Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
What Will Tax Relief Checks Do for the Economy?
Aired July 23, 2001 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's the need to balance value and respect for life with the promise of science, and the hope of saving life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POPE JOHN PAUL II: A free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue and violate human life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: Do ethical concerns outweigh the hope of stem cell research?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It has always been asked, now why did he not come clean with the police in the first interview?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LANNY DAVIS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL: So he has apparently lied to his lawyers, he certainly has lied to the police. He may be lying to himself by saying, as his spokesman said, well, we're not going to talk now until the media frenzy dies down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: As investigators focus on finding Chandra Levy, why do they keep returning to Congressman Condit?
Also...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: The tax cut is going to rob this country of the kinds of opportunities we need to pay down the debt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: This will help the economy at a time when the economy could use a little boost.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: Economic boost or bane? What will your tax relief check do for you?
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. Well, we are going to cover several topics that came up over the weekend, and we'll be doing it today with three of CNN's "TAKE FIVE" crew. Jack Tapper will be with us momentarily, he's a Washington correspondent for Salon.com. Robert George is with us now, editorial page editor for "The New York Post. Desa Philadelphia is a "TIME" magazine reporter, and John Fund is an editorial board member at "The Wall Street Journal."
Welcome to all of you. All right, let's start with President Bush's visit with Pope John Paul II, and the pope's rather definitive comments on stem cell research. He called such a research evil, and he urged Mr. Bush to reject it. The president says he will consider the pope's point of view as he considers federal funding for the research.
Robert, let me ask you this. If the -- the president says, actually, that this is the most difficult decision that he faces in his young presidency so far. But if he so convicted in his beliefs on when life begins, why is this so difficult for him?
ROBERT GEORGE, "NEW YORK POST": Well, those of us who are -- those who support the pro-life position have basically -- basically have the same question. He says that he wants this to be based on ethics and morality as opposed to just politics. In that sense, it should be a much easier decision, because you don't really need to take an extended period of time to figure out exactly where your ethics are on a given issue.
So I think the longer it takes him to come to a decision, it makes it actually look like he's thinking more politics than ethics.
BATTISTA: Jake is with us now, I think. Jake, are you there?
JAKE TAPPER, SALON.COM: I am. How are you doing?
BATTISTA: Good, how are you?
TAPPER: Good.
BATTISTA: All right. Stem cell research -- should the president be coming at this from a moral or a political attitude? TAPPER: Well, I agree with Robert. I think that if you believe that life begins at conception, this issue is over. I mean, stem cells are embryos that have been conceived. It's really that simple.
BATTISTA: Well, Desa, do you think that religion and what the pope has to say should be a part of the president's decision?
DESA PHILADELPHIA, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Realistically, I think we have to assume that it's going to be, but I don't really think that it should be. I mean, this is a case where scientists have clearly demonstrated that human beings can benefit from having this research done. So I don't really think that religion should influence the president's decision here, but I think that it's fair it say that it will.
BATTISTA: John, how much influence exactly do you think the pope has on the president?
JOHN FUND, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Oh, all presidents have met with popes. All of them have gotten the benefit of his wisdom and they've gone off and made their own decision. Bill Clinton apparently didn't pay much attention to the pope. He was constantly distracted. I think George W. Bush will give him a little bit more deference.
However, I really question, why in the world is the president the only person to make this decision? It's because Bill Clinton set in motion a process that normally would have been conducted in Congress. This is a democratic decision, it should be handled legislatively. And I think it's just frankly giving -- passing the buck and getting Congress off the hook. And Senator Daschle has already said, if the decision that President Bush makes goes against him, Congress is going to address it. Well, let's drop it in their lap right away. I don't really think this is a decision for only one person.
BATTISTA: Well, there are compromises that are coming out of Congress. Bill Frist, for one, has come up with one. Do you think that that's what the president's doing, Robert, he's just going to wait until Congress comes up with an acceptable compromise, if there is such a thing?
GEORGE: I am not sure, because obviously, he's going to be solicitous of advice from all sides. But even if the situation plays out the way John just mentioned it, it would ultimately still come down to George W. Bush's decision, because he would be the one to decide if he was going to sign or veto legislation that the -- that the Congress sent him, depending on exactly what the language was.
BATTISTA: Jake, do you think there is an acceptable compromise on this issue?
TAPPER: Well, certainly the president is going to try to find one. I would much have him listening to the pope on this issue than Karl Rove. But I think you just -- there's an untenable fact here -- there is no compromise on this issue if you believe that life begins at conception. I'm not stating what I think about the issue, because quite frankly, I'm not sure what I think about the issue. I find it amazing that the pro-life community -- well, let me correct myself -- that pro-life senators and pro-life members of the House are actually in favor of this stem cell research. It seems to me to be the kind of moral relativism that Republicans slam Democrats all the time for doing.
What you have here is you have a situation where this kind of research, unquestionably, can help people. And a lot of members of the Senate were very close to Senator Mo Udall, and the fact that he had Parkinson's affected a lot of them when it comes to this issue. But that shouldn't make any difference if you believe that life begins at conception.
