| |
| |
|
 | Political News |
 |
|
|
Transcript: Interview With Bush Economics Team
The Washington Post Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., National Economic Council Director Lawrence B. Lindsey and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors R. Glenn Hubbard met Tuesday with a small group of reporters in a White House conference room. Following is a transcript of the conversation. Q: Do you have any opening statements you want to make? Prepared testimony? Q: Let me start with a question that Jake and Dick and I were talking about. Are we headed for a stalemate on economic issues growing out of the September attacks on stimulus, on airport security, on terrorism insurance? On the face of it, it appears that seven weeks out from the initial attacks we still don't have any agreement. SECRETARY O'NEILL: I don't think so. Yes, I know we're seven weeks out, but I don't know when you started counting, but I think -- nobody realized for a period of time that we were going to have to think about and propose something about the risk associated with terrorist acts, and think about how the economy could deal with that problem, when it hadn't really had to before. So, yes it's been a few weeks, but I think in that particular issue, there's only been engagement for maybe the last two weeks. Before that, there was lots of to'ing and fro'ing. We did lots of to'ing and fro'ing inside, trying -- because there's no established dogma to provide a guidance for how you think about dealing with the cost of terrorist acts in the United States. And so we had lots of conversation inside about what we might do, and then we consulted with private sector insurance companies, we consulted with members of Congress, and then we put our ideas in play. And as soon as I leave here, I'm going to a meeting on the Hill for further consultations on a bipartisan basis, with Senators Dodd and Sarbanes and Phil Gramm. So just using that as an example, I don't think we're at a stalemate at all. MR. HUBBARD: I'm amazed at how quickly things went. Aviation went very quickly early on. Terrorist risk insurance is actually a pretty hard problem. It did take us some time internally. The administration I think put out a very good proposal, and Secretary O'Neill has been spending a lot of time on the Hill on it. Stimulus is an issue that I think there's actually quite a bit of support for some of the core elements for what the President wanted, and there's a lot of fighting around the edges. I know it's a half-empty, half-full, but I see it as definitely half-full. MR. DANIELS: Bear in mind that the President and all of us were talking about economic growth before September 11th. And you would have seen, in my opinion, a presidential initiative in any event. I think two things have led to the fact that we're still progressing toward that. One is, there was sort of a first things first to some of these things we talked about, keeping the airlines flying at all, immediate response to organize for homeland security, the military efforts and all the rest of that. And I think secondly, some adjustment to a new environment, this sort of bipartisan environment in which we're operating a little differently. I think that this group, and the President personally, were very much engaged in the problems of the economy before all this happened. And as the Secretary said, there's also a little bit of a recalibration -- how much additional, how much incremental damage was done. It turns out to be a fair amount. But that's not -- all things considered, we're not in bad position. DR. LINDSEY: I think the system change is important. Not only are we not a parliamentary system, we're actually a pretty much adversarial system, with two separate bicameral legislature, and a separate executive. And there was not a script written on how one operates on a bipartisan basis. The President, I think, has been doing everything he could in the case of the stimulus package. There were lots of meetings between the President and senior members of both parties in both Houses. People in this room met at other levels with members of Congress beforehand. So I think -- remember, a rapidly passed tax bill, which we had this year, was five months. And this stimulus bill is going to get out in weeks instead of months. And I think it's a tribute to the bipartisan approach that the President's taking. Q: Can I ask on stimulus, do you think there's a chance there will not be a stimulus and Congress will adjourn without getting a stimulus passed or signed? MR. HUBBARD: I certainly hope not. I think the private sector forecasts for 2002 are pricing in a pretty significant fiscal stimulus. And when everyone says the consensus out there is for a recovery in 2002, that is accurate in the private sector. But that's with a lot of stimulus. We are paying with fire if we don't pass a reasonable stimulus package. DR. LINDSEY: And look at the market. The market from when the President and the House took up this bill went up 400 or 500 points. Now the talk is what you just mentioned, and I think people are having to readjust their forecast. I agree with everything Glenn just said. The private sector forecasts all have a significant fiscal stimulus, particularly on the manufacturing and investment end, built in. And if that is removed, then I think there's a significant risk to the economy. Q: Do you think there's a chance, though, that somehow the government will leave Washington without a bill? DR. LINDSEY: That's a political judgment, but I don't think so. I think that reason will prevail. I think that the economists in both parties are sending the same signal, as are business people back home. MR. HUBBARD: We know economists are always listened to. (Laughter.) Q: Would the President sign any bill given to him, or would he veto, say, the Senate bill that's passed? DR. LINDSEY: No. Q: -- the Democratic Senate -- DR. LINDSEY: You're asking us what we would recommend for the President. Q: Right. DR. LINDSEY: I think you want to have one that's cost effective. We are sensitive to budget constraint. We want a stimulus package that meets the needs that are out there, that buys maximum bang for the buck. MR. HUBBARD: Two elements in this cost-effective argument too. One is the size of the package, which is clearly important, but the other is the mix between tax cuts and spending changes. Those simply are not the same in their effects on the economy. Q: If Congress presented the Senate Democratic bill to the President, you would recommend a veto, even if the alternative was no bill? SECRETARY O'NEILL: It's a hypothetical. It's fascinating to me. I think we in the administration have changed mind-set about how to work with the Congress. And lots of members of Congress have changed mind-set about how to work with us. You guys just want to imagine conflict at every corner. And it's almost as though you're genetically -- (laughter.) If there isn't a conflict, you're going to make