|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Fridays at 1 p.m. EST
President Bush and his cabinet have taken residence in the White House and are getting down to business. While Bush outlines his ideas on campaign finance reform the Democrats are accusing the administration of slowing down the economy to help push through a tax cut.
Charles Babington covers politics for The Washington Post and writes Political Insider, one of washingtonpost.com's Online Extras. He is live online with the inside scoop on the new administration, Fridays at 1 p.m. EST.
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.
Charles Babington: If campaign finance reform can pass the Senate, can baseball in Washington be far behind?... Let's get goin'.
State College, Pa.:
How much of a chance do you think there is of congressmen trying to punish the Supreme Court for its election decision by withholding renovation funds? How about for a congressional investigation into Penn State's loss to Temple?
Charles Babington: 1. Withholding renovation funds? 10 percent chance.
2. Investigating Penn State's loss? And have to tangle with John Chaney?! Zero chance.
Burke, Va.:
Is the Bush tax plan as originally proposed now in serious trouble? The Democrats seem to have an alternative that does a better job of addressing economic stimulus. Which one stands a better chance of being signed into law? The public seems increasingly wary of the Bush plan.
Also, why is no one seriously pushing conservation as a solution to the energy crisis? The administration seems to be pushing increased production as the only answer. Since when do we all need SUVs and lights burning all night?
Charles Babington: The Bush tax-cut plan as originally proposed never had a serious chance of getting through the Senate intact. That said, the president still might achieve a significant portion of his goal (e.g. a significant tax cut, but not necessarily $1.6 trillion over 10 years, as he proposed). The Democratic plan (a quick $300 break for every income taxpayer) has little chance of being signed as long as it is called a ''Democratic plan.'' Don't forget, the GOP controls the House, Senate and White House.
Arlington, Va.:
Morning Charles,
A story from Wednesday's Post that I bring up for discussion:
The White House formerly pronounced the Kyoto agreement dead. That's news? I quote from The Post article:
Whitman noted that no other major industrial country has ratified the Kyoto agreement. "We are not the only ones who have problems with it," Whitman said.
If the Senate wouldn't ratify it during Clinton's tenure, why would there be any expectation this administration or Congress would push for ratification when no other "major industrial country" will sign either?
Second, the quote below from the same Post article suggests that Bush promised to support Kyoto. True or false in your opinion?
"Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said the White House position dangerously erodes U.S. credibility in Europe. 'The president has walked away from yet another campaign promise on global warming, and infuriated our allies in the process,' he said. 'Declaring the Kyoto negotiations dead rather than proposing changes which would make it acceptable will delay action on global warming for years and years.' "
And isn't there a difference between a willingness to combat global warming and supporting the disparagement treatment in Kyoto between reductions required of the U.S. and those required of third world countries?
Charles Babington: Best I can tell, it's true that major industrial nations haven't ratified the Kyoto accord. But that doesn't mean their political leaders, and public majorities, don't support it. Note that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was at the White House yesterday urging Bush to support Kyoto. (Schroeder said he and Bush agreed on ''practically everything'' except Kyoto.... I was surprised he didn't mention Missile Defense...). Now, why Germany hasn't ratified Kyoto, I can't tell you.
As for Bush's campaign promises: It's true that he openly criticized the Kyoto protocal during the campaign. As president, though, he has gone farther in specifically calling for the U.S. withdrawal.
Arlington, Va.:
What chance does McCain-Feingold have of getting through the House, particularly with Tom DeLay mounting a furious personal attack on McCain as a hypocrite? And what is the mysterious glue that is holding even leftist Republicans like Connie Morella in a united GOP front on issues?
Charles Babington: Just as it wasn't abundantly clear that McCain-Feingold would get through the Senate largely intact, I don't think its fate in the House can be predicted with certainty. But two important things have happened: The Senate appears poised to embrace the proposal; and President Bush has dropped his staunch opposition. That makes it tougher for a House member to oppose. True, House Whip Tom DeLay has promised all-out opposition. But DeLay doesn't always prevail.... Connie Morella a ''leftist''?? Come now. House GOP solidarity on key issues -- such as tax cuts and budget proposals -- is indeed remarkable. As one who covered politics in Montgomery County Md. (Morella's district) for several years, I can suggest that the congresswoman has a pretty good sense of what her constituents will swallow and what they won't.
