|
Election 2002:
The Economy, Iraq & Politics
With House Democrats
Friday, Oct. 11, 2002; Noon EDT
Is it fair to blame the Bush administration for the nation's economic slowdown? Should the economy rather than the possibility of war against Iraq be the main issue in voter's minds as they head for the polls in November? How will the stock market slump and corporate scandals affect the midterm elections?
A rotating group of House Democrats were online to take your questions and comments on the economy, the 2002 election and politics in general.
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.
Alexandria, Va.:
What is the mood of Congressional Democrats after the Iraq votes? Do you believe that it will be easier for your party to switch the debate back to domestic issues now that the vote is over?
Albert Wynn Md. 4th District: I think definitely we are going to focus on domestic issues. We have the option to do so when Congress reconvenes to talk about prescription drugs, healthcare, corporate responsibility and to talk about the Republican tax cuts for the very wealthy and how that affects the economy.
Erie, Pa.:
How is it that Democrats can blame the President's "huge" tax cut for the 2002 budget deficit when the tax cut accounts for less than a $38 billion impact this year?
Albert Wynn Md. 4th District: 43 percent of the deficit is directly caused by the tax cut. Thus it is THE major factor.
Maryland:
Do you believe that oil is a factor in Bush's decision to go after Iraq?
Albert Wynn Md. 4th District: I think it is very much a secondary factor. However, in a country with seniors dependant on home heating oil and highways clogged with SUVs, it is both naive and cavalier to dismiss the impact of Saddam Hussein's threat to our energy supplies.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
When are you folks going to take off the war paint and put away the drums and start considering domestic issues: you know, the economy? Unemployment? Health Care? Stock Fraud? Job Security? Federal Budget? Domestic Terrorism? Corporate Crime? Surely you've heard of these messes? They were in all the newspapers! Thanks much [for nothing].
Albert Wynn Md. 4th District: Democrat have been talking about these issues all year. The Republicans control the White House and the House and they have been unwilling to address these issues -- focusing instead on big tax breaks for the wealthy.
Bethesda, Md.:
Its difficult for us voters to get a sense that you are doing anything that has a spine to it. As soon as Bush evokes the 9-11 events, you cave in. I am ashamed to be called a Democrat.
Albert Wynn Md. 4th District: September 11 is not a slogan. Real people lost their lives as a result of deliberate and diabolical actions by our enemies. We can not ignore the very real threat of chemical and biological warfare, particularly since the Washington Metropolitan area is a prime target. It would be irresponsible not to consider the possibility of a chemical or biological attack on a subway as happened with terrorists in Japan or the release of a deadly agent from a seemingly innocent tourist backpack. Based on the classified intelligence briefings I have received there are serious threats against our allies in the Middle East, over 110,000 soldiers and civilians as well as threats to our country using unmanned aerial vehicles or a suicide bomber type assailant. In addition, within a year or two, we will be confronted with a nuclear threat from Iraq that cannot be ignored.
Silver Spring, Md.:
For Congressman Wynn: Can you explain your rationale for voting for the Iraq resolution? Your vote surprised me, as a constituent in your district.
Albert Wynn Md. 4th District: Because of the classified briefings I feel the threat is real - particularly chemical or biological threats to the Washington, D.C. area. What I want is inspections and disarmament - not war. I believe by showing strong American resolve we will be able to exert maximum leverage on the UN to pass a non-negotiable aggressive inspections program including all of the so called "Palaces." The President has indicated that not-withstanding this resolution war is neither imminent or unavoidable. However, I believe that should our allies in the UN fail to act responsibly we have a responsibility to protect our homeland from a known and irrational aggressor.
Vienna, VAa.:
So much publicity has been given lately to "Prescription drug" coverage and who pays for it. I have a question: In my experience, there has been too much regulation already in this field. Getting a simple prescription refilled can be a real hassle sometimes, especially if a office visit is required, driving up prices for both the paitient and his/her insurance company. Why not just get rid of the prescription refill requirements and make many of these drugs available over-the-counter instead? That way, the paitient can easily get more when needed, Congress and the insurance compaines will not be involved at all, and the whole system will work much more smoothly. The FDA has really fouled things up in the "prescription" drug areas in many ways...it simply regulates too much.
Now, DON'T get me wrong. I'm not saying that ALL medical drugs should be deregulated, antibiotics and narcotic drugs like morphene, oxycontin, of course should be tightly controlled. But many of the existing prescription requirements can -- and should -- be eliminated. Congress should seriously consider removing some of the FDA's power to require prescriptions.
Albert Wynn Md. 4th District: Your caveat makes my point. Only doctors and scientists can determine whether a drug is safe. Therefore review and regulation are necessary to determine whether such drugs are safe for over the counter sales.
Laurel, Md.:
Figures released by the Census Bureau two weeks ago show that in the last 20 years, median income for all Americans has grown 17 percent, but for the top quintile has grown 56 percent.
