|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Sept. 7, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
Bush and Congress are back, the budget takes center stage and the 2002 elections are just two months away. How was your summer?
Charles Babington, chief political
correspondent for washingtonpost.com, is online every Friday at 1 p.m. EDT to discuss political news from past week.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live
Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts;
guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Sparta, N.J.:
Lots to talk about this week with the school-night fireworks, adios to Phil Gramm, Dick Cheney refusing GAO's request (is he really refusing or is it that noone has seen him in 2 months), Rumsfeld may be quitting next year, and Microsoft got break from the new administration.
But what I really want to ask is when is your next article coming? The last one was on Aug 13th and your fans eagerly await your return.
Charles Babington: Why, thank you. It so happens that I have a Political Insider column (about Al Gore's recent phone call to Bill Clinton) up on our site any minute now. And look next week for a series on the tax cut -- especially the dubious economic assumptions that underly it. It has preoccupied me lately.
Shawnee, Kan.:
Any "inside dope" on Fred Thompson? What are the odds he runs again? Any personal prediction you have for us?
Charles Babington: My guess: He doesn't run. But it's just a guess. Democratic operatives seem quite optimistic that Thompson won't run (they say he'll take Jack Valenti's job representing the motion picture industry), and the Dems might have a chance to win the seat.
Washington, D.C.:
How do you feel about the Virginia governors race is going? Do you think Mark Warner has peaked to early?
Charles Babington: No pun re Earley, right?
Things still seem to be going well for Warner. He might have peaked too soon if he didn't have enough money to keep the TV ads and direct-mail going through Election Day. But Mark Warner has the money.
Still, Virginia has evolved into quite a Republican state, so you can't count out Mark Earley this, ahem, early.
Arlington, Va.:
A lot of people (Rep. Stenholm, etc.) are saying the Farm Bill isn't going to happen this year. Earlier in the session word was that it WAS going to happen, a sure thing.
What have you heard and what are your thoughts?
Charles Babington: My colleague Helen Dewar, who covers the Senate, said in her online chat this week that it's quite possible that Congress will not pass a farm bill this year. The absolute deadline doesn't come until next year. And as Helen said, Congress rarely does things before it has to. (Kind of like middle school students).
New York, NY:
What about the Clinton-Gore phone call? My feeling is that if Gore wants to win in 2004, he's got to repair his relationship with the Clintons. Are they working on their "problems?"
Charles Babington: Most Democrats agree with you. That's why Gore fans hope the little phone call (to wish Clinton a happy 55th birthday) is the first sign that Gore will do what it takes to mend the rift in their relationship.
Brooklyn, N.Y.:
What is the White House press talk about Bush's favoritism towards Brit Hume? And if he likes Hume so much, why hasn't he given him any big scoops?
Charles Babington: I think most members of the White House press corps are happy that Brit got a nice dinner and an up-close view and earful of the fireworks.
Cleveland, Ohio:
I would like to know why George Bush insisted on favoring a tax rebate to the consumer instead of targeted tax credits to companies willing to invest in capital spending projects that would make us a more efficient producer of goods and services -- thereby creating employment?
Companies willing to build the broadband internet for example could have given a boost to productivity by developing video conferencing mostly business to business.
We also would have conserved on the burning of fossil fuels because of the travel now required for face to face meetings. Oh, but that might have cut into the oil company profits wouldn't it. You know, I might have just answered my own question!
Charles Babington: Well, hold on. Bush campaigned for his tax cut throughout all of 2000. It was debated and debated and debated. You (and others) might not like the way it came out. But you can't say the voters and the policymakers and the members of Congress didn't have ample time to mull all the options, including the ones you cite.
JB Raskin, Brooklyn, N.Y.:
I'm a loyal Democrat, but if the choice is having Gary Condit remain in Congress, or having the Republicans retain control, I'd rather have the Republicans stay in charge for two more years. Are things that tight that control of the House of Representatives depends on one guy staying in office? Does that affect Dick Gephardt's thinking in any way, shape, or form?
Charles Babington: It sounds as though Condit is planning to retire at the end of this term. My colleague Juliet Eilperin has a page-one story about this in the Post today.
wiredog:
Brit got an earful of the fireworks, you get an earful -about- the fireworks.
Speaking of which. What was the Whate House smoking when they did that a 11pm on a school night? Are they really that clueless?
