|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Should Charities Accept Lottery Winnings?; Should Doctors be Allowed to Strike?
Aired January 2, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Calling 911. Doctors are on strike. Surgeons are protesting the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. Are they leaving some patients without critical care? Is it a doctor's duty to stay on the job, no matter what?
And he wants to be president. North Carolina Senator John Edwards says he wants to be a champion for the regular people. Will his background as a millionaire trial lawyer help or hurt his chances for the White House?
And show me the money. They hit the jackpot. And now they want to give something back to the church. But should religious organizations profit from lottery dollars? We'll tell you why one is saying thanks for the millions, while another is marking the check, return to sender.
TALKBACK LIVE begins right now.
Hello, everybody, And welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Michael Smerconish, in for the vacationing Arthel Neville.
Now, you may remember that I'm a radio talk show host back in Philadelphia. As a matter of fact, we're simulcasting this on 1210 a.m., the Big Talker, back in Philly right now.
Some sick people in West Virginia are facing a medical dilemma. If they need critical care, they may have to leave the state. Surgeons in West Virginia are on strike. They say they can't afford skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums and they can't practice medicine without insurance.
Let's get the facts on this story from CNN's Whitney Casey -- hey, Whitney.
WHITNEY CASEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Michael.
Well, we're here in West Virginia. And earlier this morning, you have to know that -- excuse me. I'm going to take this out. But you have to know that doctors here in West Virginia knew that they would have this problem. So, they set up a contingency plan.
And that contingency plan was just what you said, Michael, earlier. They were going to send patients to other states. And that happened just this morning. A woman came in. She needed emergency surgery. The hospital couldn't do it, because there were no surgeons here. So, they had to send her 88 miles away. That's what the doctors are dealing with.
I'm just going to show you around the hospital right now in the emergency room. That's an operating room right here. As you can see, there are a lot of empty beds, because I guess West Virginians got the memo, because they didn't show up today. They said that, today, this is not a very crowded E.R. here. But it usually is.
They said that most patients know about this. It's been in the news, that patients know that the doctors were striking today. And they now know, too, that, if they have emergency care, the doctors will then send them to other states.
This is the emergency room here. And, as you can see, there are doctors here. It is surgeons that are striking. These are doctors that are on call. They do not do surgery. But the doctors that did not have -- the doctors that are protesting are protesting because their medical malpractice insurance, they are saying, is too high.
I'm going to tell you a couple reasons why they say it is too high. Here are the facts. They say that their medical malpractice is too high because availability. They say that there are not enough people that are supplying insurance for doctors. So, just like in a market, you have no availability. You have no supply. Costs skyrocket.
Another reason, they say, are caps. They want caps on medical malpractice lawsuits. They want that, because, if you have an exorbitant amount in a lawsuit, then the insurance has to pay it. And then what happens is, the premiums go up. In California...
SMERCONISH: Trial lawyers, on the other hand -- and I confess to you, I am one of those terrible trial lawyers from Philadelphia -- they would say there's a lot of medical error, a lot of medical malpractice out there, and that the doctors don't police themselves.
What do the physicians say in response to the trial lawyers?
CASEY: Actually, the American Medical Association says that over 80 percent of these trials of these lawsuits that are being filed are meritless lawsuits.
So, if you take that into consideration, that 80 percent of these are being filed are meritless, it still costs the legal system about $22,000, even if it's a meritless lawsuit. So, that's what doctors are saying, regardless. And, if it is a meritless lawsuit, it still goes to their insurer, because that insurer has to pay that $22,000 in legal fees. No matter if they were not at all at all, their insurance premiums still rise.
SMERCONISH: I wonder how much is attributable to just bad business practices on the part of those insurance companies as well? It's a complex subject.
CASEY: I have another thing to add.
I talked to a woman today -- because there's a lot of questions about, what are the patients thinking about this? What is community support like? Well, in Scranton, Pennsylvania, you could see billboards on the highways saying that, "We support our doctors."
Here in West Virginia, I was speaking to a woman who was waiting in the E.R. today. She said that she supported the doctors wholeheartedly. When I asked about her 18-month-old child that she had with her, I said, what if something happened on the way to the hospital? What would you do if there were no surgeons in the E.R. to care of your 18-month? She changed. She said: I would be, in fact very angry if the surgeons were striking. So, it's all sort of situational.
SMERCONISH: It depends who's involved, Whitney, doesn't it?
CASEY: Yes.
SMERCONISH: Hey, thank you for your great report. We appreciate it very, very much.
Let's try and hash this one out.
With me today: Floyd Brown, the executive director of the Young America's Foundation. That's a leadership development program. And this guy overseas the preservation of the Ronald Reagan Ranch. That's pretty cool. Sam Greenfield is a radio talk show host with WEVD in New York City.
Gentlemen, welcome, to both you.
Floyd, I want to start with you.
Shouldn't doctors, much the same as cops and firefighters, be prohibited from ever walking out the door on strike?
FLOYD BROWN, PRESIDENT, YOUNG AMERICA'S FOUNDATION: Well, it's really tough on these doctors. And, frankly, I don't like to see doctors striking, as anyone else does.