one. (Laughter.) Q: Mr. Secretary, in all fairness, you have a House that has passed a measure that the Senate -- even Senate Republicans -- some Senate Republicans say they don't like. You certainly have in the public domain a lot of evidence of stalemate. And you have relatively little of what Larry just talked about, which is this bipartisanship. You may have early on, but we're just -- we deal with what we see in the public domain. And it certainly looks like there's an awful lot of conflict. What are we not looking at? SECRETARY O'NEILL: I think -- this is impossible, but if you're on a monthly news cycle, instead of an hourly one, you take a different view of how this stuff gets done. Come back a month from now and ask the question, well, did we get it done or didn't we get it done, and what was the shape of it. And it's not something that's decided on an hour-by-hour basis. The President indicated to the leaders of Congress what he thought the important components were. And the House took some action which was a useful vehicle to get things going. It contained all the component parts of what the President asked for. It looks to me like the Senate is going to create a vehicle that has the component parts the President asked for. And then it's up to us to work with the members of Congress and try and fashion something that comes down here that the President says, this is within the range of what I had in mind, and I appreciate the bipartisan support that produced this. And if that all doesn't happen, then I guess as the point person, I'd say I failed. So come back in a month and find out if I failed. Maybe I will, I don't know. Q: What is the President willing to do at this point to keep this process moving? There are a lot of complaints from the Hill at this point that he's not giving enough direction, that he's not using his authority to step in and shape this thing, and get it together now. Is he just going to sit back and let this all play out, or at some point does the President get involved? DR. LINDSEY: The President constantly is in communication with members of both parties. He has breakfasts, lunches and dinners with them. He talks to them on the phone, he has them down here for meetings. And I don't know what more he can do. MR. HUBBARD: The basic elements of the package, as being discussed, are the ones the President himself laid out in the Rose Garden. So I think he's been relatively specific. Q: I don't necessarily see that the Senate Democrats are necessarily picking up on those elements. I mean, I don't think that they -- my understand is that Baucus and Daschle have said they don't want to reopen the tax bill that passed earlier this year, so in their mind, it means you don't accelerate the rate cuts. DR. LINDSEY: It's interesting. When there was meetings beforehand, the principles were that you wanted to provide a stimulus, you wanted it to be effective, you wanted it to be primarily focused in '02. Now, if you want to have a -- there was surprising support from members on the tax committees that will -- this group, you have it in your papers, we thought corporate rates were probably the best way to go. But other people were suggesting depreciation schedules, and I think depreciation schedules are workable -- bipartisan recognition that if you're going to have any kind of investment stimulus, you have to take care of the alternative minimum tax. There was no argument with that in the discussions. If you're going to do something on the personal side, there were two aspects of that. One was something the Democrats particularly wanted, which was that checks go out to people who did not get checks before. That is part of the President's package he sent up. The other question is, how do you provide middle class relief. And one way of providing an effective stimulus that does not have a lot of out year cost, was to accelerate rates, because it again front-loads the benefits without increasing costs our there in 2008 and 2009, when everyone was concerned about them. The package, to me, fell naturally in place given the bipartisan discussions. So I don't know if what you're describing -- how much heat or how much light there is to it. But I think what the President proposed was something that did not touch anyone's hot button issues, did not give everyone everything they wanted, but represented an honest judgment as to where the state of the discussion was with members of both parties. MR. DANIELS: This process shows, I think, what a centrist package the President put forward. And I think there's a sort of symmetry -- a certain symmetry to what you've seen happen. The House embroidered the core suggestions with some things they believe sincerely in. I think you're going to see that on the Senate side, too, with some spending ideas. But at the heart -- as Larry just described it, I think it's only depicting, again, how thoughtful the President's proposal was, and how middle of the road it is. And I think that -- good chance that both sides find their way back to that middle line -- center line. MR. HUBBARD: The four key elements, I think three are almost surely -- the partial expensing, the AMT and the low-income rebates, I just don't see too much controversy on. Accelerating the rate cuts is outstanding tax policy. I don't think we have to be defensive about it all. And I think that that's still going to -- Q: Can I come back to the question that was originally posed, which is, are you planning to do anything with the President and the administration to try and accelerate the process or try and jump-start the process? Are you pleased with how the process is going right now? SECRETARY O'NEILL: We're talking to them every day. Your question has in it a sense of there's no end in sight. I don't share that view. Q: I guess -- I had a discussion with Senator Baucus last week, where he said that in all the meetings that he had had with you, that he had come away with a better understanding of the ideological differences over the administration's problems with his idea to pay -- help pay the subsidies for health care -- provide a subsidy to pay health -- partially pay health care premiums. But where there was possible inklings of a way to bridge those differences, he didn't see it yet. MR. HUBBARD: I don't think it's ideology, I think it's economics. Q: He called it ideology, but -- MR. HUBBARD: The President had already proposed national emergency grants, which could be used at the discretion of governors to address health insurance issues, among other issues. That's an area I know that Secretary O'Neill continues to work pretty actively on the Hill. So I don't see this as ideological at all. The President had a displaced worker package out -- Q: Before anyone else. MR. HUBBARD: -- there before they did. So it's really just a question of what makes the most economic sense. We think that the approach they're trying to take on the health side was not good economics. It's not an ideological -- Q: Is there