FUND: But, Jake, we shouldn't worship at the alter of science. Ten years ago we were told by scientists, assured by them, that fetal tissue would lead to incredible advances in things like Parkinson's. It didn't work out that way. In fact, some Parkinson's patients were harmed by the research. So just because a scientist says it doesn't mean we should automatically believe it. Sometimes scientists overpromise because they want more federal funding.
TAPPER: Absolutely. But you know what, John? Tell it to the pro-life senators that you're friends with. These are the guys who are being so slippery. This his not an issue -- when Ted Kennedy and John Kerry come out in favor of stem cell research, there's no hypocrisy there. They don't believe that life begins at conception. But for a guy like Orrin Hatch, or a guy like John McCain, or for this even to be a decision for President Bush to be grappling with, makes no sense whatsoever. All of a sudden, Orrin Hatch is saying life begins at conception in the womb. There's this new "in the womb" clause. That's pretty new.
PHILADELPHIA: I think that's why this is going to be a no-win situation for President Bush, If he decides that the government should fund stem cell research, then, you know, all of the people who are sticking to their guns, Jake, and saying that life begins at conception, regardless of whether it's in the womb or in a petri dish, are going to be very mad at him and saying that he has betrayed the party line. And for people who believe that this beneficial research should continue, they're not going to be pleased if he doesn't fund this.
So, really, this is a chance for President Bush to -- show that he can be courageous. But really, either way, there's no victory in it for him, I don't think.
BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience to get a feel for this. Julie, your thoughts?
JULIE: Basically, I am against stem cell research in embryos. I believe that more research should be done on stem cells and especially the use of umbilical cord stem cells for furthering our scientific development.
BATTISTA: Are you Catholic, Julie? Let me just ask.
JULIE: Yes, I am.
BATTISTA: OK, it's -- I think that part of the problem here, Jake, as you said, if you define for yourself how you think life begins or when it begins, then it's an easier decision. But not even Catholics agree on that. I mean, some 2/3 of Catholics also support this research.
TAPPER: Yes, and let's be honest about this. One of the reasons why George W. Bush is taking his time with this issue is because the White House -- there are two groups that they are very aggressively trying to get in the Republican fold for 2002, and more importantly, for 2004. Those are Latinos and those are Catholics, groups that the Democratic Party has had a hold on in the past, but the hold has been very slippery, especially with Catholics.
JULIE: And a lot of Latinos are Catholic, too.
TAPPER: Right.
BATTISTA: And over here in the audience, to -- oh, I can't read that far.
JESSE: Jesse.
BATTISTA: Got it.
JESSE: Well, I believe that stem cell research should continue because it's beneficial to everyone in that the diseases that it alleviates will end up helping society as a whole, and that we should not restrict the research at all, and let it go on until we come to a -- encounter a situation where it's not able to do anything for anybody else.
GEORGE: Well, I think that -- what the problem that you have -- there's all kinds of research that we could do, for example, on live human beings, that conceivable could be -- quote -- "beneficial." But the issue, it's not so much that, you know, do we have the power to do this? But the question is, ethically, should we do it? And that's what's at issue. It's not just a cost-benefit analysis.
BATTISTA: Cheryl in Illinois on the phone. Go ahead, Cheryl.
CALLER: This is Cheryl. I am completely against this. I am a devout Catholic, I have four children and we've got pigs, we've got animals we can do on. We've live people we can -- you know, look up stuff. It's about time we do that. They are human beings, even in an embryo.
BATTISTA: All right, Cheryl.
FUND: Well, Cheryl represents a great many people, and here's the interesting problem. If only one out of 100 people had moral qualms about something, you could certainly argue that that's very much a minority position. When 30 out of 100 have severe moral qualms about something, then it becomes a real political issue. At what point do you require people to fund something that is so much against their fundamental moral conscience?
With abortion, we have the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortions directly, and that's generally considered something that has 2/3 of the support in the country. Even people who support the pro-choice position and say, maybe we shouldn't necessarily force people to pay for something so much against their conscience. Maybe this is a similar issue and maybe this is something where private funding can take up more of the slack where federal funding goes into other directions. The money is fungible. I think there would be enough money for both.
BATTISTA: I have to take a quick break here. We'll continue on with this subject for just a few more minutes when we come back. And then, a lot of taxpayers received their tax relief notices in the mail this weekend. Others will be getting them in the weeks to come. Some won't get them at all. What will do you with yours? Take the TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback. AOL keyword: CNN. While there, check out my note, send us an e-mail and look at our TALKBACK LIVE behind-the-scenes trailer, a preview of coming attractions. That's me when I was six, when you really loved your birthday. We'll be back right after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: All right. A couple of e-mails here. Catina in Texas says: "I don't believe the pope's view of stem cell research will influence Mr. Bush. He has stated all along that he will do what he sees fit for this country. Nobody will have an impact on his decision."