During this time, the Democratic Party has gone from being the stalwart of the little guy to being just as dependent on business lobbyists and PACs as the Republicans. Enron, for instance, gave generously to both parties which helped create an unregulated environment for them to abuse in both their energy business (such as the California power crisis) and their financial dealings. Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, passed with strong bipartisan support, cable rates have increased 50 percent.
Why should we believe voting for your party matters when we can choose the politicians but PACs and lobbyists write the policies?
Stephanie Tubbs Jones -- Ohio, 11th: People should choose the Democrats because we are the ones that helped to make the booming 1990s. People should focus on the economy. The President has managed to move us from the issue of the economy to Iraq and those of us who oppose the war in Iraq have asked the President to answer questions about Iraq -- tell us what impact the war ion Iraq will have on your domestic agenda and the quality of life of all Americans. Look at the impact of the Dow, Nasdaq, median income, etc. since this president has been in office. The Democrats will fight for working families.
Alexandria, Va.:
Did any of you read the Post's series on Alexandria Democratic congressman James Moran's conflicts of interest?
Do you think that Moran, Trafficant, Torricelli, etc. are making the Democrats seem less ethical than the Republicans?
Was there any backlash against Moran among his colleagues?
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland, 3rd District: Jim Moran is an ethical, effective legislature who aggressively represents people of his district. I am very confident that he will be reelected and that he will be an effective representative of Northern Virginia.
It is unclear as to what party Jim Trafficant belongs to.
Vienna, Va.:
Seems like Democrats are going to have a tough time proving that the Bush tax cuts affect only the "wealthy." Much is made of this in the official party line -- but the facts don't support these conclusions. Yes, of course, tax cuts do affect high income people -- but they ALSO affect middle and low-income persons as well. In fact, tax cuts help the poor even MORE than the rich. The poor can less afford to pay their taxes to start with. Lessening the burden on THEM (which most tax cuts do) is even more important than for the rich. Bill Clinton (with Congressional support) tried raising taxes in 1993 and later admitted it as a mistake. In fact, this was one of the factors that led to the Bush Presidency -- the public could see through this.
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland, 3rd District: It is clear that the Bush tax cuts have led to very large deficits causing us to use Social Security surpluses for other purposes. The Clinton 1993 economic plan not only erased our deficits but it brought us into surplus. It was the Bush economic plan that brought us back to large deficits. Democrats have supported tax cuts where we think people have not been treated fairly. When we look at the Bush tax cuts it is weighted in favor of higher income people and is excessive. What we need is a bi-partisan budget that would bring the budget into balance without using Social Security that would allow us to fund high priority projects such as prescription medicines within Medicare. Unfortunately President Bush has not provided that leadership.
Washington, D.C.:
Pete Stark pretty much summed up what I, and a lot of others, think about the resolution giving the President the power to use military force in Iraq. I can't even begin to express the disappointment I feel in the Democratic party leadership -- I've been a Democrat for a long time, but for the first time I really think that Nader & Co. have a point. We might as well have one party, given the kind of "oppositon" to the House majority you folks are demonstrating. And it's impossible not to think that it's craven electoral politics -- you don't want your opponents calling you weak, so you've forgotten the interests of the nation. I'm disgusted (and I will be changing my party registration to independent).
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland, 3rd District: When it comes to matters of national security and whether we should allow the President authority to use military force a member votes his or her conscience and not as a Democrat or a Republican. I happen to agree with your position in that I voted against the final resolution however I believe each member had to make their own judgment. It is not an issue where a party leader can request members of his party to vote a certain way. My regret was that I think the resolution was overly broad and that Congress as an entity should have insisted on a clearer and more precise resolution.
Fairfax, Va.:
How can Democrats say the economy is in such bad shape when everywhere you see record home sales, record auto sales, and record building construction? If anything, the reverse is true -- especially in this D.C. area. The amount of economic activity is just mind-boggling -- and one of the reasons for our notorious traffic jams.
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland, 3rd District: There are many indicators that reflect that our economy is not doing well. We have lost 2 million jobs since March of last year. 50,000 workers every week exhaust their unemployment insurance. For every job opening in America there are over two and half seeking that job. The stock market is at a 5 year low. Consumer confidence is weak and we have large projected deficits. If you ask the average person on the street they will tell you that they are very worried about our economy.
New Rochelle, N.Y.:
First, let me thank most of you for all your votes against the resolution yesterday. The House Dems had more spine than the Senate's.
What are the chances that Nancy Pelosi or someone else other than geppy can be named Majority Speaker in the House next year?
Peace. Join us on 10/26 for the march on Washington against the war.
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland, 3rd District: Our caucus is very proud of the leadership of our leaders. Dick Gephardt has been very effective in pointing our what needs to be done to strengthen our economy. We need to pass unemployment insurance benefits for those who are unemployed, we need to pass prescription medicine coverage for our seniors, we need to increase the minimum wage and the list goes on and on. The problem is that the White House and the House is controlled by the Republicans. We hope that as a result of the November 5th elections, Dick Gephardt will be the next Speaker.
It will make a difference for working people.
