Washington Post Congressional Reporter Jonathan Weisman (Julia Ewan -- The Washington Post)

Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman was online Monday, Nov. 5 at 11 a.m. ET.

The transcript follows.

Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to a podcast of the show.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Jonathan Weisman: Wow, just signed on a bit early and there are questions in the queue. This is not my usual day, but there is no reason to mix up me with Shailagh Murray. She's much more attractive. So let's get going!

_______________________

Kensington, Md.: I was floored by Karl Vick's article on the Alaskan political machine-- I felt like I was reading about a corrupt Banana Republic on steroids. But I am left wondering why companies like Exxon that hire these lobbyists to bribe those in office don't ever pay any penalties. Is part of the job of a lobbyist to serve as "fall guy" for the corporations so that they can continue to buy out our government?

washingtonpost.com: Upcoming Discussion: Karl Vick on 'Corrupt Bastards Club' (washingtonpost.com, 3 p.m. ET today)

Jonathan Weisman: Interesting question, but the companies that hire the lobbyist usually keep their distance. No fingerprints, no time. In the case of the guys who bribed Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, that might not be true. Looks like briber and bribee could be spending some quality time together.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: What is the difference between Obama's position on social security and those of Clinton and Edwards?

Jonathan Weisman: Not a whole lot, other than specifics. Obama is now saying he would like to make up the gap between funds flowing out and funds flowing in by raising the cap (or maybe lifting the cap) on income subject to Social Security taxation. I think Edwards has said the same thing. I don't think Clinton has offered any specifics, but this is pretty standard Democratic fare. Now, it would only work if you lifted the cap on taxes owed, without adjusting the cap on benefits received. If you simply lifted the cap on both, the rich would be paying a lot more Social Security taxes, but they'd also get higher benefits. It would help somewhat, because the Social Security system is somewhat progressive. But it would not close the gap.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: I see where the Republicans have called Rangel's tax plan, "The Mother of all Tax Increases." Why are they against all tax increases? Do they truly believe, in spite of all the evidence, that higher taxes inhibit growth? Besides the example of the Clinton years, here are some figures from other countries. The first figure is total tax rate, the second is average per capita growth in GDP 1995-2005: U.S. (26.4 percent, 2.1 percent), Sweden (50.2 percent, 2.5 percent), Spain (35.6 percent, 3.1 percent), Japan (25.8 percent, 1.0 percent). Or is it pure cynical political posturing?

Jonathan Weisman: Ah, Prof. Krugman, thank you for supplying the data. I once did a story looking for a corollary between tax rates and unemployment. There isn't an obvious one. Bill Clinton raised tax rates. Unemployment went down. George Bush lowered tax rates. Unemployment, at least at first, went up. Republicans really do believe raising taxes inhibits growth and wealth creation. The problem with the argument on Rangel's tax plan is that it's revenue neutral. The tax system would be taking in as much after the system is implemented as before. It's just a question of who pays. The rich would pay more, especially those with incomes over $500,000. The poor and working class would pay less, thanks to the expanded standard deduction and refundable tax credits for children, etc. And a lot of people in the upper middle class would probably break about even, losing their alternative minimum tax hits but getting a little more of an income tax hit with the surtax on incomes about $150,000 or $200,000.

_______________________

Edenburg, Pa.: Mr. Weisman, I have a question about Kucinich's impeachment resolution. Isn't it a fact that the party that impeaches wins the next election? You got Nixon and Clinton as examples. And when the Dems failed to impeach Reagan it cost them dearly -- and still does, given that so many of the Iran Contra figures still are working in government. So what motivates the Emanuels and the Pelosis? Are they afraid of offending the 11 percent of the electorate who just can't enough of Dick Cheney?

washingtonpost.com: Cheney's Impeachment Literally Fell 'Off the Table' (Post, Nov. 8)

Jonathan Weisman: Huh? When Republicans moved to impeach President Clinton in 1998, they lost seats in Congress. In the upheaval, Newt Gingrich was tossed out as speaker of the House, the expected next speaker, Bob Livingston, stunned everybody by resigning on the floor on impeachment day after an affair with a lobbyist came to light. Bush did win the White House two years later, but that is more a testament to voter amnesia than anything else. Impeachment was simply forgotten by then. I think your data set is far too limited to make any assumptions.