approach unacceptable to you? If they push that, would you accept that in a bill? SECRETARY O'NEILL: What I've said to Senator Baucus is -- I think at least the initial idea that he suggested in the meetings that we were having with Grassley was a huge reach and change in policy, putting the federal government into a position where it's now going to create a new entitlement class to pay for a selected portion of a family's monthly budget expenses, namely health care. And I thought it was a legitimate issue to discuss and to debate and to consider. In the normal legislative process, I thought it was way beyond reach, in terms of adding it as a component of a stimulus bill, as though somehow it would then go away. And so I personally -- I told him I personally would recommend to the President that he not accept a bill with a component as they originally conceived it. MR. HUBBARD: Going back to Mitch's symmetry point, too, it's odd that we're constraining the tax options to have a very short-run effect, but as the Secretary said, try to create open-ended entitlements on the spending side is not only asymmetric, it would just be bad economics. DR. LINDSEY: But also, on those open-ended entitlements, one thing we have to be sensitive to, and I think you can talk to folks at the Fed to get the same answer, is what has happened to the NAIRU [Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Employment, the lowest level unemployment can be without sparking inflation] and why this happened. And we don't want to reverse that. And a long-term policy that reverses the reduction in the NAIRU that we've seen over the last 20 years would not be a good outcome. Q: Why would this reverse NAIRU? MR. HUBBARD: It's search -- basically lengthening unemployment benefits impedes search activity, and increases the rate of unemployment. Q: So these objections that we talked about with regard to health care also apply to unemployment -- extend to unemployment comp? MR. DANIELS: I'd say they apply to anything, whether it's stimulus or otherwise. I think that good operating principles for the moment include nothing permanent in the heat and the haste of the moment, and nothing extraneous. We ought to be dealing with an emergency on an emergency basis. There are now close to $300 billion of suggestions out there, many of which would lead to permanent changes that, if they're wise, ought to be considered in a more reflective moment. Q: Except for AMT. DR. LINDSEY: No, no, that's everyone -- this is simply a tax policy issue. There's no one that I know of involved in writing tax policy that thinks you can have investment incentives and have a corporate AMT. That's all there is to it. MR. HUBBARD: And another point, a downturn AMT -- the corporate AMT raises effective tax rates on business and in a downturn that's just nuts tax policy. It's always been nuts tax policy. Q: But I don't think the Daschle bill has anything on corporate AMT in it. And I know that Daschle, when I spoke to him a couple weeks ago, said that he didn't believe a corporate AMT repeal should be part of any stimulus package. He had great problems, he said, with that concept. DR. LINDSEY: I'll stick with what I said. Q: He's on the Finance Committee. Q: Can I just sort of go back to this point of -- the search objections you have, and the NAIRU objections that you have to health care would seem to -- the logic would seem to apply equally to anything that extends unemployment comp. Democrats on the Hill -- DR. LINDSEY: On a permanent basis. Q: A permanent basis. DR. LINDSEY: The President, long before the Democrats even mentioned the word, was talking about extending unemployment comp, because of the nature of this downturn. Q: The extension that you and I talked about was one that occurs in the two states, and then with a level above the September 11th level that would require, on a national basis, something like two point something million more people being unemployed, a six plus percent unemployment rate. Is that really extending it? DR. LINDSEY: No, it was -- remember on the -- if you get all 50 states. But traditionally -- this is roughly the rules of thumb -- traditionally, 39 weeks of unemployment comp kicked in around six and a half. This would be almost a point lower. So it was the most -- it was the lowest unemployment threshold for extended benefits that has ever existed in American history, period. Q: But we changed NAIRU, so that of course the question is -- MR. HUBBARD: It didn't rain from the sky, either. DR. LINDSEY: It didn't rain from the -- that's right. It wasn't magic. Q: What's your current forecast? When is the recovery coming? DR. LINDSEY: The bulk of the private forecasters that are out there are now talking about a sharpish recovery beginning in the second quarter of next year. Q: Is that your forecast? DR. LINDSEY: We don't have a new -- when you ask this to them, they're the troika. And that has a special meaning to it. MR. HUBBARD: And the blue chip numbers are, as Larry said, it's modest growth in the first quarter, a little more in the second quarter, and very high in the third. Q: Are you comfortable with that? Q: Is that a forecast you guys think is -- DR. LINDSEY: That's seems quite plausible to me. MR. HUBBARD: Given the data that are out there -- MR. DANIELS: You put a proviso on. A lot of that factors in a stimulus package we're still working to achieve. Q: Have you seen an estimate that shows what happens without a three-quarters of a percent? DR. LINDSEY: Their macro advisors, for example, simulated the stimulus package. And it means -- I think it means something close to another point in GDP growth next year. MR. HUBBARD: Yes, depending on how you model it. It depends on the components of the stimulus package, too. Q: Can I change to this broader -- Now that we've talked a little about some of the specifics, I wanted to ask you, we've now seen this team come up with a series of specific decisions, an attempt at aviation bailout changed by Congress, terrorism insurance, you guys worked there, to talk about airport security and so forth. It appears that in each case, you are seeking the minimalist solution, the one that keeps government's role to a minimum. Would you characterize what the threat is that goes through all of these? And then I have a second question. DR. LINDSEY: The minimalist would be -- I haven't heard -- you're the first person who's called us minimalist in a long time. We've been called -- Q: But let me -- DR. LINDSEY: -- wait a minute, that you -- Q: Do you want to bring my editor of the paper here? DR. LINDSEY: Yes, your editorial page -- my God, we're about to be -- the socialists are in charge here. MR. DANIELS: I'm intrigued with the idea of in the same sentence, of a minimalist bailout. That's a new -- Q: Then let me try this. On aviation -- DR. LINDSEY: We're selecting the appropriate -- we think what we're feeling for is the appropriate involvement of government. MR. HUBBARD: Which I think is minimal, in