Edna in California says: "I am absolutely outraged. The pope has no right to determine my health's future. This is yet another example of organized religion interfering with our civil rights. The pope should stick to his Catholic dogma and keep his hands off scientific advancement."
You guys, let me just ask one more question before we move on to something else here, and that's -- all four of you, what do you think the president will ultimately do on this -- Jake?
TAPPER: I think he'll probably go along with Bill Frist, which is a very limited kind stem cell research compromise. But I do have to say that I'm kind of appalled at the fact that the pro-life community is being so quiet about the fact that George Bush seems to think that this is an issue that he can even grapple with. If he has said in the past, life begins at conception, if the pro-life community went after John McCain in the South Carolina primaries for supporting stem cell research, why are conservatives being so quiet? I just find it incredibly hypocritical.
BATTISTA: Robert, you want to answer that one?
GEORGE: Well, my sense is, for one thing, I think the pro-life individuals are realizing that they're not in the middle a political campaign right now, and this is a legitimate decision that the president is grappling with.
That said, however, I think the president -- there's a possibility he may go with the Frist compromise, but I think he may end up leaning towards not allowing the federal funding, basically for two reasons: One, I think from, if you want to look at the politics of it, I think he's going to want to look at that Catholic vote. But I think even more importantly is the fact that that's what he was -- that's what he campaigned on during the primary season, and I don't think he's going to want to look like he's going back on previous promises made.
BATTISTA: Desa?
PHILADELPHIA: I don't think there should be a compromise. I think the president should either fund this fully, or -- or not do it at all. Because if you are going to experiment using embryos, whether they are ones that were going to be destroyed because they were donated by couples, or whether they were conceived in a lab, you're still having to grapple with whether or not an embryo is a human life. So I think that he should either fund the research and let scientists decide how they want to go forward, or he should not fund it at all. I think a compromise would be -- would really, politically, not offer him any advantage here.
BATTISTA: John?
FUND: Well, let me be clear. I don't take the traditional view that conception begins quite this early. I certainly don't. However, let's be clear. The pro-life community is becoming more politically sophisticated. They're working within our democracy, they're not being quite as dogmatic. And I understand Jake's puzzlement at this, but this means that they're becoming more integrated into the political dialogue, and that's a good thing. We don't want them way out on the extreme, not being able to make compromises and not being able to see that there's some advantage in a compromise.
BATTISTA: And a last e-mail here from Michael in California, who says: "Separation of church and state has some bearing. Even if Bush decides to shoot down the funding of stem cell research, it can't and shouldn't be said that he was influenced by the pope."
We will take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about the president's second trip to Europe.
A little later on, why do you think that Washington police are interested in talking to Congressman Gary Condit again? Stay with us.
The Roman Catholic church, the Southern Baptists and the United Methodist Church are opposed to the use of human embryos for stem cell research. The Presbyterian Church, the Reform Jewish Movement and Conservative Jews have come out in favor of limited embryo-based research. Orthodox Jews oppose it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: We're back. As the president visited with international heads of state on his European tour, he has been collecting some criticism at home. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle told "USA Today" that "I think we are isolating ourselves, and in so isolating ourselves, I think we're minimizing ourselves. I don't think we are taken as seriously today as we were a few years ago."
He was a little more specific in referring to the U.S. backing off the Middle East peace policy or the AIDS crisis in Africa, not being as involved with issues of foreign policy as perhaps past administrations. Might be a little bit early to be making that call.
Let me ask you guys to rate the president's second trip overseas here. Obviously, getting Russian President Putin to talk about the ABM Treaty has to be somewhat of a coup, considering their initial reaction.
John, let me start with you.
FUND: Well, I am a little puzzled at Senator Daschle's comments. I think that maybe people are taking him less seriously than they did a few days ago, given his comments. Look, we are engaged, and sometimes it's better not to be involved in the Middle East, because you have two scorpions in the bottle. Sometimes we have to step back. As for the AIDS crisis in Africa, there is going to be more funding spent this year, than any of Bill Clinton's years as president.
I don't know how that's stepping back from the problem. So I think that the president is very successful -- if you talk to the foreign leaders, and if you talk to even their foreign ministry spokesman, off of the record, they are very pleasantly surprised. This president once again is benefiting from being underestimated.
BATTISTA: Senator Daschle a little off the mark, Jake?
TAPPER: I think that there is a tradition that you are not supposed to criticize the president when he goes on the trip abroad, and certainly Senator Daschle has said that he regrets the statement. I don't think that he should have said it. But, again, when Bill Clinton was president, the Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, and even young a candidate for president, named George W. Bush, felt no compunction at all whatsoever, criticizing the president when he was abroad.
And George W. Bush's first foreign policy speech, as a candidate in fact, criticizing the Clinton administration's foreign policy as being like a cork floating down the river. That was when Bill Clinton was in Greece. So, it's kind of a silly thing to come at Daschle at this.
