|
Leon Panetta
Former Clinton Chief of Staff and Director, Panetta Institute for Public Policy
Thursday, May 3, 2001; 12:30 p.m. EDT
The first 100 days of any administration -- regardless of election chaos -- are filled with surprises, traps and missteps, from Cabinet and administration appointments to partisan battles on the Hill and PR foibles. Meanwhile, the press, critics and even party allies think they can do better.
As President Clinton's chief of staff from 1994-96, Leon Panetta helped manage the country's business and focus the direction of the White House. He was online to talk about what the first 100 days are like from inside the West Wing Thursday, May 3.
Panetta's 16 years in the U.S. House representing Monterey, Calif., included a stint as chairman of the Budget Committee before he became director of the Office of Management and Budget in 1993. After leaving government, Panetta and his wife, Sylvia, founded the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University, Monterey Bay.
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.
washingtonpost.com:
Good afternoon, Mr. Panetta, and welcome. What's the first thing any new administration has to think about during those first 100 days, and how do you prioritize which fights to fight?
Leon Panetta: I think the most important thing about organizing the White House at the beginning is just that -- organizing the White House, and providing the proper discipline, organization and focus that are essential to being able to implement any agenda.
In this area, I think that the Bush White House gets high marks because they have organized a pretty tight White House -- there seem to be clear lines of authority, and generally they have a very focused message for each day.
Chicago, Ill.:
How does Clinton feel about Bush's first 100 days? Is he stewing over Pardongate or the fact that Bush is still standing? Or is he at peace that history will compare him in a favorable light to his successor?
Leon Panetta: I haven't had a chance to talk at length about his reactions. I would think he is probably spending more time focusing on his own life and getting it in order, and trying to work on his library. I think that's his main focus. I do think that he is at peace with the record of his administration and how it will compare with the new administration.
Calhoun, La.:
Is the Democratic Party still involved in the "Southern Stratergy Organization" as was Jimmy Carter? The real question is: why didn't "you" along with Bill Clinton do the right thing while in office and fix the problems which will plague the people of this country for years to come?
Leon Panetta: I think that in looking at any administration, you have to weigh what that administration accomplished versus what its failings were. I think the Clinton administration had some very significant achievements for the country, the most important of which was the economic plan that balanced the federal budget and helped produce the strongest economy in our history. There is nothing more important for every citizen, no matter where he or she lives, than to have a strong economy. At the same time, there is no question that in areas such as health care and trying to find peace in the Middle East that the administration fell short.
I think that Democrats would be wise to continue to reach out to all constituencies on the basis of good policy for the country, not the kind of politics that divides people.
washingtonpost.com:
We've talked a lot this week about this idea of bringing back civility to Washington, and toning down partisan rhetoric. First, do you think that the rhetoric is subsiding and becoming less bitter? Second, you were a member of the House for a long time -- what do you think of the way Democrats are handling being in the minority?
Leon Panetta: First of all, there's no question that the Bush presidency is not a kind of in your face presidency. They seem to apply a much lower key than what we saw over the last eight years. That does help the tone that comes out of Washington. But I think people need to understand that both parties have, particularly in recent years, have been engaged in political trench warfare. And to be frank, that has not changed a great deal, because while the new president said he wanted to govern from the center and develop broad coalitions with Democrats, he has failed to do so, and the result is that both sides continue political confrontation.
I think the Democrats clearly were in disarray for a period of time following the election. They were obviously angry at the results and the way the recount developed. But they also found it difficult to find traction in developing an opposing position versus Bush, mainly because any new president gets a short honeymoon, no matter who he is. I do think that as a result of some of the more conservative positions that the president is taking over the last few weeks, particularly on the environment. I think that has helped the Democrats to get their act together.
Cincinnati, Ohio:
I keep hearing about how Bush hasn't done anything so far that'll haunt him like gays in the military haunted Clinton. When you miscalculate, how do you recover? Can you keep gaffes from being the thing you're known for?
Leon Panetta: First of all, I do think that the administration made a very serious miscalculation on environmental issues that could in many ways be compared to Clinton's gaffe on gays in the military. The administration has been struggling to try to repair the damage from arsenic in water for the last several weeks, but not very successfully. The best thing for any administration to do in that circumstance is to move on to the issues that they really want to focus on for the American people. Bill Clinton did that by focusing on the economy, and George Bush is doing it by focusing on tax cuts.
Arlington, Va.:
What do you think of the way Bush has dealt with conflicting messages from his Cabinet secretaries? How do you deal with someone who's gone off the reservation without making it look like the administration's changing its mind all the time?