Bowie, Md.:
Has the disappearance of Al Gore left the environmentalist movement without a high-level champion? Seems there's been little of substance about the abandonment of Kyoto.
Charles Babington: Post columnist Richard Cohen addressed this very issue in yesterday's paper.... Here's my take: Gore lost the election (the popular vote count notwithstanding). He probably feels that any criticism of Bush in the first few months of the Bush presidency could be interpreted as sour grapes. Over time, he'll probably be more willing to speak up in public.
washingtonpost.com:
Calling Al Gore (March 29, 2001)
Brooklyn, N.Y.:
Why is Al Gore so quiet? I thought the dual issues of global warming and arsenic in water and Bush's handling of both would be the perfect situation for a strong reaction from Al Gore. But there's been nothing. Your opinion please.
Jim I
Charles Babington: Please see above, thanks.
Take me out to ... the District?:
Bush can't really have any influence over bringing a MLB team to D.C., can he? I mean, if the Expos haven't come here by now, they just might not show up.
As a card-carrying liberal, though, I'm somewhat ashamed to say that Bush could buy off my support pretty easily if he DID bring a team here.
Charles Babington: Always good to hear a card-carrying lib fess up. Thanks for doing so on my webchat.
Vienna,Va.:
Is Bush starting to look like a captive of the extremist, hawkish wing of his party?
Charles Babington: My colleagues Dana Milbank and Ellen Nakashima wrote a good front-page story on this topic last Sunday. As they noted, the president has made quite a few nominations and policy decisions that have greatly pleased strongly conservative groups. Does that make him a ''captive?'' Not if he's expressing his true political convictions.
washingtonpost.com:
Bush Team has 'Right' Credentials (March 25, 2001)
Silver Spring, Md.:
Am I reading the House tax bill on the marriage penalty correctly? If you itemize on your taxes, no relief? Don't an awful lot of people itemize deductions?
Charles Babington: You are incorrect, according to my colleague Glenn Kessler, who follows tax issues closely. Under the legislation just passed by the House, taxpayers would get a break via the widening of the 15 percent bracket. The plan would especially benefit upper-income folks who itemize their deductions.
Mt. Rainier:
I'm not married, so probably I'm missing something here. If married people file separately instead of jointly, then don't they compute their taxes the same way I compute mine? In which case where's the penalty? And I am at a real loss to understand why the Democrats have taken this even further and are giving a break to couples who have only one salary. Oh, well, the whole idea that getting married makes you somehow socially superior stuff gives me indigestion anyway. I always thought people did it because they wanted to, not because this is a patriotic duty.
Charles Babington: The debate over the ''marriage penalty'' is quite confusing. Often lost in the rhetoric (even though some Democrats raised it on the House floor yesterday) is the fact that under the current law, many married couples get a marriage BONUS. That is, their combined tax bill is less than it would be if they each filed as singles. It all depends on how much each person earns, and please don't ask me to explain it.... On your larger and much more interesting point: I couldn't agree more. Anyone who gets married for the sake of saving a few tax dollars will probably get what he or she deserves. Let love reign, I say.
Newcastle, England:
Do you feel that European pressure can make Bush change his policy towards the Kyoto treaty? There was a report in The Guardian newspaper here today which suggested that as part of any diplomatic pressure, the United Kingdom should demand back the old London Bridge, the Queen Mary liner, and Virginia which, apparently, was not formally ceded by King George III after the War of Independence!! However, we'd give you ex-pats such as Tom Cruise back in return.
Charles Babington: There are some Marylanders who would be happy to give Virginia back.... But only after it pays its share of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge!