GEORGE: Unfortunately, I have to disagree with my good friend and "TAKE FIVE" colleague, Jake, there. First of all, Daschle was incorrect, basically, on the specifics, especially, I mean, the day he said that, or the day that -- the day before he had said that, Bush had given a major speech before the World Bank, talking about the need to move -- to move away from giving loans which actually increased world debt, and instead, going to go more to a grant program.
That's a clear example of being engaged. And I think that he had something a tour de force with Putin over the weekend, as well. Because if you remember, his very first foreign policy address as a candidate in I think it was late 1999 or early 2000, he basically outlined what he felt was the need to reduce nuclear armaments, at the same time to fully fund missile defense. And when he originally said it, obviously the Europeans were against it and Putin and so forth.
But now Putin's come around. And so, I think as John said, you've mis-underestimated George W. Bush once and several times, and once again, he's come out I think looking very, very impressive.
BATTISTA: Desa, go ahead.
PHILADELPHIA: Bush clearly did have an image problem in Europe before this trip. I think -- I don't think that Daschle was too far off the point there in talking about the way, you know, some foreigners see the president. And I think clearly...
GEORGE: That is their problem.
PHILADELPHIA: I think that he has, you know, a bit of a coup with his sticking to the guns on the missile defense system. But you know, remember when Tony Blair was here, and the press asked President Bush, what do you and Prime Minister Blair have in common? And he said, well, we both use Colgate toothpaste. And everyone in Europe was saying, what does that mean? Does that mean that they have the same defense policy.
And they clearly had a problem seeing Bush as, you know, sort of like that image that they held at Clinton era.
GEORGE: Well, Desa, that is basically the problem that the Europeans have. And that actually has to do more of a -- as actually as one Swiss -- as one ambassador said recently, something a cultural, a cultural arrogance towards the United States. And that extends beyond George W. Bush and it extends beyond the fact that, for example, the Europeans can't understand why Americans support the death penalty.
And I think that part of it is just a general problem that Europeans have with dealing with Americans.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILADELPHIA: ...President Clinton as a better ambassador than, maybe opinion there has changed now after this last trip. But I clearly think, I think that President Bush did have an image problem with our allies before.
BATTISTA: John, did you want to jump in there? Actually I wanted to ask you about...
FUND: Our allies are -- our allies and also love to cultural sophistication. And they always want to talk down to Americans because we are the number one power in the world. And they have to have some advantage over us. So, they have this sneering contempt for many of our cultural values.
I think that Bush should pay first attention to the opinion of the American people, and that which is best for the Americans. The allies, yes, deserve deference and deserve understanding. But just because they don't like us doesn't mean that we don't perceive what's best in our own interests.
BATTISTA: Do you think that British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- do you remember during the first trip sort of offered to be an intermediary for President Bush with the European allies? Do you think that was another sort of looking down on us, or was he true...?
FUND: Well, it would be helpful if Bill Clinton and Tony Blair had not been so close, joined at the hip, as it were, that I think George W. Bush would be a little suspicious of that. Because the relationship between Blair and Clinton was so close, I think that Bush will just go on his own.
BATTISTA: Does he need an intermediary, Jake?
FUND: Of course not. Colin Powell is respected throughout the world. There is a great intermediary.
TAPPER: I think that this trip has been a fairly successful one for George W. Bush. But there is still some confusion about his positions. I think he's gotten a bad wrap on Kyoto. This is a treaty that the Senate voted against. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) And it's a treaty that most European powers have not signed into law.
But the question for President Bush is: is he really communicating with these European leaders? Or is he just schmoozing with them? There was a report that -- obviously, huge success with Putin and I don't want to take that away from him -- but there was a report that three of the prime ministers that he met with were confused as to whether or not Bush was to propose an alternative to the Kyoto Treaty. Three of them, three prime ministers, were then under the impression that he was to be presenting this alternative in October when they all meet in Marrakesh. And the White House said that's not true. So I still think that dialogue is forming and the communication skills are there and developing, but not quite developed yet.
BATTISTA: All right. Let that be the last word on that. We have to take a break here.
Still ahead, Congressman Gary Condit is not a suspect. Why won't the people live him alone?
Also, the tax relief check: have you spent it yet? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Welcome back. Some of us got our notices over the weekend. Some will get theirs a bit later. But your tax relief check is in the mail. So what are you going to do with it? CNN's Chicago bureau chief Jeff Flock is keeping up with the Jones' in that city.
Jeff, what's going on? Where are you?
JEFF FLOCK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, Bobbie. And perhaps you know, this is the Wal-Mart. I thought with my tax refund, I might since I'm here at Wal-Mart get you a birthday present.
BATTISTA: Gee, thanks. Don't spend it all in one aisle there.
FLOCK: This is one of the stores you can take your check and cash it for free, and if in fact you then spend some money at Wal-Mart I guess they wouldn't be heartbroken either.
But we've been trying to get a sense today, if it's new spending? Or is this money going to be salted away? Or used to pay bills?
