|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Aug. 24, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
Bush and Congress may be on vacation, but we aren't.
Charles Babington, chief political
correspondent for washingtonpost.com, will be online every Friday at 1 p.m. EDT to discuss political news from past week.
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: Greetings, welcome. It's been a pretty newsy week for August: Sen. Helms retiring, a new budget debate heating up, talk of scuttling the ABM Treaty. And, oh yes, Gary Condit. Let's get started.
New York, N.Y.:
This may be a dumb question, but why is it in our best interests for government to have a large surplus? I can imagine why congress would like it, because they don't have to worry about scrimping on any pork project needed to get them reelected. But for the average citizen, why should we feel good that the government is running a profit?
Charles Babington: Not a dumb question at all. It's very worthy of debate. One certainly can argue that, in general, a modest surplus is better than a modest (or big) deficit. But your point is well made: If we're running a big surplus, why are we taxing Americans at a higher rate than is needed to pay current bills?
This is especially interesting because nearly all the surplus comes from Social Security payments. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. Today's benefits are paid by today's workers, via a payroll tax. (And tomorrow's benefits will have to be paid by tomorrow's workers, which will become a problem when the baby boomers retire). Some economists and lawmakers argue that it's wise to run a significant surplus now in order to pay down the debt and ready the economy for the coming onslaught of boomer retirees. But that surplus often is used to fund current government expenses, unrelated to Social Security benefits. (The notion of a "lockbox'' is rather new, and it's bogus anyway). So a good question to ask is: Why are today's workers subject to a regressive payroll tax that collects more than is currently needed to pay today's Social Security benefits? There might be a good answer. But the issue deserves more public debate than it gets.
Mt. Rainier:
Do the Democrats have a real opportunity with Helms retiring? Or has North Carolina gone Republican for the duration? I know Helms' elections are all said to be quite close.
Charles Babington: The Democrats certainly have an opportunity. In last year's gubernatorial race, a Democrat (Mike Easley) beat a well-funded Republican (Richard Vinroot, who might run for the Senate seat next year). And in 1998, a Democrat who never had run for office before -- lawyer John Edwards -- ousted a Republican incumbent senator (Lauch Faircloth). And Democrats control both houses of the NC legislature. So the state is quite competitive in such races, even if it seems safely in the GOP column in presidential races.
Of course, the Republicans have an excellent shot at holding Helms's seat. It's certainly a toss-up for now.
Chicago, Ill.:
I'm confused. On August 19th, in a speech to a veterans group, Bush said "I've asked Congress to provide our military an increase of $39 billion over the original 2001 appropriations. This is the largest increase in military spending since Ronald Reagan was the commander in chief."
A couple of days later, he says that the surplus must be maintained by limits on spending, and warned Congress not to bolster this year's appropriations bills. He vowed to veto additional not within the confines of the budget.
To me, it sounds like he is doing just what he doesn't want Congress to do. Am I wrong?
Charles Babington: Well, some congressional Democrats agree with you. They note that Bush has said he wants discretionary spending (which includes military spending) to grow by about 4 percent a year. Yet he immediately makes a military spending request that would push next year's discretionary spending growth rate to nearly 6 percent. And if the administration builds the type of missile defense system it's talking about, that's going to require billions and billions more in the coming years.
So, yes, congressional Democrats say the president is calling for spending restraints at one moment, then calling for spending hikes at another.
Hartford, Conn.:
Other than a N.Y. Times editorial, I've noticed that a lot of the coverage of Jesse Helm's retirement has skipped over his opposition to civil rights, affirmative action, etc. Most television and newspaper articles have just called him a "conservative icon" and left it at that. Were you surprised that most of the media chose not to tear into him, or did I happen to miss all of those articles?
Charles Babington: The NYT editorial definitely was critical of Helms. But editorial pages are supposed to have strong opinions; news pages aren't.
Thus I'm not surprised that news accounts didn't ''tear into'' Helms. Could they have gone into greater detail about his career, including the controversial anti-affirmative-action ad he aired when Harvey Gantt (who is black) was his opponent? Maybe. But a 29-year career offers a lot of ground to cover.
Kensington, Md.:
Charles:
You'll probably get a million Condit-related questions (pick me, pick me!).