_______________________

Boston: Mr. Weisman: There was a column in the New York Times last week ("Pakistan's General Anarchy") and a column by Frank Rich yesterday in the New York Times that both mention how General Musharraf released approximately 25 Taliban prisoners the day after he declared his emergency. I would think that would elicit an outcry from our Congress, Senate and White House, as our soldiers are dying fighting the Taliban and Musharraf is releasing them. Other than those columns, I have not read much about this. Are you hearing outrage in Washington about this? Is the pressure on Musharraf to round them back up? Why is the White House not jumping up and down about this?

washingtonpost.com: Taliban militants free 211 Pakistani troops (Reuters, Nov. 4)

Jonathan Weisman: A good question. Ya know, Congress sometimes seems incapable of doing more than one or two things at a time. In the days before Thanksgiving, lawmakers are focused on one thing: The spending battle with Bush. It's hard for anything, even an internal coup d'etat in Pakistan, to shake them from their appointed rounds.

_______________________

Re: Social Security: Wouldn't raising the retirement age -- in stages -- to age 70 pretty much solve the funding problem?

Jonathan Weisman: No. The retirement age, under the last Social Security deal, is slowly rising to 68, but it's not enough. Raising it to 70 would certainly help, but it wouldn't settle it. And there's a lot of opposition, especially from the unions, who maintain that a retirement age of 70 for desk jockeys like me is fine, but for working stiffs with stiff backs, it ain't so great.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Jonathan, the echoes of fake FEMA press conferences aside, do you think that Hillary Clinton or any other politician really can resist the temptation to screen for supportive questioners at public events? And is it really news given that, clearly, prescreening her media interviews and town meetings and "listening tours" really defines Hillary's style?

Jonathan Weisman: As we all know, President Bush is very good at making sure his audiences are friendly. But seeding the audiences with questions is still questionable. I can't get too excited about the Hillary story, since the question wasn't out of left field. A college student asking an open ended question about global warming is not the same as a FEMA worker asking about some obscure management plan.

_______________________

South Bend, Ind.: So Tom Udall has jumped into the Senate race. Will he have any trouble getting the nomination if Mayor Chavez doesn't drop out? How do you see things shaping up on the GOP side? I understand there's no love lost between Pearce and Wilson. Pearce is the more conservative, but Wilson likely will have at least the tacit support of Sen. Domenici, no?

washingtonpost.com: Udall to Run for Domenici's Senate Seat (AP, Nov. 11)

Jonathan Weisman: The Democratic establishment was worried about Mayor Chavez's divorce. I have a feeling Chuck Schumer will be pretty persuasive about clearing the field on this one. The Republican side won't be so easy. Washington Republicans tried to dissuade Pearce from jumping in in the first place, and he didn't listen. I don't think he'll listen now. Domenici will certainly back Heather Wilson. He had been grooming her for the job for awhile. But like Domenici, Wilson has questions about the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. I don't know how the New Mexico primary works, but if it's like other western states like California, it could draw base conservative voters, which would spell real trouble for Wilson.

_______________________

Washington: Does it get annoying covering Congress when most of the attention is on the presidential race (which is still 12 months away!) and most folks seem content to simply wait out the clock on the Bush administration?

Jonathan Weisman: Yes! Sometimes I wonder why I show up. And it only will get worse next year.

_______________________

Baltimore: Hi Jonathan. What is likely to happen with all of the appropriations bills that Bush is threatening to veto -- for example, the Labor/Health and Human Services bill? Will Congress cave to Bush, or will enough Republicans vote for an override? What is the timeframe for such maneuvers? I work at a medical center, and the repeated failure to get timely bills passed (last year's Labor/HHS bill was passed in mid-February 2007 for a fiscal year that started October 2006) greatly hampers our ability to do our jobs. Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: Let me ask you this. When the congressional Republicans refused to "cave" to Bill Clinton and instead shut down the government in 1995-1996, how did you feel? Who was being intransigent? The fact is, Congress and the president work together to fund the government. If Bush won't negotiate and is intransigent, there may be a political price, but that's his right as president. The House vote on the Labor, Health and Education spending bill fell just three votes short of a veto-proof margin. Once Bush vetoes it, there will be an effort to pressure three votes to switch, but there will be an equal effort by GOP leaders to hold the line. I think the veto will hold. Democrats could pass a measure to keep the government operating through the holidays, but if Bush doesn't give, they will have to. And you will say they caved.

