grind that will intensify with each passing day. so economists are estimating that as a consequence of this sequester, we could see growths cut by 1 half of 1%. it will cost 750,000 jobs at a time when we should be growing jobs more quickly. so every time that we get a piece of economic news over the next month, next two months,

next six months, as long as the sequester is in place, we'll know that that economic news could have been better if congress had not failed to act. and let's be clear, none of this is necessary. it's happening because a choice that republicans in congress have made. they've allowed these cuts to happen because they refused to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit. as recently as yesterday they decided to protect special interests tax breaks for the well-off and the well-connected and they think that that's apparently more important than protecting our military or middle class families from the pain of these cuts. i do believe that we can and must replace these cuts with a more balanced approach that has something from everybody. smart spending cuts, entitlement reform, tax reform that makes

the tax code more fair for families and businesses without raising tax rates. all so that we can responsibly lower the deficit without laying off workers or forcing parents to scramble for child care or slashing financial aid for college students. i don't think that is too much to ask. i don't think it's partisan. it's the kind of approach that i have proposed for two years. it's what i ran on last year. the majority of the american people agree with me with this approach, including, by the way, a growing number of republicans. we just need congress to catch up with their own party and country with this. if they did so, we could make a lot of progress. i do know that there are republicans in congress who privately at least say that they would rather close tax loopholes than let these cuts go through. i know that there are democrats who would rather do entitlement reform than let these cuts go through. so there is a caucus of

commonsense up on capitol hill. it's just it's a silent group right now and we want to make sure that their voices start getting heard. in the coming days and coming weeks, i'm going to keep on reaching out to them, both individually as groups of senators or members of the house and say to them, let's fix this. not just for a month or two but for years to come, because the greatest nation on earth does not conduct its business in month to month increments or by careening from crisis to crisis. in the meantime, we can't let political gridlock around the budget stand in the other areas where we can make progress. i was pleased to see that the house passed the violence against women act yesterday. that is a big win for not just women but for families and for the american people. it's a law that's going to save

lives and help more americans live free from fear. it's something that we've been pushing on for a long time. i was glad to see that done and it's an example of how we can still get some important bipartisan legislation through this congress, even though there's still these fiscal arguments taking place. and i think there are other areas where we can make progress, even with the sequester unresolved. i will continue to push for these initiatives. i'm going to continue to push for high-quality preschool for each family that wants it. i'm going to continue to push that we raise minimum wage. i'm going to keep pushing for immigration reform and reform our voting system and improvements on our transportation sector and i'm going to keep pushing for sensible government reforms because i still think they deserve a vote. this is the agenda of the american people voted for. these are america's priorities. they are too important to go unaddressed and i'm going to keep pushing to make sure that we see them through.

so with that, i'm going to take some questions. i'm going to start with julie. >> thank you, mr. president. how much responsibility do you feel that you bear for these cuts taking effect and is the only way to offset them at this point is for republican to bend on revenue or do you see any alternative? >> well, look, we've already cut 2$2.5 trillion in our deficit. everybody says we need to cut $4 trillion. which means we have to come up with another trillion and a half. the vast majority of the economists agree that the problem, when it comes to deficits, is not discretionary spending. it's not that we're spending too much money on education. it's not that we're spending too much money on job training or that we're spending too much money rebuilding our roads and our bridges. we're not. the problem that we have is a long-term problem in terms of our health care costs and

programs like medicare. and what i've said, very specifically, very detailed is that i'm prepared to take on the problem where it exists, on entitlements and do some things that my own party really doesn't like if it's part of a broader package of sensible deficit reduction. so the deal that i've put forward over the last two years, the deal that i put forward as recently as december is still on the table. i am prepared to do hard things and to push my democratic friends to do hard things but what i can't do is ask middle class families, ask seniors, ask students to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction when we know we've got a bunch of tax loopholes that are benefiting the well-off and well-connected aren't contributing to our growth or our economy.

it's not fair. it's not right. the american people don't think it's fair and don't think it's right. and so i recognize that speaker boehner's got challenges in his caucus. i recognize that it's very hard for republican leaders to be perceived as making concessions to me. you know, sometimes i reflect, is there something else that i could do to make she's guys -- i'm not talking about the leaders now, but maybe some of the house republican caucus members, not the pink horns on my head. and i genuinely believe that there's an opportunity for us to cooperate. but what doesn't make sense and the only thing we've seen from republicans so far in proposals

is take these arbitrary cuts with even worse arbitrary cuts. that's not going to help the economy. that's not going to help growth. that's not going to create jobs. and as a number of economists have noted, ironically it doesn't even reduce our deficit in the smartest way possible or the fastest way possible. so in terms of going forward, my hope is that after some reflection, as members of congress start hearing from constituents who are being negatively impacted, as we start seeing the impact that the sequester is having, that they step back and say, all right, is there a way for us to move forward on a package of

entitlement reforms, tax reform identifying programs that don't work, coming up with a plan that is comprehensive and that makes sense. it may take a couple weeks and it may take a couple of months but i'm just going to keep on pushing on it and my view is that ultimate ly, common sense prevails. but what is true right now is that the republicans have made a choice that maintaining an iron clad rule that we will not accept an extra dime's worth of revenue makes it very difficult for us to get any larger comprehensive deal. that's a choice they're making. they're saying that it's more important to preserve these tax loopholes than it is to prevent these arbitrary cuts.