most of these -- what government should be doing is helping the private sector cope with supply shocks that raise the cost of doing business. And that was the reason for an aviation intervention, the reason on terrorism insurance, and I think that role is appropriate. DR. LINDSEY: And was constrained. On the case of the airlines, there is a unique problem. And that is, it is not just, is there a flight that goes from Atlanta to Chicago. It's whether or not there is a critical mass to call an airline system in existence. Because of the nature of airlines in America, the nature of the hub and spoke system, you've got to have a certain threshold level of planes in the air. And there was not going to be enough revenue miles generated to maintain that threshold. And we had a choice. Do you want to keep the threshold level of planes in the air, or not? So we didn't take the minimum, which was no, shut down the air system. We said, no. We need to have an air system, and let's provide the money that's needed while the private demand for air travel rises again. MR. DANIELS: Let me take you back to a phrase you might remember: activist, but limited -- which you've heard from the President several times. And I can't think of a better description of the approach that he's had us take to these issues. I mean, you probably concede it's been active, and then you can pick your own second adjective, but "activist, but limited" I think is pretty -- Q: It is fair in each of these cases that somebody was quite a ways out ahead of you on airlines, Congress -- DR. LINDSEY: You mean the industry, itself, for example. Q: -- the industry, itself -- on terrorism insurance. They want to create an entire reinsurance company. They want it to exist at least six years, and so on and so forth. So that in each of these cases you're tugging on the reins; is that fair? MR. HUBBARD: They're pulling them. It depends on how you look at it. I think what we tried to do is come up with what we thought was the most efficient government intervention to make the private market work. And that's almost always going to be smaller than what you might hear from an industry. Q: Okay. Secretary O'Neill, you said that it took some time to sort of see this wave coming. Could you give us a little history here? When did you guys realize that you were going to be confronted with these really unusual kinds of decisions? And did you meet and try to talk up some first principles to cope with them? SECRETARY O'NEILL: I don't know. I guess I would say some time after the initial shock of September the 11th. The pieces, they didn't all come at the same time, as has already been said. Q: For you, personally, when did you suddenly realize, oh, my God, we're going to face everybody and his brother walking in the door and saying we need -- SECRETARY O'NEILL: Oh, well, that came -- that was instantaneous. I knew that flying back from Japan, that Mitch would have everybody in the world now believing that the tap had been opened and we were going to spew it out like a fire hose, and that anything could be justified or related to terrorist events would surface. And I was not disappointed to see the avalanche of stuff that came at us in every conceivable way. The serious pieces -- like having to deal with liquidity for airlines was an immediate problem. Historians may look back and say, oh, God, they did too much and they did it too fast -- but I think it was a credible response. It has avoided a near-term liquidity crisis for the airline industry, and that was a necessary thing to be done. So I think, in that instance, it was well done. With the other pieces that have come -- what was, frankly, not clear to me on September the 10th was we needed a stimulus package. I was really -- you can go look at my public statements -- I continue to be maybe one of a few voices who believed before September 10th we were beginning to claw our way out of a correction period. So I was not thinking "stimulus" on the 10th day of September. It's clear since then that our economy has taken some real shocks and that we need to do lots of things to restore confidence, including the airline liquidity bill and the dealing with the terrorist risk insurance and providing some stimulus so that we can see a regrouping and a rebuilding of economic activity. Because the rate of real growth is so important to not only our economy, but to the world economy and to the relative ease with which we can pay attention to prosecuting this war on terrorists. It became clear I guess I would say maybe the second week after September the 11th, that we needed to do something about stimulus for the economy. Because while some places were returning to rates of growth that they had on the 10th of September, there was clearly a shock and an impact and the airline industry and in the all the collateral and related industries. And there was a sense of unease, generally, in the economy. So that piece became clear -- the terrorist risk insurance became clear, I guess I would say only over the last two and a half or three weeks. DR. LINDSEY: Time flies when you're having fun. That's the hard thing about -- thinking back on how long ago it was -- it's been a while. SECRETARY O'NEILL: We haven't yet seen all the things that, retrospectively, people will look back and say, these were consequences. I think our society and our economy is still working its way through an identification of what's different, how's it different, how should we respond. And you see it reflected in what the President did in appointing Tom Ridge. If you think about our Defense Department since -- for 25 or 30 years, has not paid attention to defending our borders in any real sense. DR. LINDSEY: Within our borders. SECRETARY O'NEILL: From inside. DR. LINDSEY: Right. SECRETARY O'NEILL: When I was very young and working as an intern in Alaska, I helped to build DEW line sights. Most of you are not old enough to remember, but they were part of an infrastructure to detect incomings and put our military capability out there to shoot down incoming missiles and airplanes. It's been a long time since we had to think about that. Q: Can I just ask, are there some other obvious bailouts or fixes that you see coming your way, that you think you're going to have to help with? I'd offer one, the Postal Service. Do you see some other of these decisions that are -- SECRETARY O'NEILL: I'll give you an example of the kind of things that I think we're going to see. We're going to see across our economy -- including in the government -- added costs are associated with the acknowledged risk of terrorist acts. And the initial response will be more people, more technology. And the consequence of the first response is going to be pressure on rates of productivity growth. And so the second wave of consideration is going to be how do we do things smarter and for lower cost that deals with the terrorists risk, but doesn't reduce the potential of our economy. I use an example -- forgive me for this. When we had the G7 here, I used an example of cross-border traffic of material coming across the Canadian border, because it is a real issue. We've got a billion dollars a day or something of goods traffic across the U.S.