_______________________

An excerpt from Karl Vick's article "Allen handed a sexual potency pill and a sleeping pill to Kott -- who later phoned, confused and upset, after mixing them up: Ask Karl if the guy was upset because he had a date and was sleepy or he wanted to sleep but something was keeping him, ah,up?

Jonathan Weisman: Will do. Thanks. Life in Alaska sure is interesting.

_______________________

Reading, Pa.: How does the United States get away with supporting people like Musharraf while still preaching about bringing democracy to the world? Is there no ally willing to stand up and denounce such hypocrisy?

Jonathan Weisman: What makes you think the United States is getting away with it? I'm heading to Europe on a week-long visit to talk politics, courtesy of the German Marshall Fund and I have a feeling I won't be seeing a lot of pro-American sentiment.

_______________________

Washington: With regard to Rep. Rangel's tax bill, don't both Democrats and Republicans feel a need to raise the standard of living of the general public? That is, if Rep. Rangel's bill will slightly lower the standard of living for those at the upper end of the income scale while raising the general standard of living for a lot more folks at the bottom end of the scale, isn't this a good thing?

Jonathan Weisman: It depends on your beliefs. Republicans believe tax cuts pay for themselves through faster economic growth, therefore, if Charlie Rangel wants to cut taxes, he should not have to raise them on someone else. The Democrats need to come up with a way to explain what they want to do on taxes. Republicans will scream "tax increase" on anything they propose, and this tends to scare a lot of Democrats. If they want to pass tax bills, they need to stand their ground and explain themselves.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Are candidates quietly hoping for the writers' strike to continue, so none of their screw-ups like, say, getting a $400 haircut, end up being lampooned on late night and becoming big deals?

Jonathan Weisman: Only if it extends for an entire year!

_______________________

Elmwood Park, N.J.: Mr. Weisman, far be it from me to distract the Clinton haters in our media from getting to the bottom of the major issue of our time, the Tip-Gate Scandal, but it would seem to me that there is a major story which is being royally ignored by the press. John Edwards, as a candidate in 2004, issued a gargantuan set of rather middle-of-the-road position papers for all to read. He's now, suddenly, the scourge of lobbyists, the great reformer. Apparently, the candidate who is running now is way to the left of the one who ran then, and even farther to the left of the Senator who represented the purple state of North Carolina (sort of a mirror-image of the behavior of the born-again conservatives, Romney and Giuliani). By comparison, Clinton, Richardson and Obama are models of consistency as both public officials and candidates. If Edwards wins one of the first two primaries, will we get a second look at this apparent flip-flopping?

washingtonpost.com: The Gurus: With Trippi's Rise, Some See a New John Edwards (Post, Oct. 23)

Jonathan Weisman: I'm sure he will. Right now, he's running a distant third even in Iowa in our most recent polling. That tends to shift attention to the front runners, but if he makes a comeback, no doubt, he will get another look. But with all the stories on his haircuts, his gargantuan McMansion in North Carolina, etc., I'd bet John Edwards wouldn't say he's gotten a free ride.

_______________________

Indianapolis: How similar is the GOP urge to get rid of moderates to the purge Democrats did right before they lost their grip on Congress?

Jonathan Weisman: I'm not sure I see the urge to purge. A lot of moderate Republicans are retiring from the House, but that's because, in part, they are targets of Democrats and are basically sick of it. The frontrunner in the presidential campaign is Rudy Giuliani, and abortion rights, gay rights, gun control advocate.

_______________________

Iowa: Working with Democratic congressional representatives (especially freshmen who won in swing districts) who will be up for re-election in 2008, do you have any sense as to how they view the top of ticket in terms of their chances? I have seen a couple of articles where some didn't want to be quoted as saying that Sen. Clinton's presence as the nominee would not help them in their district.