and what's interesting is speaker boehner just a couple months ago identified these tax loopholes and tax breaks and said we should close them and raise revenue. so, it's not as if it's not possible to do, they, themselves, have suggested that it's possible to do. and if they believe that, in fact, these tax loopholes and these tax breaks for the well off and the well connected aren't contributing to growth aren't good for our economy, aren't particularly fair and can raise revenue, well, why don't we get started. why don't we do that? it may be because of the politics within the republican party, they can't do it right now. i understand that. my hope is that they can do it later and i just want to repeat, julie, because i think it's very important to understand. it's not as if democrats aren't being asked to do anything

either to compromise. i mean, there are members of my party who violently disagree with the notion that we should do anything on medicare. and i'm willing to say to them, i disagree with you because i want to preserve medicare for the long haul. and we're going to have some tough politics within my party to get this done. this is not a situation where i'm only asking for concessions from republicans and asking nothing from democrats. i'm saying that everybody is going to have to do something and the one key to this whole thing is trying to make sure we keep in mind who we are are here for. we're not here for ourselves. we're thought here for our parties. we're not here to advance our electoral prospects. we're here for american families who have been getting battered

pretty good over the last four years, are just starting to see the economy improve and businesses are just starting to see some coming back. this is not a win for anybody. this is a loss for the american people. and, again, if we step back and just remind ourselves what it is we're supposed to be doing here, then hopefully common sense will be in the end. >> this is one you don't bear any responsibility for. >> julie, give me an example of what i might do. >> i'm trying to clarify your statement. >> i'm trying to clarify the question. i put forward a plan that calls for serious spending cuts, serious entitlement reforms, goes right at the problem that is at the heart of our long-term deficit problem. i've offered negotiations around that kind of balanced approach

and so far we've gotten rebuffed because what speaker boehner and the republicans have said is we cannot do any revenue. we can't do a dime's worth of revenue. so, what more do you think i should do? okay, i wast want to clarify. because if people have a suggestion, i'm happy to, this is a room full of smart, this is a room full of smart folks. >> mr. president, the next focal point seems to be the continuing resolution that is funding the government at the end of the month that expires at the end of the month. would you sign a cr that continues the sequester, continues to fund the government. in a related point, how do you reach the limits of your persuasive power? any leverage you have to convince the republicans and convince folks that this isn't the way to go? >> well, i'd like to think i've still got some persuasive power left. let me check.

no, look, the issue is not my persuasive power. the american people agree with my approach. they agree that we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction. the question is, can the american people help persuade their members of congress to do the right thing. and, you know, i have a lot of confidence over time that if the american people express their displeasure on how something is working, then eventually congress responds. sometimes there's a little gap between what the american people think and what congress thinks. but eventually congress catches up. with respect to the budget and keeping the government open, try for our viewing audience to make sure that we're not talking in washington gobly gook. an extension of last year's budget into this year's budget

to make sure that basic government functions continue, i think it's the right thing to do to make sure that we don't have a government shut down. and that's preventable. we have a budget control act, right? we agree to a certain amount of money that was going to be spent each year and certain funding levels for our military, our education system and so forth. if we stick to that deal, then i will be supportive of us sticking to that deal. that's a deal that i made. the sequester our additional cuts on top of that and by law until congress takes a sequester away, we have to abide by those additional cuts. but there's no reason why we should have another crisis by shutting the government down in addition to these arbitrary spending cuts. >> just make 100% clear, you sign a budget that continues to

fund the government even at the lower levels of the sequester even if you don't prefer to do that. >> i never want to make myself 100% clear with you guys. but, i think it's fair to say that i made a deal for a certain budget, certain numbers. there's no reason why that deal needs to be reopened. it was a deal that speaker boehner made, as well. and all the leadership made. if the bill that is on my desk is reflective of the commitments that we previously made, then, obviously, i would sign it because i want to make sure we keep on doing what we need it do for the american people. >> mr. president, to your question, what could you do, first of all, couldn't you have them down here and refuse to let them leave the room until you have a deal? >> you know,