What do you think? What are you going to do with this money?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, as soon as I found it was going to be $300, I decided to go get a bedroom set. It was something I had been wanting, and I have not have the money. So I decided I was going to spend for a down payment for a bedroom set.
FLOCK: So this is new spending that you wouldn't have otherwise done, maybe. Or not right away.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not right away. But I decided, since it's coming and it's a gift, I'm going to use it on something, so I have something to show for it.
FLOCK: Ma'am, what about you? Have you got any new spending or this paying bills?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Paying bills. The fact that I got $500, because I have a tax dependent, and she didn't get anything because she is not eligible, I have fork over about $100 of it -- she had planned on buying a new stereo with hers, pre-planned it, and found out she wasn't getting it.
FLOCK: So she is old enough to be upset about it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, yeah. She is old enough to be upset about it.
FLOCK: And before we get away: is this enough money to make a difference for either of you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is more me. I know last night at dinner I was talking to all my brothers and sisters, and they were saying, it's not that much, it will just be gone. But for me I want to make sure I use it for something and it doesn't just get involved in my bill, because it would just get lost.
FLOCK: For you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know, for a fact, my brake pads are going out, and if I didn't have this refund it would be on a credit card debt, so it's straight pay, instead of interest.
FLOCK: OK, a new bedroom set and brake pads, potentially. So there's a couple of ideas for what to do with your refund.
BATTISTA: Jeff, you have been talking to people all day long there. What's the general overall consensus here? People going to spend it rather than save it?
FLOCK: My straw poll here reveals, yeah, a large number of people have plans to pay bills for stuff they have already bought. How much new spending will there be as a result of this? I don't know. Some people talking about college funds for kids and that sort of thing. And money that is already sort of spoken for. So -- the lady we just talked to here, who's going to buy something new with it, it's reasonably uncommon.
BATTISTA: All right, Jeff, thanks very much. And do feel free to spend your check on me, if you'd like.
FLOCK: What do you think? You see anything you like here?
BATTISTA: I will let you know.
FLOCK: It could you.
BATTISTA: Thanks very much. John, does it really matter what people do with their refund check? I mean, are we going to see that sort of a hoped for trickle down effect and see the economy take a boost here?
FUND: It can't hurt. You know, Bobbie, for once, when somebody says the check is in the mail, it's going to be true. This is great. Also: let's be honest, no, it won't have an enormous effect, but I think the timing will be very helpful.
This tax cut went through in record time. Passed before Memorial Day. The checks are already in the mail. So I think whatever the effect it has will come just at the time the economy is slowing down. We want a boost. I think it may accelerate the recovery a little bit. And let's face it: this is the fundamental philosophical divide. Some people think it's better spent in Washington on programs Washington wants. Some people think it's better spent for families and things they want.
So this I think is a political statement, as well as an economic statement.
BATTISTA: Go ahead, I'm sorry.
PHILADELPHIA: I was going to say, just to comment on what John said there, last year in Pennsylvania, when the governor sent out $100 property tax rebate checks just before the election, Democrats accused him of trying to buy votes. And a lot of voters sent the money to school systems that they felt were underfunded, particularly the Philadelphia public school system, where they got more than $40,000 in donations within the first couple months. So people can use this money to make a political statement, too.
But having said that, I must admit that I'm like grappling with what I'm going to buy with it, rather than, what I'm going to protest with it.
BATTISTA: All right. James from the audience, what are you going to do with yours?
JAMES: As I said earlier, I have no control over it. My wife is going to handle that.
(LAUGHTER)
BATTISTA: And he admits that on national TV. All right.
GEORGE: It's quite clear that the governments at home can sometimes be more powerful than the government in Washington. But, you know, I think that's great, I agree with John that it's great that the people, you know, they can spend it as they want. They can pay off bills or pay off credit cards or, as the woman said, she is going buy something that she would have otherwise put on a credit card.
And considering we're at one of the highest levels of personal debt right now in the country, that's also pretty good as well.
BATTISTA: Jake, what do you think will be the legacy of this tax cut, in the long run?
TAPPER: You know, I don't -- look at this from a liberal perspective or from a conservative perspective. I hate to use the term, but I look at this as a member of Generation X. And I just have to say, the tax cut -- and I understand George Bush's perspective. If he didn't give the money back to the people, the Democrats in the Senate would spend it on other programs catering to baby boomers.
But our generation is totally going to get screwed, when it comes to Medicare, when it comes to Social Security, because of tax cuts like this and because of irresponsible spending by the Senate, which is the only other alternative in Washington. And so, I'm appalled by all of it, frankly.
GEORGE: Which, of course, Jake, to piggyback on what Desa said earlier on, that's why I know for a fact that at least one group of Gen X'ers, for example, is giving them a list of different charities and so forth that they can send their money to, so they can make an actual difference in people's lives, and not just spend it. So I think there is sort of a Gen X direct democracy approach to using this tax cut.
TAPPER: Robert, you and I will be the ones needing the charity when it comes time for us to get Social Security and there's nothing left because John Fund's generation has squandered it all.