Jonathan Weisman: I know for sure that Republican leadership in Congress really wants her at the top of the ticket, along with Giuliani. They think Giuliani will mobilize moderate Republicans and independents who lean Republican, while Clinton energizes an otherwise demoralized Republican base. That saves endangered seats in blue states from New York to Michigan, they reason. It's too early to say, but I think Democrats are at least worried by the same calculation.

_______________________

Tacoma, Wash.: Re: Hillary's planted question -- my brother (college student, Vermont) works for a D.C. think tank going to town hall meetings and asking questions about changing relations towards Cuba. He thinks about a quarter of all the questions at town hall meetings are from organizations or other groups trying to get their issue on the docket. My question: Was Sarkozy so well welcomed in the Congress because he was received by Democrats, or because he wasn't Chirac, or because he's a totally different type of European politician?

Jonathan Weisman: Two very different strands of thought. On Sarkozy, he was very well-received because Democrats tend to like the French, especially on Iraq, while Republicans really love the idea that the current French leader campaign unabashedly as a pro-American advocate of the free market and he's taking a hard line on Iran. It's not so much over Iraq policy. Republicans love to say, if the leader of France can advocate lower taxes and freer markets, what's wrong with the Democrats?

_______________________

Anonymous: With pay-as-you-go provisions, AMT relief is made revenue-neutral by raising tax rates on hedge fund managers and moving others from a capital gains rate to an income tax rate. How will Reid and Schumer react to this provision? Would a Bush veto on AMT relief -- based on raising the tax-rates of millionaires to the same factor used for the rest of us -- sell to the public?

Jonathan Weisman: On the first, I think Reid would be okay with the House's bill, but Schumer continues to say it singles out hedge fund and private equity managers and should be broader. Schumer is very important on the matter, since he sits on the Finance Committee and might be able to single-handedly kill it.

The White House last week issued a veto threat, saying no taxes need be raised, even if the AMT "patch" costs the Treasury another $50 billion. But it was not the harshest veto threat "The president will veto this bill." In White House kabuki, it was the next level, with wiggle room, "the president's advisers would advise the president to veto the bill."

_______________________

Alaskan politics and corruption: I am sure we are all shocked -- shocked! -- that there is gambling in Casablanca. I wonder how many Alaskans would advocate throwing the bums out if it also meant fewer federal tax dollars going to the state (also wonder how many of them advocate lower taxes -- as long as they continue to get their more-than-fair share).

Jonathan Weisman: We will see. A lot of political analysts detect a real political shift in the great white North. Alaskans may be sick of it. Then again, the oil revenue payments that go to every man, woman and child in Alaska just got a really big boost.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: With a new tax bill bandied about (it is just fun to use the word bandied), is there likely to be any discussion in Congress as to whether the focus of the tax laws will change from favoring investment to favoring employment? Workers earning salaries and hourly wages pay a proportionately higher tax on income received than investors pay on income received. Why is investor income favored while worker income is not?

Jonathan Weisman: It is remarkable that we are arguing whether hedge fund and private equity managers should pay ordinary income tax rates on what really is their compensation. Nobody is even talking about how this problem arose, the huge differential between a capital gains and dividend tax rate of 15 percent and a top income tax rate of 35 percent. As long as 20 percentage points separate the three, the most affluent among us will try to find a way to structure compensation as dividends and capital gains. You can bet on it.

_______________________

Words of wisdom on Veterans Day: Jonathan: It would be nice if our great, wise leaders in Congress and the White House heeded the words of the 106-year old World War I veteran (who also was imprisoned in the Philippines during World war II) as quoted in The Post today: "Asked what he thought about attending a service for his duty while the United States is engaged in armed conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, Buckles replied: 'I'm no authority, but I'm not in favor of war unless it's an emergency.' "

washingtonpost.com: World War I Veteran Reflects on Lessons (Post, Nov. 12)

Jonathan Weisman: Printed as is, but with a caution: there are as many opinions among veterans and soldiers as there are among the rest of the public. You always can find a quote to back your view.

_______________________

Anonymous: At the J&J dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, all the candidates and the emcee, Nancy Pelosi, were accompanied by their spouses -- all except Hillary, that is. Where was Bill?

Jonathan Weisman: Hmm, not sure where he was Saturday night, but he has been spending an awful lot of time campaigning on his own for his wife. For all his faults, no one can really accuse him of shirking on that front.