Mt. Rainier, Md.:
Many of the Democrats who are now criticizing the tax cut were the ones who voted for it. I am more than a little angry at having a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who might as well be a Republican when it comes to elections.
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland, 3rd District: There were some Democrats who voted for it but the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against it. The Democratic party is diverse in its views but it is clear that if the Democrats were in control of Congress the tax bill would have been very different. Remember 1993 when the Clinton economic plan passed without a single Republican vote. The Democrats have a very different set of priorities for our economy that will protect Social Security, expand Medicare and provide real opportunities for workers.
Harrisburg, Pa.:
If we go to war with Iraq, we should expect Iraq to fight back. Are we prepared to take casualties, are we prepared to withstand their retaliations, and are we prepared to remain for the long-term to stabilize Iraq with a government that respects both us and its own people?
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland, 3rd District: We all hope that President Bush will follow his stated intent and seek United Nation's support for actions against Iraq. I think that is our best hope to avoid unilateral military action which I believe could lead to many consequences that the questioner raises. If we proceed with the support of the international community any military action would have far less risk and we would have the support from the region to rebuild Iraq, which will be necessary.
Mt. Rainier, Md.:
Those "booming 90s" were created from the speculative bubble giving us a hangover now. Thanks.
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland, 3rd District: I don't believe that. I think we need to balance the federal budget and the Bush economic plan does not do that. I believe we need to fund high priority programs such as Medicare and educations and the Bush plan does not do that. I believe the Bush economic plan has added to our problems, not helped.
Silver Spring, Md.:
President Reagan effectively used the catch phrase, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Why can't you use that now? The average American is not better off -- it's been all downhill since January 2001. You have not been effectively getting this message across.
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland, 3rd District: I agree. It is difficult. The White House controls the megaphone and it is difficult to put a spotlight on that message - especially when you are the minority in the House. Hopefully in the next four weeks of these midterm election that message will get out and will have an effect on the election itself.
Durham, N.C.:
Why has the Democratic Party become more right wing in the past few years? There are few so-called Democrats who represent progressive, liberal or even centrist views. After the vote to give Bush power to attack a country without Congressional approval or even a coalition of allies, I'm apalled at the lack of leadership in the Democratic Party. How can we liberals and progressives regain the representation of the party?
Sheila Jackson Lee -- Tex., 18th District: One of the things that is unique about the Democratic party is that we are reflective of America and we have philosophies that different. We are singularly by thought in the fact that we care about people's needs. On the question of building progressive thought in the party - it does not undermine the support that we have of this nation to question a policy that would impact such a large number of people. I will say this however, I think that if the questioner looks at the total vote 155 for the Spratt amendment and then the final vote of 133 in opposition shows that there was a large number of Democrats who did not support giving the President unilateral first strike authority. I think the questioner should take comfort in that fact.
Bethesda, Md.:
Democrats have blamed the Bush tax cut for the deficit. Why hasn't there been a push to get the tax cut repealled?
Sheila Jackson Lee -- Tex., 18th District: First I want to acknowledge that that cuts have been a drastic scourge on the economy. Democrats raised their voices in opposition in almost total unanimity. It was bad at the time and frankly the administration or the Republican Congress didn't listen. There were efforts raised by Democrats for a moratorium, however the way the Congress is structured there would be little opportunity for us to succeeded as we wouldn't be able to get it past the House and we have received no signal from the Administration that the would sign or support such legislation. I think it is important to not that the House has the first responsibility of taxation policies then only a change of leadership in the House will bring about a focus on rebuilding this economy for all of America.
New York, N.Y.:
I read a transcript of Rep. Pete Stark's (D-Cal.) speech on the floor yesterday and I think I have a new hero. Although a bit over-the-top in a few instances, I agree with and applaud virtually everything he said, and wish that more Congressional Democrats would have the guts to stand up to the Administration and say what he said. Why is it that the Democrats are so timid in standing up for themselves, for what is right, and for what makes sense? Not one positive thing has resulted from this administration. The economy, the environment, education, health care, Social Security, and foreign and domestic policy are in the tank, yet the Democrats are mum. And please don't say it's because it's so close to an election because, while it may be a reality, it's not an excuse.
Sheila Jackson Lee -- Tex., 18th District: First of all I appreciate the questioners passion. I have the same amount.
Rep. Stark is a strong compassionate liberal and he is proud of it. I feel the same way. Every day in committees Democrats are fighting for those very same issues. We do not control the media so we can't announce every amendment that we bring up to stop antiquated Republican bills. If the questioner would go look at our legislative principles and agenda they would see that it is the Democrats that have stopped Social Security privatization, it is the Democrats that stopped the draconian measures in the Leave No Child law and helped increase school funding, it is the Democrats that helped fight back proposed changes in the Clean Air Act, and by in large it is Democrats whose voices collectively rose up against giving the President unprecedented first strike authority in violation of international law.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Politics:
washingtonpost.com's Terry Neal at 1 p.m. ET
Film:
Rita Kempley at 2 p.m. ET
Redskins:
Cornerback Fred Smoot at 3 p.m. ET
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 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