-Canadian border. It's a huge amount of money. Japan is dwarfed -- it's second, but it's dwarfed by what comes across from Canada. And one of the issues that I've got to pay attention to a higher level of inspection of what's coming across. We have, I guess, four or five levels, four or five what we call alert levels. And, typically, we were operating at a level four alert and it meant we could process so many inspections a day. And we had a statistically derived model of how often we ought to inspect different kind of vehicles from different origins and the rest of that. And at level one, you throw all that out the window and you start inspecting on a massive basis. And the initial response is more people. Now, technologically, a better response is electronic bonding at the origin, of containers. So that you have a factory where you have qualified people that pass all the security checks. They put the goods into a container. It's electronically locked, which is technologically feasible. Q: Isn't that just pushing the productivity question back to the factory? DR. LINDSEY: It's productivity. SECRETARY O'NEILL: It's using technology in a way that we never thought about it before, because we didn't have to have electronic bonding. But if you think about it -- I think this is true -- with the right kind of electronic bonding in a factory, you go sailing through a border checkpoint because you don't have to stop and inspect. And it could, in fact, reduce the supply chain, inventory cost. And this is the way we're going to solve the problems that are associated with terrorist risk. Q: You mentioned fire hoses and spewing, which, at least to my mind, reminds me of Argentina. I was wondering, they're moving toward a debt default at some point. Is there a role for you in this? Does the Treasury or IMF put more money in to help them out, or do you refuse to help them out? SECRETARY O'NEILL: Well, I think this is obviously an issue, a class of issues that we pay attention to on an everyday basis, what's going on in other world economies. The IMF got the lead. I've been saying for the last nine months that IMF is the instrument of choice for dealing with international financial situations -- they're working away on it. We are obviously in touch with them and with their process, but I'm in touch with -- and his people. As far as I'm concerned, they've got the action at the moment. From the accounts that some of you have written and certainly you must have read, the Argentinean government -- President De la Rua and Cavalo (phonetic) are apparently developing their own initiative, and what I've seen sounds good to me. Q: Sounds good to you. And if it's good, would that allow for more IMF -- to help them restructure their debt? SECRETARY O'NEILL: Well, it doesn't reach to that judgment. Q: And are you concerned, the markets in other surrounding economies, in other emerging economies, have also taken hits since the turmoil in the Argentine economy. Are you worried about contagion and considering a package to help reduce contagion from Argentina if they default? SECRETARY O'NEILL: I guess I'm not seeing the same data you are. You think there's a marked changed in the surrounding economies directly related to the conversations in the last few days? I haven't seen it in Bloomberg. I haven't looked at the right screen today. (Laughter.) Q: How from a budgetary perspective, are you going to reconcile the added costs that the government is going to take on associated with this directly, or indirectly, with the general principle of fiscal responsibility, however you want to define it now? And putting a specific budget together for next year? In other words, is everything else going to have to get whacked in some way to pay for this at a time of -- revenues and increasing costs? MR. DANIELS: I think the starting point is that err on the side of action with regard to the true emergencies we face. So I'm sure the President is going to direct that we do whatever is necessary and fund whatever is necessary to defeat terrorism and defend Americans. After that, in my judgment, everything else is secondary. That doesn't mean that other things aren't very important -- of course, they are. But if people had trouble differentiating a true priority from a lesser one before, maybe it's more clear to them now. So I would assume that we will -- the President will direct us to assemble a budget that does what it takes to address the two imperatives that we face, and that everything else will be scrutinized even more carefully than before, to make way -- at least temporarily -- for the solution to those problems. Q: Does that mean no room for things like prescription drug program in the short-term -- MR. DANIELS: Not necessarily. Q: Across-the-board cut-backs in non-terrorist or security related items? MR. DANIELS: It's hard to tell what it means, but here's what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that the rest of a $2 trillion budget lumbers on as if nothing were going on, and we layer on top the costs of meeting the two imperatives. No other enterprise on the face of the Earth would address an emergency that way, and we shouldn't either. Q: Do you have any ballpark sense of what the additional year-by-year costs of these added imperatives are? MR. DANIELS: No, not yet. Q: There have been estimates out there of up to $50 billion, which I think you think may be on the high side, but maybe things have changed since -- MR. DANIELS: I think it's too soon to say that. I would say that we ought not overreact -- $50 billion, for instance, is a very small part of a $2 trillion budget. Q: There's a $2 trillion budget, but a large part of that is automatic. The fight is usually over the $600-700 billion, and it's a question -- MR. DANIELS: You just said two important words that ought not pass. One is "usually." There's nothing usual about this situation. The other is "automatic." Nothing should be viewed as automatic when -- I'm not joking here -- when a lot of lives are at stake. And that was generally not the case before. Q: How soon do we get back to the two benchmarks that existed before September 10th, which is don't touch the Social Security surplus, or don't have a deficit? Do we get back to that in '03, to either of those in '03? DR. LINDSEY: It depends on the economy. It depends on the economy and the war. I mean, FDR, in '42, said the right fiscal policy is the one that wins this war. And I think that's where you've got to stop right now. Q: So you think it's conceivable it could be several years out without -- DR. LINDSEY: I think that, as Mitch said and the President said, the most important thing now is defeat terrorism, period. Q: Let me just ask, take you further out -- we don't have