_______________________

Arizona: Jonathan, thanks for taking questions this morning. What do you think about mandating congressional term limits? Is the potential loss of experience and relationships overcome by creating a more fluid situation in which individual members have more of a voice ... and in which their individual vote has more worth? Since Gingrich, it seems Republicans in Congress have been made to live within the confines of an ideological fence. Almost like a dog park, but with their leashes still on. And Democrats now appear to be in waiting mode until the 2008 elections, when they hope to have a much stronger majority. Would essentially getting rid of the current seniority-based system help to move things along?

Jonathan Weisman: Boy, of all the items in the Contract With America, Term Limits was the only one that never even passed the House. It just seems to be a dead letter these days, although some members are voluntarily obeying them (and others are flouting their own term-limit pledges.)

_______________________

Great Falls, Va.: Given how handily his wife lost in a district entirely within his congressional district, and the harsh words he had for his party when announcing he wasn't running for Senate, does Tom Davis still run for his House seat? Especially if Gerry Connolly runs regardless of his decision?

washingtonpost.com: He's Out of the Race. She Lost. What Now? (Post, Nov. 10)

Jonathan Weisman: We are all waiting for that decision. I have it on pretty good authority that he is 90% certain he will run. But you are certainly right. He is well aware that the district is trending away from him. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Rep. Davis hung up the saddle.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Sure, some Americans regret support for Musharraf. On the other hand, there are still some who think that we did not support another dictator -- the Shah of Iran -- long enough, rather than thinking that his repressive rule actually stirred up enough dissent against him (and the U.S., which put him into power and helped keep him there) to make it easier for Islamic radicals to take power. If Musharraf falls, especially to radicals, some will say we did not support him enough.

Jonathan Weisman: Too true, and there's a guy at the Union Station Metro who insists Henry Kissinger killed the Shah. When I gently suggested perhaps he was thinking of Mossadegh, he was quite insistent he was right.

_______________________

Poplar Bluff, Mo.: Thanks for taking questions. Huckabee's numbers are up in Iowa, and McCain is still a factor in New Hampshire. Has anyone thought about the effects Huckabee winning in Iowa and McCain winning in New Hampshire would have on Rudy's and Mitt's campaigns?

Jonathan Weisman: Oh yeah, certainly Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are thinking about it. Romney would be in the most trouble. He is still way, way behind in national polls, and is absolutely counting on Iowa and New Hampshire to propel him. Giuliani still believes his name recognition and overall appeal will save him on Super Duper Tuesday.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Re: Clinton and FEMA questions. You say "a college student asking an open ended question about global warming is not the same as a FEMA worker asking about some obscure management plan." Isn't the issue really about the fact that she was instructed to ask the question? It's not like she just thought it up herself. It was given to her and she was told to ask it. Seems to be a big difference to me.

washingtonpost.com: Clinton Staff Planted Question at Forum (Post, Nov. 9)

Jonathan Weisman: Yes, of course, that is the issue. And it should be raised. I'm just saying the question itself wasn't really objectionable.

_______________________

Williamsburg, Va.: So David Yepsen has spoken and claims Obama came out on top at the Jefferson Jackson dinner. (Side note: Why do Democrats still use Jackson's name, considering he ordered the brutal forced migration of thousands of Native Americans against the will of the Supreme Court?) Anyway, as any political junkie knows, when it comes to Iowa, Yepsen's word is basically law. Have we seen a race-transforming event or what?

washingtonpost.com: Obama Makes Hay at JJ (DesMoinesRegister.com, Nov. 11)

Jonathan Weisman: We shall see. Growing up in Georgia, I have always wondered about Jackson's place on the $20 bill. Anyway, a lot of people though Al Gore and Bill Bradley's endorsements of Howard Dean sealed the deal. I know voting is a few short weeks away, but that one speech will be smothered by maybe a thousand more before the caucuses.

_______________________

Washington: How much coverage do you think a Pakistani election will get if it takes place in the middle of our presidential primary season?

Jonathan Weisman: It won't get top billing, for sure. But at least the front page of The Post can handle more than one story.