(CROSSTALK)
GEORGE: That of course is why we need Social Security reform, so we can you know take -- that's another...
FUND: Jake, I want to agree with you. If I have a criticism of George W. Bush, I think he's been way too cautious on Social Security reform, which at least he had the courage to campaign on the last election. I think the Social Security Commission we have will have to come up with bold proposals. George W. Bush cannot take the political easy road, we need Social Security reform. The political window is closing. I agree with you, this administration will be judged very much on how it deals with the payroll taxes, which everyone pays, and which are crushing them, everyone more than the income tax.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: I take it back, I'm sorry I went after your generation -- I'm sorry, John.
GEORGE: And the big irony of this is that George W. Bush and the Republicans actually didn't want the rebate checks. That was something that the Democrats insisted upon in the negotiations. But the irony is, it may just bounce back and...
TAPPER: It will get worse.
BATTISTA: Desa, we should also remember that not everybody is getting a tax refund check, particularly those are paying taxes on Social Security and Medicare, and living off that. And they are not getting a tax cut, which may be somewhat of a surprise to them.
PHILADELPHIA: Well, as the woman in the Wal-Mart said, those people are clearly going to be disappointed. I didn't agree with this tax cut to begin with, but people are getting the checks back. And, you know, I think, you know, it -- depending on, you know, whether or not it's a check they can afford to forego, maybe they should try to make a political statement with it. On behalf of themselves and those people who aren't getting it back, who they feel should have been.
BATTISTA: To the audience and Tara here, and then we'll get off the subject. Tara?
TARA: When we first talked about it, they had asked the audience what they had thought about it, I said, I really don't care because I knew it was coming, I got the thing in the mail, opened it up, and they said I wasn't getting any, so I just threw it in the trash. So I don't care what's going on in this subject.
BATTISTA: OK, Bill in Spring City says: "That $600 rebate isn't going to make up for my $2,000 monthly loss due to a poor economy. I'd rather have the fiscal responsibility that keeps the economy going, instead of an irresponsible tax cut."
And Tiffany in Bowling Brook, Illinois says: "My tax relief check is going to be saved for a past debt. I don't think this tax relief is going to do much."
We'll take a break. With Chandra Levy still missing, police want to talk to Congressman Gary Condit again, for the fourth time. So far, though, no crime, no suspects and not much to go on. So what do they want with the congressman? We'll have more on that.
A Boston-based group has set up a Web site where people can send their tax rebate back to the Treasury Department or promise to give it to charity. RejectTheRebate.com has received about 16,000 hits and more than $100,000 in pledges to donate tax rebates.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Washington police are combing two Washington parks again today, looking for missing intern Chandra Levy, but the focus again has turned to Congressman Gary Condit. "The Washington Post" reports that police want a fourth interview now with the congressman.
And you know, you guys on the panel, we really, you know, have no idea. We're not any closer to knowing whether or not there's any connection at all between the disappearance of this young woman and the congressman.
At this point, I'm really more interested politically -- and John, I'll start with you because I know you have to go -- whether you think that the congressman will be able to survive all of this despite any connection or not.
FUND: Well, for the Levy family, certainly we're glad that all of this attention focused. Were that every missing person got this kind of attention: Unfortunately, so far, it hasn't turned up everything.
Politically, look, Gary Condit is following the advice of lawyers: Don't talk to anyone. You never hear his voice. He's like the male Garbo. And his strategy is very much parallel to that of Bill Clinton's, which is if you stonewall long enough and you have your staff protect you from the media long enough, you don't have to answer questions, and you do minimal legal cooperation, eventually this will blow over and people will move on to something else to pay attention to.
It's not the right thing to do, but let's face it: Bill Clinton changed the rule book for a lot of politicians. And sadly, I think Gary Condit may at least serve out this term and not meet full accountability.
BATTISTA: And...
GEORGE: Of course the big difference, though, Bobbie, is that (a) the little district that Gary Condit represents is not the broad United States. He's not the president. He's certainly not Bill Clinton. And all of this -- all this focus on him, you know, he may very well be able to serve out his -- serve out the current term, but I think his career is basically toast. BATTISTA: On the other hand, you guys, the longer this goes without a crime, without a body, without any real connection, I mean, they could have short memories out there in Modesto and forgive their congressman for all of this.
GEORGE: I don't think -- I don't think Chandra's -- I don't think Chandra's parents are going to let the issue -- pardon the expression -- are not going to let the issue die. I think -- I think if Chandra is not found, they are going to be -- I think they've already threatened to go out campaigning against Condit.
PHILADELPHIA: I think that's the main difference between Bill Clinton's case and Gary Condit's case, is that Monica Lewinsky wasn't missing. The well-being of a young -- the physical well-being, even though she probably has emotional scars from this -- but the physical well-being of a young woman wasn't in question here. And I think that's why Gary Condit may have benefited from being out there on this one, saying, you know, yes, we had an affair, but I didn't harm her, to make a direct appeal to the people. Because, I mean, the sad thing about this is that Chandra Levy probably won't be found. Her picture has been so ubiquitous by now that if anyone had seen anything, they probably would have reported it. I mean, Gary Condit couldn't dump trash without somebody calling him in.