Charles Babington: They're getting clued in now... Big time, as Dick Cheney might say.
washingtonpost.com:
Condit Hints At Retiring, Sources Say (Washington Post, Sept. 7, 2001)
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
Clinton was excoriated for eight years for not minding the foreign intelligence store. Wen Ho Lee was hounded by the FBI for something it now looks like he was mostly innocent of. Robert Hansen was overlooked completely and just cut a deal to preserve his neck. And now, Bush II wants to freely GIVE taxpayer-paid-for missile defense secrets to the... CHINESE! Do any of you press types see the irony here? If so, how come no one down there is writing about this looney tune intention. Thanks much.
Charles Babington: Well, I think you overstate the criticism that Clinton got. As for the Bush decision: It was front-page news in all the papers this week. Maybe pundits and commentators will weigh more heavily after they've had a few days to think about it and talk with folks.
Arlington, Va.:
Apparently some Senate Republicans are threatening to hold up the budget bills because they perceive slowness in confirming the President's judicial appointments. Somehow seeming to be obstructionist about the budget doesn't seem like a winner to me. Can you see logic in their stand?
Charles Babington: Holding up spending bills at the end of the fiscal year is a losing proposition, yes. And that's why I doubt they'll do it.
Phoenix, Ariz.:
Come on! Why the journalistic non-reporting on Trust Fund mismanagement, fiscal shell games, smoke and mirror accounting, and the ongoing deceptive debt swapping scheme of trading "Public Debt" for simply greater and greater amounts of "Trust Fund Debt." The national debt is GROWING! There is no such thing as fiduciary management of the Trust Funds, and journalists don't care. Why?
Charles Babington: According to the Treasury, the publicly held debt has bounced up and down a little in recent weeks, but mostly is trending down. Check out this website: www.publicdebt.treas.gov.
Thanks.
Colorado:
The Houston Chronicle reported that Sen. Gramm and Gov. Perry have had talks about Gramm retiring early and Perry appointing a successor. Evidently they differed on Gramm's successor (Gramm wanted Rep. Bonilla and Perry wanted Land Comm. Tony Garza), plus Gramm wants a high profile job.
I'm curious whether the obvious solution for the GOP has surfaced in Washington: Thank hapless Paul O'Neil for his service, and appoint Gramm as his successor. After all, for the "party of Big Business," the last two GOP Treas. Secretaries have been disappointments: Nick Brady and O'Neil.
Has it occurred to anyone in the White House, the NRSC and the Austin State House that this is a good solution for everyone, whoever Gramm's successor is?
Thank you.
Charles Babington: Well, I've also heard that Sen. Gramm wouldn't mind making some serious money after all these years as a college professor and member of Congress.... And we're talking about the kind of money that Paul O'Neil made BEFORE he became Treasury secretary, not after.
Phoenix, Ariz:
Several references to "fireworks" in the discussion. That's a code word for...? washingtonpost.com:
For those outside the beltway: "Look! Up In the Sky!," (Post, Sept. 7)
Charles Babington: Oops, sorry. President Bush held his first State Dinner last Wednesday night, for Mexican President Vicente Fox. At the end of the dinner, there was a big, surprise fireworks display at the "Ellipse,'' which is where the Washington Monument is. Because the public hadn't been forewarned, some Washingtonians thought the city was under attack. Also, some complained that the late-night barrage kept children up on a school night. Here's a story that will tell you more.
thanks
Washington, D.C.:
Is any reporter or op-ed person finally going to mention the logical failure of the Bush tax cut? To wit, either there is or isn't a Social Security "lockbox" and "surplus." Now, if as some are trying to say, it's all just a phony accounting identity... then logically the first tax to be cut should have been FICA down to the "pay as you go" level. Otherwise, the admin is using a regressive tax to steal from to poor to give to the rich.
On the other hand, if there is a lockbox and surplus, seperate from general revnue, then they can't touch it for general expenditures. If they do, then they are, again, using a regressive tax to steal from the poor to give to the rich. It's very simple... you don't even need my MA in Econ to figure it out.
Charles Babington: You raise several good issues. Let's take them in order.
1. There is no lockbox. Politicians sometimes use this term to suggest that they will use the Social Security trust fund revenues only for purposes that shore up the program's future stability, such as paying down the federal debt. But there's no lock, and no box, that forces anyone to keep this promise.
2. Yes, there is a Social Security surplus. A big one, in fact. That's because the program raises more via payroll taxes than it currently needs to pay out to beneficiaries. The rationale is that today's large workforce needs to put the government in good fiscal shape to handle the flood of baby boomer retirees that will hit in 11 to 25 years or so.
3. Yes indeed, the FICA payroll taxes are regressive, because they take a larger percentage of a middle- and low-income earner's wages than they take from a high-income earner. Why this doesn't spur greater debate is a mystery to me. Perhaps it's because Social Security is such a widely popular program that few people are really interested in understanding its details or in changing it in any way.