_______________________

St. Louis: Gen. Musharraf may have agreed for mid-January election. If he doesn't lift emergency rule until the end of this year, how can the opposition parties campaign for election? If a coalition of radical parties combine and win the election fair and square (hopefully), like Hamas did in Palestine, is the U.S. going to declare the election as illegitimate?

washingtonpost.com: Musharraf Proposes Vote by January (Post, Nov. 12)

Jonathan Weisman: A right and true question. But if the elections are flagrantly unfree and unfair, and Musharraf is the victor, I doubt he'll have given himself a lift. Remember what happened in Ukraine.

_______________________

Ithaca, N.Y.: Obama's speech at the Iowa J-J dinner blew me away when I listened to the whole thing ( thank you YouTube). Even more, his clear-cut statement that yes, he would raise the income limits for the Social Security tax, impressed me for its honest candor. I find myself suddenly waking up to him. He sure looks good. Is his timing impeccable?

washingtonpost.com: Democrats' Provocative Iowa Dinner Conversation (Post, Nov. 12)

Jonathan Weisman: A late surge would certainly be great for him. But by the time the caucuses come around, this won't seem so late.

_______________________

Washington: Hey, you cover tax policy, right? I hear Republicans call Charlie Rangel's proposed tax reform the mother of all tax increases, and Rangel says it is revenue neutral. These can't both be true, as a factual matter. Doesn't Congress have nonpartisan economists to weigh in on this? I would imagine that this could be a situation where the "truth" means we don't necessarily need straight "he said/she said" reporting, but I haven't seen any of the coverage try to actually get to the merit of these conflicting statements.

To be clear, I don't think you need a headline that says "GOP lies" or "Rangel lies." I think this just might be an area where coverage could be more sophisticated than just "GOP says big tax hike" and "Rangel says no tax hike" and that, because there are external benchmarks we can look at, pretty much any news or analysis of this issue should try to be based on facts and then provide spin, rather than slipping back into spin vs. spin. Thanks!

Jonathan Weisman: There is a nonpartisan observer on this, the Congressional Budget Office (and in tax matters, the Joint Tax Committee.) We have said the Rangel plan is revenue-neutral, and it is. Coverage of the Republican charge of tax hike is showing the politics of the matter. Tax reform is always extremely difficult, because there are winners and losers. The losers tend to be very voluble, while the winners don't say a word. And the fact is, for some people, the Rangel tax plan would raise taxes. For others who already pay no federal income tax, it would mean they receive money back from the federal government that they didn't pay, or they would get an even larger check than they get now. I don't think that is an illegitimate criticism.

_______________________

Pittsburgh: I recently heard a reference by a Democratic Presidential candidate to money being borrowed from Social Security. If true, what's it being spent on? And is this the real reason that Social Security is supposedly "in trouble"?

Jonathan Weisman: Every year, billions of Social Security taxes come in that are not needed for Social Security benefits that year. That money goes into the Treasury, then goes back out to pay for other government services -- and maybe a little war or two. The Social Security system gets a nice federal bond in place of that cash, which, ostensibly, Social Security can cash when it needs the money to finance the Baby Boomers retiring. That will happen sooner then you think. That's what the reference to borrowing is.

_______________________

Baltimore: Is Bernie Kerik's indictment a case of guilt by association? Clinton's cabinet officials were indicted, and nobody in Washington seemed to think it said anything about Clinton.

Jonathan Weisman: Hah, that's a funny one. Do you really think Bill and Hillary Clinton have never been linked to associates who were indicted? Webb Hubbell comes to mind.

Anyway, the Kerik-Giuliani link is very close. Remember, Giuliani recommended Kerik to be the secretary of homeland security, even after he was briefed on allegations of mob ties. This is going to get ugly.

_______________________

I'm heading to Europe on a week-long visit to talk politics: The Euro is at $1.47. Be sure to tell us how good that $10 glass of orange juice tasted.

Jonathan Weisman: Yes, I can't wait for the cab ride from DeGaulle.

_______________________

Tacoma, Wash.: Re: Term Limits -- has their been any push within the Democratic Congress for ending gerrymandering rather than term limits? It seems to me that districts drawn so that Republicans dominate in some districts and Democrats dominate others entrenches politicians and only encourages partisan politics. Also, do you believe term limits would reduce partisan politics and playing gotcha? I've seen arguments that freshman senators and representatives are more willing to cross lines and work with others to get pet projects done. Yes or no?