to know the exact date -- can we have your best guess that we'll have the same size government, a bigger government or a smaller government at the end of the first Bush term, and if there's one, the end of the second Bush term? Can we do what Larry is talking about with a government that's no bigger, or even smaller? MR. DANIELS: Measured how? Q: I don't know -- GDP -- real dollars -- MR. DANIELS: It's too soon to say -- Q: What would be your goal? I guess that would be a better way to ask. MR. DANIELS: The first goal is to win, however the President defines that, and defend the lives of every American. I mean, there's no other way to say it. MR. HUBBARD: And generalizing beyond that, the goal ought to be put on outputs, not inputs. It's not the size of government, how well government does what it does. There are just several major areas of government where we could be doing a lot better job in productivity. So I wouldn't guess government would be any bigger in eight years. Q: Okay, well, that's the question I have. You folks have made these decisions where you try to -- the ones we've see so far seem to try to -- I'm sorry if I use the word minimalist, but it tries to -- MR. HUBBARD: I think that is a good -- Q: I understand that. But the question is, do you think that at the end of four or eight years, we're going to have a government that's about the same size, or something that's smaller? SECRETARY O'NEILL: I like to focus back on -- look at results. That's where I come from every day. I think that, for me, that's the measure that I care about. Where do we help President Bush take the effectiveness of the federal government's responsibility in the first term -- that's the issue. MR. DANIELS: We have a -- and I think this is very important -- we were already at work, not the sort of thing you guys probably pay too much attention to, on a pretty aggressive management agenda. I think it's more, not less, important. I've told the people working on it we're going to attack it more vigorously. It's not something to be set aside because we've got these new problems. And I think we should neither sacrifice the objective of long-term fiscal health, nor the objective of a much more, better performing government, just because we have some problems on our hands. Q: I wanted to ask one thing on terror insurance. You all, as Peter was saying, are minimalists. And yet, even in your minimalist administration you put forth a plan that involves copayments from the first dollar on. Congress has now said they want a premium of $10 billion. I guess my concern is, do you fear that the Senate bill that is moving forward will not solve the problem? DR. LINDSEY: The most important factor is that we have a working insurance market -- not because of the insurance companies, but because of the rest of the economy. Insurance markets are scientific -- of risk. No one out there that I know of can, with any certitude, predict probability of an event or how much that event is going to cost. So much for scientific pricing of risk. In that environment, you still want to have as much a role for the private sector as possible. And what we did was to sit down and make a judgment as to what the insurance industry could reasonably price, and that's what we put forward. The Senate and the House and other people have different ideas about what could be reasonably priced. We're going to end up trying it out. SECRETARY O'NEILL: I want to try and do a little education shop. Forgive me for being a lecturer. The way you phrased the question is just like what I'm hearing on the Hill. And I wouldn't bother -- Q: That's the worst insult you can give. (Laughter.) SECRETARY O'NEILL: But it's true. It comes out of what I said to you earlier about either seeing or wanting to make conflict out of everything. Let me start with very basic principles -- where do you think the $10-billion deductible is going to come from? Let me tell you where it's going to come from. It's going to come from premiums that are paid by people who buy insurance. Now, the insurance companies are going to charge a premium related to their part of the casualty cost. So if they write, let's say for simplicity, they write $10 billion worth of insurance, they're going to collect $10 billion worth of premiums. Now, you say, copay. That suggests that there is some kind of linked relationship between the federal government and the private sector. There's no linked relationship at all. There's no linked relationship at all. It simply says -- Q: Do you think that if there's a $10-billion premium, that won't solve the problem? Are you worried that is not a good solution? SECRETARY O'NEILL: No, no. My concern whether or not the reinsurance industry, which is essential to spreading the risk, the reinsurance industry will play at a $10 billion level. And so think about this as a one company, one insurance -- one insurance company, one property owner. What we said in our 80-20 proposal, it has effectively a $4-billion deductible in it, from the insurance companies' point of view, which is to say their maximum risk with our framework is $4 billion. I think there's enough activity out there for them to mutualize the cost and, therefore, to write reasonable premiums that are not so forbidding that there's no terrorist risk insurance written. Now, why is this important? Because for most companies, if they don't have insurance against the risk of catastrophic loss from a terrorist event, their banks won't give them any money. So they will not be able to make new investments, or they will not be able to keep the ones that they've got because their risk is reflected in financing costs. And that's why were there. This is -- there's not one damn dime that would go to an insurance company because of what we have proposed. The idea that this is a bailout for an insurance company is preposterous. And it only exists in the mind of the stupid -- I'm sorry to tell you. It's just outrageous. MR. HUBBARD: I think that there are two legitimate roles for government here. One is on the back end -- risk, and that's what we did. That is not minimalist, it is the full monty. ON the front end, the government has an important role in transitioning to a market place. Frankly, if you ask me, could the industry function with a deductible in year one -- probably. But why do we want to experiment with very high costs for the American economy in the short run. I think it makes no sense. DR. LINDSEY: It's crazy. SECRETARY O'NEILL: It looks like we may find out. MR. HUBBARD: The question about, what difference does it make, internally, the calculations we've done at CEA suggest about .3 of a percentage point of GDP if we did not intervene, if we just let the nakedness go on that would be capitalized into -- naked in insurance. Q: Nakedness, full monty -- (laughter.) MR. HUBBARD: Sorry, sorry, sorry. Q: What does it mean that we might find out? Do you not think we're going to get -- SECRETARY O'NEILL: I think we're going to