Leon Panetta: That's a great question. One of the non-stop frustrations for any administration is the ability to make sure everybody in the Cabinet and in the White House are talking from the same sheet of music. It's interesting because in the Clinton White House, the focus was very much a White House focus in which the messages and the policies were largely being developed at the White House. In the Bush administration, it would appear that there is a larger focus on policy in the Cabinet departments. And what seems to be happening is that when these departments make statements on policy and the White House, for one reason or another, disagrees, then it appears that the administration doesn't have its act together. So, I think part of the price of delegating greater authority to your Cabinet is the lack of total control over policy positions.
Arlington, VA:
Here's a question that goes to your past on the Budget Committee -- how much of a risk to future fiscal policy do you think a 1.35 trillion tax cut really is? Apart from the equity question -- which I hope the D's fight hard on -- is this number so high that it will really jeopardize future surpluses or stringently limit spending growth?
Leon Panetta: Well, again it's a very good question, because I think there is a failure in all of this debate to discuss the real costs that are associated with tax cuts. The focus has been on either a $1.6 and now a $1.3 trillion cut in rates for taxpayers in this country. But what is failing to be discussed are the additional tax cuts that will have to be considered by this Congress. For example, people have heard about the problem with what is called the "alternative minimum tax." This problem is one that if it is not corrected, will raise taxes for middle-income families in this country. To correct it will cost in excess of $200 billion. Add to this the necessity for extending important tax credits for business, such as research and development tax credits, plus the additional tax credits that are being proposed by the administration in education and housing. By the time you're through, and this is without even considering a reduction in the estate tax and capital gains tax, which is also being discussed by Congress and the administration, there is no question that the final pricetag will be in excess of $3 trillion. When you add all of that to the spending pressures that are going to come from both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, there is a very good chance that the surplus could be totally blown.
Indianapolis, Ind.:
I am a recovering Democrat from the last election. I am still perplexed about how Bush won over Gore. In my view, there is no comparison. However, Mr. Bush is in and we have to live with him. Do you feel he could be dangerous in a crisis? Some of his statements are funny and some are frightening to me because of his lack of familiarity with some of the issues. Is Mr. Cheney truly acting as prime minister in your view? I think that is the best description of his capacity I have heard. Where do the Democrats go from here? Will Gore run again? If not, who?
Leon Panetta: There is no question that the vice president has a very significant role in this White House when it comes to policy, and I do believe that the description of prime minister reflects the level of influence that he has. Having said that, I don't get the impression that the president is someone who simply shoots from the hip in a crisis, as was clear from the incident with the Chinese. While he does seem to be sometimes floundering on foreign policy issues, I do get the impression that Secretary Colin Powell and his national security adviser do provide an important safety net to ensure that this president exhausts diplomacy before he pulls the trigger.
I do believe that the greatest strength of the Democrats has been on their positions on policy, from education to health care to the environment, and to their work in trying to support working families in this country. If the Democrats can stay focused on those issues, then I think that they will always be in a position to regain control of the Congress and ultimately control of the presidency. I think that it is really so early to try to assume that one candidate alone is going to be the front-runner for the nomination. I believe that that race is wide open right now, and yes, Gore could be one of the names in that race. But it is by no means a conclusion that he will be the ultimate nominee. There are probably some names that nobody has even thought of that could be part of this race as well. So have hope.
Bethesda, Md.:
It seems from a political view point there is very tight control over insider comments and politics inside the White House. For example, the recent Post article on emerging image. Can you comment on why the Clinton White House was the opposite? And what can future Democrat presidents do to aviod the mess?
Leon Panetta: Democrats are by their very nature a very unruly crowd to try and discipline. There are so many different ideas and personalities that it's often hard to create a disciplined message -- Will Rogers talked about disorganization, and it's true. But it's also one of the strengths of the Democratic Party is that it does allow for different ideas and a different dialogue on issues. I think it was Tip O'Neill who said Democrats gather under a large tent, and it's true. In the White House, as chief of staff, it was often difficult to make sure that everyone coordinated and worked together, it was nevertheless an exciting place to be because of the ideas that were generated -- not just by the staff, but by the president himself.
And I think it's in part because of the need for dialogue and the need for participation in our process that my wife and I began the Panetta Institute. We just completed a poll of college students in this country that confirmed our worst suspicions about attitudes toward public service and government. College students are interested in the issues, but they are totally disconnected from government, from any interest in public service or any involvement in a public career. The good news is that 75 percent said they would volunteer at the local level. That tells me and should tell the country that there is a very important resource out there that we should pay attention to, because ultimately they will be the future leaders of a country. And it is important to inspire them now to that service.
It was interesting that in this poll that young people got over 50 percent of their information from television. But what was also interesting was that almost a third of the information that students get comes from the Internet. And that is ahead of newspapers and radio.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.
We're going to be talking about President Bush's first 100 days in office all week. Stay tuned to Live Online:
Hispanic voters: Raul Yzaguirre, National Council of La Raza Friday at 10 a.m. EDT
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