Jonathan Weisman: Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) has a bill to set up a commission that would look at congressional boundaries and try to redraw them so the House isn't dominated by safe liberal seats and safe conservative seats. But I can't say the bill is going anywhere.

_______________________

Manhattan, Kan.: Hi, thanks for doing this chat and also thanks for your excellent article last week about the resistance of Democratic senators to enacting the legislation the House passed to patch the Alternative Minimum Tax. While your article mentioned Schumer and Reid as being reluctant to offend hedge fund and equity managers by closing the loophole that allows these 8- and 9-digit income earners to pay marginal income tax rates of 15 percent instead of 35 percent, I was wondering what you knew about the positions of other senators -- such as Clinton, Dodd, Obama and Biden.

washingtonpost.com: Democrats Split Over Bill Affecting Backers (Post, Nov. 7)

Jonathan Weisman: Actually, I don't think Reid is so reluctant. Both Clinton and Obama have come out publicly in favor of taxing so-called "carried interest" as income, not capital gains. Dodd, who is chairman of the Banking Committee and hails from a state flush with hedge fund estates, is undecided. Don't know where Biden is.

_______________________

Minneapolis: It seems crystal clear that the Bush administration is playing its characteristic hardball in resisting and fighting efforts by Congress to do meaningful oversight; and the Bush administration only needs to run out the clock with these fights for another year. Do you think the Democrats in Congress still do not understand that the Bush administration does not operate according to customary rules -- in this instance, customary rules of inter-branch cooperation -- or do the Democrats understand that and simply lack the spine to confront the Bush administration for fear of being painted the way the Gingrich- and DeLay-controlled Congresses were?

Jonathan Weisman: Oh, they understand all too well, but they look at congressional approval ratings, which are consistently lower than President Bush's, and they have concluded the public wants them to get things done, i.e. -- legislate. They are very worried about the charges, already tossed around by the White House, that all they want to do is investigate.

_______________________

Washington: Re: Social Security -- I would like to see some kind of combination of not only age requirements but how many years someone has worked. I have worked full-time for 45 years and still have four more to go before I can take full benefits. I admit it -- I'm tired!

Jonathan Weisman: As Obama has said, everything should be on the table.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: You wrote, "Republicans believe tax cuts pay for themselves through faster economic growth." You understand, of course, that such claims have been conclusively debunked by the Congressional Budget Office and others. Cutting taxes does not spur increased economic activity more than offsetting the loss of tax revenue. Why does the MSM allow candidates like Giuliani to get away with making this claim?

Jonathan Weisman: I don't think we do. Even the Bush Treasury Department looked at the issue and said tax cuts do not pay for themselves. That said, Prof. Krugman, when I was covering the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, I looked at long-term cost projections and thought by 2007, the federal deficit would be heading off a cliff. Instead, it's around $156 billion. Combine the cost of the war and lingering costs of Katrina and there's the deficit. It seems to me the tax cuts have not been as dire as the revenue forecasts predicted.

_______________________

Jackson on the $20: I've always felt that Frederick Douglass should be honored on the $20--maybe not replacing Jackson entirely, but by issuing a new series with Douglass. Any other supporters out there?

Jonathan Weisman: I'll post the question.

_______________________

Anonymous: I read a transcript of a recent speech given by Sen. Lieberman. In his speech he claimed that Democrats were hoping for a defeat in Iraq to make Bush look bad. He also stated that the Democratic Party was the party of "retreat and defeat" based on their approach to Iraq. What is the reason that the Democratic leadership in the Senate gives Sen. Lieberman the chairmanship of Homeland Security while he in very strong terms insults and ridicules their party?

Jonathan Weisman: Last question. When you hold a one-seat majority in the United States Senate, you tend to give anyone who caucuses with you a great deal of latitude. I saw that speech as well. Lieberman has said similar things, but it was very hard-hitting. Feelings are pretty raw among Senate Democrats with Independent Lieberman. I'll bet they're gonna be a little rawer this week.

Thanks everyone!

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.