Arlington, Va.:
Morning Charles,
Just a comment on Wednesday's Post article on this week's federal court opinion ruling that the University of Michigan law school policy of using race as a factor in admission is unconstitutional. The following is a quote from that article:
The rulings in the twin University of Michigan cases come on the heels of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that found the University of Washington Law School's consideration of race in admissions decisions to be legal. But in 1996, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans barred colleges from using race as an admissions factor in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.
The Post finally (within the last year) reported what all lawyers have known for years: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has more of its decisions reversed than most of the other 11 federal circuit courts combined. In some circles it is referred to as the "fruit loop" as its decisions are frequently ill conceived and ill advised, or just plain wrong (and they know it). However, this article doesn't seem to feel the need to place the 9th Circuit "in context," but The Post continues to find it necessary to describe Supreme Court decisions (for example) as a 5-4 decision with the five "conservative" justices voting in a block to make this or that decision. Why not put the vote (unanimous, 6-3, 5-4 or whatever) of the above decisions in the article and put those decisions "in context" i.e., the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (most reversed federal appeals court in history).
Charles Babington: Thanks for sending that along.
Greenbelt, Md.:
Hi --
Is Sen. Clinton trying to put some distance between herself and the ex-president?
I'm asking since last night (March 29), President Clinton was scheduled to attend a public reception at the Embassy of Italy.
Here's the announcement:
"March 29 - 'Embassy of Italy Arias and Accolades' Embassy of Italy, 3000 Whitehaven St., NW, Washington, D.C., complimentary valet parking is included. Business attire requested, $85 per person, inclusive of tax and tip. Reception and Buffet --
7:30-9 p.m., artists performing from the Washington Opera --- 9-10 p.m. JOIN THE AMBASSADOR OF ITALY AND MRS. FERDINANDO SALLEO AND FORMER PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON FOR THIS RARE OCCASION."
Sen. Clinton wasn't mentioned.
What's up?
Charles Babington: Maybe she just wasn't able to attend... And if she's not going to be there, why list her on the invitation? Needless to say, I don't know the details.
Austin, Tex.:
I heard that Bush has called off all press conferences. Is this a joke?
Charles Babington: Apparently so. He had a press conference yesterday, and said he'll have more.
Arlington, Va.:
Were you at the correspondent's dinner last night? How does one get invited to those things? How is it that so many people who obviously do not like one another can all sit around a room and be chums? Isn't it somewhat awkward?
Charles Babington: I was not at the Radio/TV correspondents dinner last night. In the spirit of full disclosure, I'll admit that I have attended past dinners of the White House Correspondents and Congressional correspondents associations. How do you get invited? You cozy up to a member of such organizations, and hope he/she is willing to foot the bill of $125 per plate (or thereabouts).... And how can such people sit in the same room and be chummy? Check out the Senate chamber. The House chamber. This is Washington!
Somewhere, USA:
TAX REFORM -- It's true, we need to cut taxes but isn't there some way to cut them for everyone. Every tax cut scheme so far favor people who are married or have children, what about single people, They have to live too and I personally do not feel that they should be left out because they didn't get married or have children. Let's be fair to everyone and just do an across the board cut -- same for everyone. Married and people with children will still get more tax breaks because of deductions -- so please let's make the tax cut fair to everyone.
Charles Babington: Thanks for sharing your views.
San Francisco, Calif.:
Did you see any real surprises during the CFR debate in the Senate over the last two weeks -- namely, any senators that switched sides that you didn't expect? And how do you think the Senate bill will do in the House? Will it escape relatively unscathed?
Charles Babington: The biggest surprise is the margin (57 to 43) by which supporters defeated the so-called ''severability'' amendment. Had it passed, the entire bill would be ruled void if any part of it were found (by a court) to be unconstitutional. Many McCain-Feingold advocates had feared the severability amendment would pass and make the entire measure vulnerable to a court challenge.
Charles Babington: That's it for today. Thanks to all. Join us next week, when my guest will be Jim Wilkinson, deputy communications director for the White House.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