Anyway, could Gary Condit have done any worse? Whatever Einstein came up with his "strategery" -- to use a George W Bush word -- should be shot. His non-answers to questions were almost painful to watch. I actually felt genuine pity for the man.
Do you think there's a snowball's chance in Hades that he can win his bid for reelection?
Thanks
Charles Babington: Everyone is focusing on how terribly they think Condit did. But what did he have to work with? Could he have denied ever knowing Chandra Levy?
Seems to me that Condit did about as well as he could with the very weak hand he holds. He says he never hurt her; knows nothing about her disappearance; never told her to leave her I.D. at home; didn't have an affair with the airline attendant or ask her to lie; cooperated fully with the police; never lied to the Levy family, etc.
Condit put himself in a terrible box by saying nothing publicly for months, and by appearing to be less than fully cooperative with police. Given all that, you could argue that he got about everything he could get out of the Connie Chung interview.
And I'd be quite surprised if he gets reelected to Congress, but that's up to the voters in the Modesto-Merced area.
Boston, Mass.:
How did you think Condit handled himself in the Chung interview? At least we all now know that he has been married 34 years. That's the one fact I got out of it.
Charles Babington: Yes, and he's imperfect. Imperfect. Imperfect. All of which was code wording for, Yes, I had the affair but I'm not going to say so explicitly on national TV.
My question was: Why didn't Chung move on more quickly to other important matters, given that she had only 30 minutes?
Arlington, Va.:
Do you think Gephardt will still say Condit is an honorable man after last night?
Charles Babington: I think Mr. Gephardt will try to change the subject.
Niles, Mich.:
If the United States scraps the ABM Treaty unilaterally, are all bets off as far as Constitutional "checks & balances" (Executive branch proposes treaties and Senate ratifies them)?
Charles Babington: A very good question. I wonder if Senate leaders will insist on having a voice in scrapping the treaty the Senate once ratified. I haven't heard much noise about that.
washingtonpost.com:
ABM Withdrawal Likely, But Not Set, Says Bush (Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2001)
Tulsa, Okla.:
Is Sen. Byrd serious about his threat to block funding for missile defense since it now appears there's no money for it? washingtonpost.com:
Byrd Issues a Warning on Shrinking Surplus (Washington Post, Aug. 22, 2001)
Charles Babington: Why should we doubt Sen. Byrd's sincerity?
Fountain Valley, Calif.:
Who do you think has more to gain politically from news about how the budget surplus has shrunk, Democrats or Republicans?
Charles Babington: Democrats.
Sparta, N.J.:
I would like to comment on this weeks U.S. led IMF bail-out package for Argentina. We have seen the Republicans criticize Clinton for their packages for Mexico, Russia, and Brazil. Treasury Secretary O'Neill has said things would be different even going so far as to say that the money from U.S. plumbers and carpenters would not be used to save Argentina.
Now, when push comes to shove, they gave in and agreed to a package as it seems they don't want to be blamed for pushing Argentina into default and fear it could worsen the weakening global economic climate. Are Republicans in congress complaining about this bail-out as much as they did when Clinton/Rubin used to do it?
Charles Babington: It's always easier to criticize from the outside than to govern/rule/make decisions from the inside. That's true in government, Little League baseball, the Garden Club, you name it.
Remember how Bush, the candidate, suggested he'd pull U.S. troops out of the Balkans? And then, when he became president and had to face the ramifications of that decision, he changed his mind?
These types of facing-reality moments apply to Democrats as well as Republicans.
Vienna, Va.:
Let the Democrats put up anybody they want to take Jessie's place in North Carolina. While politics can never be predicted in advance with absolute certainty, I would bet my paycheck that Elizabeth Dole is going to beat the pants (or skirt) off of any of them. She has enormous respect throughout the state, and would appeal to many women voters as well.
And she will join Hillary as the latest "carpetbagger" to take the Senatorial Oath of Office. My guess is eventually she would get her husband's old job as Senate Republican leader. Watch out, Trent!