If -- I think if someone had any information, we would have heard it by now.
BATTISTA: Jake, what do you think?
TAPPER: Well, I mean, I think that he represents a very conservative district in California, and he's represented it pretty well by being one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Party, a Blue Dog. Perhaps he emphasized the "dog" part of that a little too much.
I think that he's going to be in trouble. I think the most interesting thing is this whole idea that Vice President Dick Cheney was his alibi during the time that Chandra supposedly logged off her computer on May 1st. At that point, Cheney was meeting with Condit in the White House for anywhere from 20 minutes to 45 minutes. Unfortunately for the White House, which is actually doing some legitimate reaching out to conservative Democrats in attempts at bipartisan solutions, for some reason Vice President Dick Cheney has kept pretty mum on this particular Blue Dog meeting. I can't imagine why.
GEORGE: Hey, Bobbie...
BATTISTA: Yeah.
GEORGE: ... as this issue develops, do you think Monica Lewinsky thanks her lucky stars that Linda Tripp saved that dress?
BATTISTA: You asking me?
GEORGE: Well, it's -- you never know -- you never know what could have happened if there hadn't been some evidence there, too. So...
BATTISTA: You know, let me ask you this: I mean, there have been several calls for a House ethics investigation against the congressman for obstructing justice. You know, the committee has deferred right now on that. But if that is pursued -- and do you guys think it will be pursued by, for example, Bob Barr?
FUND: It will be, but you know, there's a separate issue that comes even before the House ethics investigation, which would take weeks or months. Congressman Condit sits on the Intelligence Committee, which handles our top secrets. And he clearly is a candidate for blackmail. If ever there was a walking candidate for blackmail, it's now obvious it's Gary Condit.
He should resign from the Intelligence Committee or be removed from it, because he's clearly not fit as a candidate for blackmail to have access to all of those secrets.
TAPPER: Does that mean that every single member of that committee should -- we should screen to make sure that they're not having affairs, they're not leading double lives?
FUND: First of all -- first of all...
TAPPER: Everybody that works at the Pentagon we should make sure...
FUND: ... no one -- no one -- no, no, no. But Bill Clinton signed an executive order in November 1995 saying that if you come under undue exposure to blackmail -- and a simple affair wouldn't do it, but Gary Condit clearly had a much more varied and interesting life, a deplorable life, if you do that, then you're a candidate for blackmail. And at some point, the foreign intelligence agencies could have undue influence over you.
Bill Clinton himself told Monica Lewinsky, a foreign embassy is probably listening to our conversations, we have to come up with a cover story. That kind of -- that kind of exposure, when you have access to national secrets, is not a good thing.
GEORGE: Jake, I'm sure you would agree that Condit hasn't demonstrated much intelligence at all.
(LAUGHTER)
TAPPER: That's cheap.
BATTISTA: On that -- on that note, we'll take a quick break here. And John Fund, we know that you need to run. Thank you very much for joining us today.
We'll be back in just a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Let me get some audience reaction here. Ken, go ahead. Your comment?
KEN: Well, I think if the congressman lied in the first place about the affair, then there's also a lot more that he's lied about.
BATTISTA: Debbie.
DEBBIE: I think that there's been ample time to cover any evidence there may have been. There's been 80-plus days involved in this. I feel badly that so much time, effort and money has been spent on this case when there's -- when they said on the news there's another 140 missing persons in the Washington, D.C. area.
I do not feel that, you know, that she'll be found at this point. If there is indeed a body somewhere, he's had plenty of time -- anyone, not he -- but anyone had time to cover.
I think they should have gone -- you know, started sooner, gotten back to that apartment, if there was some evidentiary things there like a pregnancy test, the big news that she had. You know, that could have been found earlier on. But to check -- to check something 80 days after the fact, I mean, they've had time to cover tracks -- her keys were missing and that type of thing.
BATTISTA: You're not the only one to criticize the police investigation of this. In fact, Jake, you've written a couple of pieces on that as well.
TAPPER: Yeah. I -- I used to be a police reporter for the "Washington City Paper" here, and I have to say that the Washington -- Washington, D.C. Police Department is certainly not the best one in the world.
Look, I mean, this is a police department -- usually, the FBI is mocked in this day and age. People don't have much confidence in the FBI. Here in D.C., we're excited when the FBI gets involved. We can't for them to take over the investigation.
There have been a lot of mistakes, a lot of errors, a lot of witnesses not interviewed. By not being proactive originally, they were not able to get videotapes from Chandra Levy's apartment from the security cameras. There was an ABC News reporter who met with Condit on May 2nd. In Condit's original timeline, he claimed that he met with her on May 1st. That reporter has still not been interviewed by the police.
It's very, very odd behavior.