get -- what is said when I testified. I said, look, we can speculate all we want, we can theorize all we want. What really matters is what happens in the marketplace after we put this thing down. If it doesn't work, we're going to have to do something else. Because we can't -- our economy cannot be permitted to go in the tank because we fail to provide a risk insurance process that works. It's something we must do. Q: In other words, the proposal that seems to be emerging on the Hill, where the first $10 billion is up to the insurance companies, that may become law, and we'll see what happens -- DR. LINDSEY: It may work. SECRETARY O'NEILL: It's great. If it doesn't work, we're going to have to come back and fix it. And I proposed to them, you know, if you'd like to do something and say that you've put in these provisions, go ahead and do it. How about putting in a provision that gives the President or the Executive the authority to modify the deductible so that we have a workable process. I don't think they're going to do that, but if they don't, and the $10 billion turns out not to be financeable in the sense of insurance premiums, we're going to have to do something else, because we can't let the economy stop over a market failure. Q: Is it going to have to be done between now and the end of the year, given the time frame in which -- SECRETARY O'NEILL: I don't think the world stops on the first of the year. And we're going to know sooner than that, because 70 percent of the policies lapse on the first of the year. The cancellation notices start going out on the 15th of November, and if we can get -- it's important we get this legislation passed so we can get a market test, so that if by December 1st, it doesn't look like it's going to work, we can make a reconsideration. DR. LINDSEY: May I add, the second thing that we all agree on, it is unconscionable that the trial bar should profit from terrorism. And the one thing we must not allow is for the taxpayer to be on the hook for all kinds of outrageous damages that people can claim. In the case of the airlines, we made sure the people who suffered real losses got money they needed. That's the right role for government. But we're now finding in the case of vaccines, we're finding in the case of terror insurance, that the trial bar is standing as an obstacle to economic sanity in the fight against terrorism. And we have to put some limitations on it in this bill. Q: In the insurance bill. DR. LINDSEY: In the insurance bill. Q: Thank you. |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ') ; adCode += (''+txt+'') ; adCode += ('\n'); adCode += (' |
');
}
else
{
var rNum = Math.floor(Math.random() * localadImages.length);
document.writeln('
');
}
function promoad_makeArray(){
for (var count = 0; count < promoad_makeArray.arguments.length; count++)
this[count] = promoad_makeArray.arguments[count];
this.length = count;
}
post ÕX£êXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcate xÇ•ªÕX£ê 6·öI¡¸E= ) ´ ntry (`ľ²Ñè
“Ø·©.'ãgj‰ËP± HÒ`’Ybb>•¹Å r ðurl ohttp://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/graphics/onpol_sub_logo.gif bsrl Shttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/oneill_text103001.html mime
image/gif hvrs data GIF89aÛ õ" f`` ™ yïïõÏÏâÿÿÿp@@Œ00ƒ¼¦ ³@@ÆppÒ¬00Ÿ€€³ßß쯯ÏÌ€€ìÏÏæ¿¿ùïï``Ÿ¿``¿¿ÙŸŸÆòßßpp©ß¯¯¹PPÙŸŸPP– !ù , Û ÿ@€pH,ȤrÉl:Ÿ€€`JZ¯Ø¬vËíz¯Ð°xL.'„¯zÍn³Íð¸|^0¸ïø¼zΟ }H
vz]
UjˆZƒ–a†œ— œZœ§‘] œ T ^³µ”X ¼Ju †bÂI£[œ ´Ž^¯±SœVÝUߺ`½èE†‚D†Ÿa…Ëê§\ †† _ÑÜdѲE%C@+¸š£’®a(CŒ43 !Y C: Ò>}V<mä#VS>˜¼2ia‡éÞˆWĘa8;U ªÿCZòØW ¸. I^IêÒ Lt;‘ø4€LÈŸx0DhW¤ãÏŸ ‡Z1JåA
”2-›aŠ8†Ò2Èæ¶(|PX6oZ.O{’€$„¡&l2ÀTC
ŽØüʉ.¡D©À5ÐöÁ+ ¬qø@…iƒm‡ Xà`¨‚ œ~–òÂ…Ð×@°z`ʵ¡£YƒE ñ ،Ѐ‚B†p9°˜r¿F—ARpÍÀî<”5DZÀZ¡@ͯ¤‚ž½¡lÃO1Õ`
´[„_"^ñ!†°Aà ]þY÷ع'Ö ˜b@l³`™HL±– Ûµÿ NÁZfp²À ¦ß ÿ%XÜCð `cG<¦à) :"Ô¯IxÛ×dè!gê Ä¡!C*uä!( œ Ô0 P ¤âŠ|´hD‹Ä@q4aã×éØO^h³€vƶaˆ¦¸äñ=iEw£9…% Òß– æ—‡¹H¦9VY‹*
Ò›H–&gˆdeñAwCñµËž|B
c˜£J´“‚4 é^Ñ*«®g‘JRjHlZðÆɖé ‹XÄTU
:„±DLfݪŽ>è*›°Šiz‚i|™i‘žùý*tUÙc@È–J„W7†•ÿýX¡’“´ZKí¤‘6i€•YDø^%ÞÆ1€ŸFü+à±¢
Z0 }¢’Ñ©‘mH†XÉÔ´I^'kzñ®’ õ¸ö ]¹ÈþÒI=è6ÌèÃÍÚ%b*q9k|.ËKÅ»ÔI*]€ïK Ç!Ó! €0\™k0cC¼C°C(«î]@pñó8³®™Ê (43'ª„[> €½-‘ü
zªAP#¬áÚ·Uõ 1‘ÊXx> ` J¼F—jë~°Í.3nÅ…Â#i x ! p ´Û 'A\zM•nzè¨K¸é¬›“úëEÔÑúì Án ;1iЮ» ·ÛŽÀîÀßqèðÄoüñÈ'¯üòÌ+ ;post ‰ËP±XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcate `ľ²‰ËP± F¥´ (·¸*ݽ r €ntry (G IØøgÀnq[¦œ¶—‡XPâü„‰Z¬ 6Æ t ¡ ðurl ohttp://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/graphics/onpol_sub_rule.gif bsrl Shttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/oneill_text103001.html mime
image/gif hvrs data GIF89a ñ ™ ÿÿÿ !ù , D
;post XPâXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcate G IXPâ Mƒ´×
¸*ݽ ¡ 1 €ntry (÷n 8iîMD¼ ¡D9\ÖÚ‹V ç\ÒM2]þX3 ™ Ûurl Zhttp://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/images/spacer.gif bsrl Shttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/oneill_text103001.html mime
image/gif hvrs data GIF89a ‘ ÿÿÿ ÿ !ù , Œ©Ëí£œ´Ú‹³Þ¼ ;post ÖÚ‹VXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcate ÷n ÖÚ‹V O³›&«¸*ݾ ™ > €ntry (Ý(Ðð”g$ƒO0Þlˆ:Õ/O…ä£é$D¬ A ùurl xhttp://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/graphics/122799/corner_left_gray.gif bsrl Shttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/oneill_text103001.html mime
image/gif hvrs data GIF89az ³ f±±¾{{¤HHŠÆÆÉÀÀÆ™™²rrŸMMŒŽŽ||¤ÌÌÌ !ù , z uÈI«½8ëÍ»ÿ`(Ždižhª®lë¾p,Ïtmßx®ï|ïÿÀ d 0ȤrÉl:ŸÐ¨tJeV‰BuËíz¿OÊá.›Ï艂€n»ßQÉ
¯ÛÝ ùÎïw ~‚ƒRZ„ˆ‰HŠ„Ž‘}{’•–—˜K ;post Õ/OXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcate Ý(ÐÕ/O Q•´X ¸*ݾ A È €ntry (à£ã’–nsô!n’Ié ŒDŒusFàg®YÁ¦ý ‘ æurl ehttp://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/graphics/blue.gif bsrl Shttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/oneill_text103001.html mime
image/gif hvrs data GIF89a ð f !ù , D ;post DŒXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcate à£ãDŒ TB´×¸*ݾ ‘ + €ntry (üvè“»teë•™ª!]æäø?:¼=ž"‹§ô:Ú Ú óurl rhttp://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/graphics/122799/msnbc_icon.gif bsrl Shttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/oneill_text103001.html mime
image/gif hvrs data GIF89a- # ³ ghgíêé–œ///²¸ÿf3 ™Ìÿ™ 33™Ì 3 ™3ŽÌÑÿȃËhyçÞï!ù , - # ÿÈ9ÞSË»ø]™Iœ[i …ã! Ÿk@Kh LATЉd"¤›¬$…‚3è8Š
‡@™¤5Q?@à9¦¾@×¢v«¤:Î'!<[h
Cc¨ • LNRvŽŽXZJ8—ƒLNa(‹VEG€‚˜šžOPŸT¡{¥~€©—«bˆ=*°¢i ]¨˜„ ussc ±Ž
D I·„$¾<')n y‘k[–Ç !(u'8
ó ²1×Æ ü„ì=7Ü P@Þ¼y{È…CGˆ¿‡ë¼M €ÆÁ‹{ò¨ ¤JÀà ÿî,›ãm€Á‹ôìQ×ð#HfÍ ]èÔC JŒ? pùÇ?Še2× ¨Ñ¢9(]ÊÆ'š<(ŠÈIµê›]Q–yF0Š²`uغU¦¡Üº •7¶uEË¡\[;)êŽÙ¦)¸Ùíd6¯µÉ2Ì
êjpœ1nLÔ‡Õ&Çq+¶jAy±ZÆwÅô Ä åMŸ)î°9ƒÙÞëòM– c1ÊH÷B-ÛuÛD)ff&!0Èck—5nAëòÎÐ/0N «2‘wWÌ^B&4¯fYÿJ±‚³§¢HKÀü˜§ uÜhŸ‚™yNŸêô-Áyƒ"ýÁ•0_ Ÿ¼ç zêm@ 3) •ß
> ;post äø?:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcate üvèäø?: V?µ¹ô]¸*ݾ Ú g €ntry (ÛfêÁÚ»GN“¡áù\>T‡ÄR/
n¨zpÕ¬]†5 äurl chttp://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/graphics/cq.gif bsrl Shttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/oneill_text103001.html mime
image/gif hvrs data GIF89af ô ¤¤¤|||uuu›››ÅÅÅlll½½½UUU LLL………555¬¬¬³³³%%%
ZZZfffCCC”””+++;;; !ù , f ÿ Ždižhª®lëŽ0 !flCðþÀ`ë€H( CÑ Š‡b§06P$" j&@ÃÔxH8‘ƒRQŒ‰!