Charles Babington: You may be exactly right. And here are three reasons you may be exactly wrong:
1. North Carolinians aren't New Yorkers. They don't see themselves as being as worldly, as cosmopolitan as NY'ers, and therefore they're less likely to embrace a high-profile, glamorous outsider (or carpetbagger). True, Mrs. Dole was born and raised in N.C., but she hasn't lived there or voted there in decades. She might overcome that hurdle, but it will be tougher than the one Hillary Clinton faced in N.Y.
2. Mrs. Dole might not get the nomination. If a more conservative Republican -- say, former Sen. Lauch Faircloth or former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot -- hits her hard and effectively from the right, she could lose in a primary that will be dominated by activist GOP voters -- that is, mostly conservatives. That's always the danger for a relatively moderate Republican in a primary, just as centrist Democrats sometimes get beat by liberals in their party's primaries.
3. As I noted earlier today, N.C. is a very competitive state at the senate-governor level. If the Dems put up a good nominee who runs a smart race, he or she might beat Mrs. Dole straight up in Nov. 2002.
But like I said: You may be exactly right.
Alexandria, Va.:
As a former New Yorker, I'm always interested to hear news from that state. Lately I haven't heard much about Hillary and how she is doing in the senate. Has she made any great contributions to New York? Do you think she's doing a good job?
Charles Babington: Congress has been out for all of August. Please, can't we just enjoy a respite from congressional news? Thanks.
New York City:
So what's happening with Strom Thurmond's desire to appoint his son to a U.S. attorney position? Is he doing it and will his son be approved by the Senate? Why isn't this nepotism? I realize that Colin Powell's son is in an appointed government position, but at least his father didn't appoint him. washingtonpost.com:
In South Carolina, It's All in the Family (Washington Post, Aug. 19, 2001)
Charles Babington: Of course it's nepotism. Will the Senate confirm him? I assume so. Senators don't want interference when it's time for them to appoint THEIR favorite son (or whatever).
Washington, D.C.:
Charles--
Did as well as he could? Oh, come on! In Condit's scenario everyone but him was either lying, misunderstanding, or misconstruing everything he did -- the Levys, Linda Zamsky, Ann Marie Smith, Billy Martin, even the police. The one thing I picked up out of this was that it appears that Condit and his wife have an agreement about his extramarital activities, since he didn't seem to think there was any reason to acknowledge that he had done anything that might have violated his wife's understanding of their relationship. I'll grant the man the right to privacy, but using that right as an excuse to blame others is despicable.
Charles Babington: If it can be proven that Condit lied in the interview, I agree, he'll be in even deeper trouble than before. But most of his claims can't be proven or disproven. Did someone tape record his phone conversation with Mrs. Levy? Did Ann Marie Smith videotape her meetings with him?
Short of that type of evidence, it's just a he-said/she-said standoff.
Mt. Rainier:
Maybe this is a private quirk, or I'm just not up on government accounting. But if I have a major debt to pay and a whopping big outlay coming up shortly, then I don't call the money in hand 'surplus'. I call it too little.
Charles Babington: But here's the problem. Social Security doesn't allow surplus funds to be socked away in some bank account that can be tapped 10-15 years from now, when so many of us are retiring. A lot of people think it's operated that way, but it's not.
Charles Krauthammer has an interesting op-ed piece on this subject in today's Post.
washingtonpost.com:
No Lock, No Box (Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2001)
Washington, D.C.:
An earlier question on Ms. Dole suggested that she could draw many women to her possible campaign, but isn't one of the leading Democrats a woman, and also Secretary of State -- a state-wide and tried elected offical?
Charles Babington: Yes, Elaine Marshall is the Secretary of State, and the only Democrat already officially in the race. She has won two statewide races (in one, the GOP nominee she defeated was race car icon Richard Petty..... He was a better driver than candidate).
That said, N.C.'s Secretary of State isn't the most high-profile job in the world. Surely Eliz. Dole has a higher name I.D. in N.C. than does Elaine Marshall.
Arlington, Va.:
Regarding the Condit interview, I think a lot of people are missing the evilly genius strategy behind it. Before the interview the prevailing topic of any conversation on the Levy case (among those still interested) was what a dog Gary Condit is. Now, based on the Post message board, about half the people want to talk more about Connie Chung's interviewing style. I'd say that's progress.
Charles Babington: Interesting.... And you get the last word today.
Charles Babington: The hour is up. Thanks for joining, see you next week.
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
| 