BATTISTA: You know, I don't get it. I don't think anyone does. We all feel -- every day we do this topic with a live audience, we all know, feel like we could be better, you know, homicide investigators than the D.C. police these days. But maybe we're just watching too much TV. I don't know.
Peter in Pennsylvania is on the line. Go ahead, Peter.
PETER: Hi. I just want to say that the reason Gary Condit is being treated as a suspect is because Howard Stern is...
BATTISTA: On my birthday no less a Howard Stern call. Please. So boring.
Kathy on the phone in California.
KATHY: Yeah, I think we're rushing to judgment. None of us has any idea what the congressman has talked to the police about. I'm sure they haven't divulged all their information. And I think it's being spearheaded by the news media.
I wish that people would step back a little bit and let this thing play itself out naturally.
BATTISTA: You think the media is over the top a little, Robert?
KATHY: Yeah.
GEORGE: Well, I would -- I would tend to actually disagree with the caller, because, I mean, obviously there's been -- we're in a media overkill, yes. But the truth of the matter is Condit has been incredibly, helpful to the media in terms of, in a sense, acting guilty by being deceptive on numerous occasions, sending out own his spokesmen, which people should remember spokesmen that because they work for his office are on the public payroll. And he's -- he's lied to them and basically sent them out to lie on his behalf as well.
When he knows that all the cameras in the world are watching him, he goes out and discards something when his apartment is about to be searched.
I mean, he's -- he's given the media more than enough material to warrant all this speculation.
TAPPER: I know. Isn't that the most bizarre thing? He takes that -- the watch box and runs to a dumpster in Alexandria, Virginia...
BATTISTA: Yeah.
TAPPER: ... to hide it. Like because what? Because there's this fear that maybe we'll think that he's a womanizer?
(LAUGHTER)
GEORGE: This -- this just in.
PHILADELPHIA: And this from a man, too, who had really harsh words of admonishment for President Clinton when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was ongoing. He said, you know, you can't drip, drip, drip: Information is going to come out and hurt you. Or something to that effect. So talk about not taking your own advice.
BATTISTA: How does this guy get elected seven times, and then when did he have time to work? I don't know.
GEORGE: He clearly -- he clearly seduced his district, Bobbie.
BATTISTA: So to speak.
Janet, go ahead, from Canada.
JANET: Hi. From a Canadian perspective, I know that we wish that our politicians went under the same public scrutiny as the ones south of the border. Take a look at our own prime minister in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as an example, securing federal loans for friends. We really would like to see the same kind of public outcry that we see here.
BATTISTA: Be careful what you wish for, I can tell you that right now.
Do any of you think that -- I'm sure the police are probably still pursuing this, that he should take a lie detector test again, this one police-administered.
TAPPER: Yeah. Apparently, there's still holes in his story and questions about timeline, questions about the meeting with Cheney, whether it was 15 minutes, whether it was 45 minutes. Obviously running to the dumpster.
I mean, what -- who is giving this guy advice? A dumpster.
BATTISTA: I don't know.
GEORGE: Well, I think -- I think, Bobbie, another -- a lie detector administered by the cops, the FBI would actually give him a certain amount of more legitimacy. But besides -- and the thing is the Cheney meeting, it's not an alibi for him as such, because I don't think even those -- even people who believe that he had something to do with her disappearance don't think that he himself actually dragged her away somewhere. He could have been meeting with Cheney while having directed somebody to -- to, you know, take care of her.
BATTISTA: Well, that would be the perfect alibi, that's for sure. Michael, go ahead...
TAPPER: Let me also say this.
BATTISTA: Yeah.
TAPPER: I think that there is -- there is a little -- I'm sorry for interrupting your audience member.
BATTISTA: That's OK.
TAPPER: Well, let him go ahead.
BATTISTA: Oh, Michael, go ahead, quickly.
MICHAEL: I think that the congressman would have been better served if, when the family initially called him, that he would have confirmed to them in private that he had an affair and that he was very concerned, he had nothing to do, and offered all of his support to try to help find her, and ask them respect so they could keep it on the down-low. I think he would have been, you know, much better well- served if he had took that route.
PHILADELPHIA: I agree with you, Michael.
BATTISTA: All right. Let's check our online viewer vote here quickly. The question today was -- I forget already -- what would you do with your tax relief check?
32 percent, blow it; 60 percent, bank it; 7 percent, leave it in Alan Greenspan's hands.
All right. I appreciate all of you guys being with us once again. Jake, Robert, Desa, thank you all very much.
GEORGE: Happy birthday, Bobbie.
BATTISTA: Thank you, guys.
TAPPER: Happy birthday, Bobbie. Are you 25?
BATTISTA: I appreciate it.
PHILADELPHIA: Enjoy.
BATTISTA: Yeah, 29 and holding.
GEORGE: Don't spend it all -- don't spend it all in one place.
BATTISTA: All right. Join us again tomorrow at 3:00 for more TALKBACK LIVE. We'll see you then.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