°T*“ã;ÑøP#] )ƒ%b%NŒ c W%% >Ž© QZ°\¸\_·¶ ¸`N‹$
t$ (̉ }$
_P¯ ¹« ïõc_~}á 0àGÀ e"H°†ÂA 4TÀd‚ ÃÝF,êæ‹Ï«n‹ø=pdB‚ÿ˜DInB7‚‹9€Ý$ŽÙ8Q`A«›&
ÔL@瓈/_utùÑf¡G Í æ`*„=LŸˆ9ð‹A„ª%8”ÂÂB.)Jiè¤Æc€à-•' ÝÁ1ç¤ãw@Þ§¾~¾È 0B¸1bü•º;¢A…f+úH°•ÂØEY¶Lk÷ _Â+Ëì„™fÓ½Š™
†˜ƒa
~ƒ è‰Rò¤ˆ˜« áU Iƒí2hÈâSo!áLí .¤øqpëÆ¢ÁõïBà’¦"çd}4, ‘¥Ü ÷RD‘1ÈkSÛJ^&…éDXÑõÂ|(hB}ÓüÐNÿ…€5=„BŽPÀ (Q@AÔä|´Ó ´ sÐ.%`¡±3Œ/&@wçà À™BVH0 7¯Üµá*bœ3H5¬’—<ç@pä*p‘3#H Àþ¤@¡<3‚ àX&0ƒ@ ‰1¤
0ó¤
CŽ4Ñ¥N‹Œ©©$+*\€Ëz‘„ À<°ãšdß_®)?ojÅÏ Qa¥9Âx㔞¬ð©B‰Ûà`bWA‡¶5_üX°—;û¬ò”y¥ÓÒ¥í %H媎(}fPH @°€ !NàåšíA`.ŽÐPj«J¯¶ë|Ÿ„
,cæz§%L mƒ&\0Ò ¤šB "ä'Ü‚ÇÓµ$@ù,0 }ô·ð ð pI ðãà ·Àl5 °R@Änt¬2!lS@z%ð@M¬l3uàÒ]w†Þìóp0€‹ýl4!\¿G7íôÓ#„ ;post T‡ÄXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcate ÛfêÁT‡Ä Z…´)e
¸*Ý¿ €ntry (ßé¬2†XÚžôŒÀ‚ŽàÑfï‰J%U,ÂCcÙÝ ó õurl thttp://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/graphics/122799/avantgo_logo.gif bsrl Shttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/oneill_text103001.html mime
image/gif hvrs data GIF89af Õ ÌÌÌw†w„…„HIH wxwº»º™¤™\j\&'&ÅÅÅmƒm³´³©ª©ÊÊÊ£¤£acaÁÁÁ£«£:;:“”“Œ™Œµ¸µmmmƒƒf}f`x`QRQLPL232›œ› [][ÇÈÇ®¶®UXUhhÆÇÆ575bwbADAÂþ¿¾ÈÉÈc{c-/-ËËË ÉÉÉggga}a®®®ƒ–ƒhwh}Ž}
ÄÄÄ°²°!ù , f ÿ@€Pø¸€4¤r©
ŸÐ¨tJZ¯X¡Ë‚‚ÁP‹•'v³ù²è´z=5`›M˜u#ØUƒµÅîSk
~8p` v (|S!
~˜B):&k)<ˆ(,=,2$v( T™~y„2º2j r; v -547+] NQ%
¸{P) )Pj5o Šv v3_q?R$ Ù$á²Q.³Ò4H4# 'Ž` ƒ…`P (p@€Ä9äÈ@BŽ d¸Èáà! 2\8cÀƒQB °°å@J
¶A‘1Iˆ ÿŸ$@ ‡AAƒHÆ`D| ŽqP£Ö ØH A@bxxAC0 ÀÀ–j"H8öbŠ3UFXÐqá C‡ ð©a†(â,púÄ@ )
ðp ŒAT‘`ªd~ F ˆá`ÄÏ NÖ‚ð$Å•¥ŒÐ €n:‘l°‹% öx§öT Ð!8k!íð¥Àà„Ð"l
9¡¢
lÛ ZȈ׶…¼ ÊÄ°€BÀpûR
B@¶SÖ¦ºÐ€
-Ø‚d @ÔÂ
1 VBäA’Ý"DH3xâ ÿ! “OhàÐòMðÄÀ'D-öÃ~vœ°ÀVÀ‡ ´œ CDà¡ xýð[íX †r(Äxå aô=q *¾ç]ŠP¸pÔB0 \:,ܸ
