This is not about power. It's about keeping the American people safe.
And the president, I repeat, should intercede any way that he can, and there are lots of ways he can. He hasn't even sent the letter yet. Three or four days, he hadn't even sent a letter to the congressional leaders saying he wants it passed.
This should be passed as quickly as possible. Every day that goes by, the American people are not as safe.
RUSSERT: Private accounts for Social Security, the president has made that a priority of his domestic agenda. Will you work with him in privatizing part of Social Security?
REID: Tim, I can remember, as a little boy, my widowed grandmother with eight children; she lived alone. But she felt independent because she got, every month, her old-age pension check.
That's what this is all about. The most successful social program in the history of the world is being hijacked by Wall Street.
Yes, Social Security is a good program. And if the president has some ideas about trying to improve it, I'll talk to him, and we as Democrats will. But we are not going to let Wall Street hijack Social Security. It won't happen. They are trying to destroy Social Security.
RUSSERT: No private accounts?
REID: They are trying to destroy Social Security by giving this money to the fat cats on Wall Street, and I think it's wrong.
RUSSERT: But, Senator, there are now 40 million people on Social Security. In the next 20 years, there will be 80 million. Life expectancy used to be 65 years old. It's approaching 80.
If you have twice as many people on these programs for 15 years, you've got to restructure them in some way, shape or form. What is your solution? What is your alternative?
REID: Tim, all experts say that Social Security beneficiaries will receive every penny of their benefits that they're entitled to, 100 percent of them, until the year 2055. After that, if we still do nothing, they'll draw 80 percent of their benefits.
I want those beneficiaries after the year of 2055 to draw 100 percent of their benefits. But this does not require dismantling the program. For heaven's sakes, they are crying wolf a little to regularly here.
There is not an emergency on Social Security. We can do this. The president should not try to jam these private accounts in effort to destroy Social Security.
In the early -- when Social Security came before the Congress, who opposed it? The Republicans. And they have a long memory. They have been trying to destroy Social Security for a long time. And now they think they have an opening to do it.
RUSSERT: Would you look at increasing or raising the age of eligibility? Would you look at means testing? Would you look at any reform?
REID: Of course, there are reforms that probably can happen in Social Security. And we'll be -- and we're not, you know, saying, "Don't even touch it." Let's look at it.
I said, I want people after the year 2055 to be able to draw all of their benefits. And, sure, we'll take a look at it. But don't give the ball to Wall Street.
RUSSERT: No private accounts of any kind?
REID: Not as far as I'm concerned.
RUSSERT: You also said this back in 1994: "I believe in a consumption tax. The income tax is not working as well as it should. I think we should do away with it." Is that still your view?
REID: Tim, there's no question that the Social Security system -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Back -- we're off Social Security, right.
The income tax codes, as we know it, is tough. It's unworkable. You know, we couldn't put the code on this desk. And I think we should work toward simplifying it.
We had a pretty good program, Bradley-Gephardt, where we had three tax structures. But of course, we changed that, Congress changed that, and now it's more complicated than ever.
What I am concerned about that's happening with the talk that's coming from 17th and Pennsylvania Avenue is that they're talking about having a consumption tax and an income tax. That's the worst of all worlds. That's what they have in Europe, where you have an income tax and you add on the value-added tax. It's a terrible system.
So what I say is if we can figure out a way to make our tax less burdensome and if we could go to a consumer-based tax, I think it would be wonderful. But the transition rules of that are very difficult. And I've looked into that. It's extremely difficult.
RUSSERT: But the national sales tax, or consumption tax, is very regressive. Poor people get hit very hard with that, as opposed to a progressive income tax.
REID: No question about it, and I've learned a lot since the statement. I think it's -- in an ideal world, maybe we could work something out. But as I've learned in so many different areas...
RUSSERT: You're less than enthusiastic about a consumption tax now.
This was the Associated Press about Harry Reid: "He voted with the Republicans to ban a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. And in 1999, he was one of two Senate Democrats who voted against an amendment expressing support for the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion."
Would you prefer to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, which allows legal abortions across the country?
REID: Tim, I have -- my views on abortion are very clear. I never tried to hide them. I think it's something that people understand about me.
But I also understand that this is a very complicated issue, very difficult issue. And, you know, in our caucus, our Democratic caucus, we have wide-ranging views. My sister, I don't have a sister, but as close as I have ever had to a sister is Barbara Boxer. Her views and my views differ.
But, you know, we don't have a litmus test with Senate Democrats. We don't do the so-called Specter test: You have to agree with us, or we won't let you be a chairman of the committee or subcommittee. We don't do that.
And so, I say that this is an issue that is not likely going to be resolved in the Congress of the United States. I think what we should do is all work toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, unintended pregnancies. I think we should do that. That would, of course, lead to fewer abortions. That should be a goal we all have.
And I think that this matter will be resolved. The Supreme Court has wrestled with this for years and years. And as you know, they're having a difficult time coming up with what should or shouldn't be done.
RUSSERT: Why did you vote against something that would express support for Roe v. Wade? You believe that Roe v. Was was incorrectly decided?
REID: You know, you're asking me -- I don't want to give you the Clarence Thomas decision here. But Roe v. Wade -- I clearly oppose abortion. And this was a sense the Senate resolution had no standing in law, if it even passed.
So, I think that my views are clear, and I think that I have worked very hard with groups all over America to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and I'll continue to do that.