4. Because there is no lockbox, the Social Security surplus is often used for purposes other than paying down the debt. In fact, previous administrations and Congresses have done this over and over, with comparatively little debate. But now that leaders of both parties have pledged not to touch the surpluses (that is, put 'em in the lockbox that doesn't really exist), the nature of the debate has changed.
Somerville, N.J.:
How does the average person make any sense out of this budget debate? The Republicans swear a tax cut will spur the economy, yet higher taxes under Clinton produced the best economic boom in modern times. The Democrats tell us the dwindling surplus and deficit spending is disastrous, yet we've lived all our lives with deficit spending and had decent economic growth overall. I see Kramer and Kudlow battling it out on Hardball and I don't understand a word they are saying. Am I just hearing a lot of political grandstanding, or are they hitting the nail on the head and I don't know it?
Charles Babington: Again, some very good -- and difficult -- questions. Yes, the Republicans say a tax cut is wise in times of a slumping economy. That's widely accepted Keynesian economics. And yes, the economy boomed during the Clinton administration (when taxes were somewhat, though not dramatically higher). Explanation? Other economic forces, including worker productivity and corporate efficiency, overwhelmed the influence of higher taxes. In other words, the higher taxes didn't ''produce'' the economic boom, as you suggest.
Re the surplus and deficit: Yes, as I mentioned above, we've spent parts of the surplus for years and years to fund the general government, with little hue and cry. It's now a bigger issue for two reasons. 1) Politicians of both parties lately have sworn to break that bad ol' habit. and 2) the approaching baby boomer retirement tidal wave forces us to take a harder look at Social Security's fiscal future.
A final word of advice: Don't watch Hardball. It's too loud, and life is too short.
Thanks for writing.
Washington, D.C.:
Charles, thanks, but as I'm sure you could tell from my post, I knew those points.
The real point is, we are indeed running an SS surplus intentionally to do all you said. However, Mr. Bush pushed through other tax reductions that primarilly skewed benefit to the rich. Since we now are likely to use SS surplus money gained from a regressive tax to cover the loss of revenue his tax cuts created, we are literally using the poor's money to subsidize the rich (the middle class washes).
Is anyone going to call the Bushies on this?
Charles Babington: I think you just did.
And I think this type of debate will grow louder and louder in the coming months and years. In my tax-cut series that starts next week I go into detail on the reasons that most economists think the 11-year tax-cut package will be revised. And perhaps in profound ways.
Commack, N.Y.:
What are the chances that the Democrats can nominate a candidate in Texas's open seat Senate race and win? Will a Hispanic candidate be best?
Charles Babington: Texas has become a very, very tough state for Democrats. Had Gramm sought reelection, there's virtually no doubt he would have won easily.
But his retirement gives the Democrats some hope. They think they might have some good candidates next year. Also, the ticket will be led by Gov. Perry, the Republican who followed Bush (because he was the Lt. Gov.). Perry has had several political problems, and he's not the politician that Bush is. So Democrats hope the stars and planets will all align for them in Texas in Nov. of 2002. But again, it's a tough place for them.
Phoenix, Ariz.:
What's the buzz around the Beltway on the House of Representatives races next year? What are the odds of the Republicans holding it? Looks like the dems have a good bet on the Senate.
Charles Babington: Control of the House certainly will be in question. Here's one thing that will help the Republicans: Most of the states that will gain new districts in the post-census reapportionment are GOP-leaning states. If everything else splits 50-50, this could save the Republicans.
Newark, N.J.:
What is the protocol if, say, Bush wanted Christie Whitman to resign? Would he phone her himself? Have Card pay her a visit? Or summon her to the White House?
Charles Babington: Let's hope he would invite her to the White House and tell her himself.... Why do you ask? Do you know something that we don't?
New York, N.Y.:
How likely are the Democrats to keep control of the Senate by 2003, realistically, given that so many of those retiring GOP Senators are from arch-conservative states?
Charles Babington: Anyone who can predict the Senate fallout today is much, much smarter than I am.
And on that not-saying-much note, I bid you farewell until next week. Thanks for joining in.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
National
Book Festival: Maria Arana at 2 p.m. EDT
Tech
Support: All About Browsers at 2 p.m. EDT
Film:
Rita Kempley at 2 p.m. EDT
The
Chat House at 2 p.m. EDT
Home
Schooling at 2 p.m. EDT
Microsoft
Case at 2:30 p.m. EDT
Nightwatch:
Eric Brace at 3 p.m. EDT
Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at
the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and
forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live
Online transcripts.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