But they have a real problem here. And that is, is that, for a while now, the trial lawyers have targeted their profession. And people have gotten the notion that they can win the lottery after a surgical procedure, and so they'll hire trial lawyers. And it is driving the medical malpractice system just almost out of existence.
I really feel for the doctors these days. I mean, they're regulated by government. They're regulated by their insurers. They don't make nearly as much money as they used to make. And they have a tremendous amount of risk. And it's very dangerous when you cut someone open and you start to play with their internal organs. That's a very dangerous thing.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Hold on, my friend.
No less an institution than Harvard University has said that about 100,000 patients in the United States per year die because of a medical error. That's more than in car accidents. So, isn't a large part of this problem the fact that the physicians are not policing themselves?
BROWN: You can talk about those that die. There are millions of others that are saved through these surgical techniques.
I mean, for example, I had an appendicitis recently. And when I went in and had a very talented surgeon cut into my abdomen and pull out my appendicitis and my appendix and make me better, 150 years ago, Michael, I would have been dead. And we've had tremendous advances. Now we go in and we work with brains. We work with hearts. We work with lungs. We work with stomachs.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: I think, Floyd, the bottom line is, there are sloppy plumbers and there are sloppy lawyers. And, yes, there are sloppy doctors.
Let me ask Sam about this.
Sam, do you share all the sympathy that our friend Floyd has for the medical profession or do you see it a little differently?
SAM GREENFIELD, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I share sympathy for the medical profession.
But I think it's a shame that the insurance companies get a chance to hide away and not take the real blame. These doctors aren't on strike because they're some kind of evil money-grubbers. They're on strike because the insurance companies, the most overkill profit organizations in the United States, are soaking these people. And they can't practice medicine unless they have insurance.
And these are the guys who hide. You know, it always seems to me there's some kind of Republican meeting where they decide to designate trial lawyers as the villains. Trial lawyers are the people who sue big corporations when they ruin people's lives.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Hey, everybody hates them until they need one.
GREENFIELD: Trial lawyers are the people who sue doctors when they make mistakes. Doctors aren't out to make mistakes. But we talked about doctors. We talked about trial lawyers. And insurance companies get to hide away. They're the villains in this piece, because they're gouging the doctors.
SMERCONISH: Sam, thanks for that.
Let me get Karen in here on a telephone call. She's in New York. (CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Hang on there, guy.
Here's Karen. She's on a cell phone.
Karen, go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Karen, are you there?
CALLER: Yes, I'm here.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Sam, you got to hold on, my friend. You got to just hold on for a second.
GREENFIELD: Sure.
SMERCONISH: I want Karen to come in. She's on a phone call.
Hi, Karen. Welcome.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you.
I think the very act of the doctors doing this strike, that it's going to affect the patients they claim to care about, shows their mind-set and their agenda over the patients. It shows that we need to keep malpractice insurance out there. We need to have the patients have the right and the ability to sue, because, if they're willing to do this in a very public way, they're willing to do other things, in my opinion, in a nonpublic way.
SMERCONISH: Karen, thanks for the comment.
That's all the time that we have for this story.
Later this hour, churches and the lottery. Some jackpot winners want to give back money. But should churches accept it?
You can weigh in on that today with our "Question of the Day." Phone me or e-mail me and I'll take your answers later this hour.
Up next: day two of the new year and hats already are flying in the political arena in bids for the White House. In a moment, we'll talk about one man who wants W.'s job.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Hey, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Michael Smerconish.
North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who has made millions as a trial lawyer, says he wants to be president. His pitch: He wants to be the champion of the regular people.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: I run for president to be champion -- to be a champion for the same people I fought for all my life, regular folks.
They are people like my own family, where I was the first to go to college and my dad worked in a textile mill all of his life, or my mother's last job was working at the post office, to the people I went to school with, the people I grew up with, the families that I represented for almost two decades as a lawyer. And exactly the same group of people, they are the reason I ran for the United States Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Senator John Edwards is going to be a guest on INSIDE POLITICS, coming up after TALKBACK LIVE today.
Do you think that Edwards will be able to shake the negative stigma of being a trial lawyer as he goes after W.'s job?
Let me bring in my other two panelists on this question. Kathryn Lopez is the editor of "National Review Online." And Alan Amberg is the founder and president of Diverse Communications, a marketing firm for National Health Media Programs.
Let me start with you, Alan.
I can already hear the commercial they'll be running against this guy. It's going to be one of those where they say everything that they have learned about foreign policy or that he has learned on foreign policy came from the International House of Pancakes. How does he get around the fact that he's got no foreign policy experience?
ALAN AMBERG, DIVERSE COMMUNICATIONS: Well you know, you heard it already. You heard the Young America's Foundation guy start on the trial lawyers.
Now, I looked in the papers today. And it seemed to me that it said something about John's personal fortune at being $14 million. Now, that's going to be used against him. On the other hand, one of the darlings of the Republican Party, Michael Bloomberg, is a multimillionaire. And you don't really see that being used against him.
The question is, is, will he be able to shake off this idea that, because he's a trial lawyer, that somehow makes him bad? In the meantime, you take look at some of the real criminals out there, the Kenneth Lays of the world and the fellow at the head of Adelphia, who have stolen billions of dollars from Americans, and somehow we're not supposed to have lawyers who can sue them and try and get money back for the average people who have lost their savings. SMERCONISH: Kathryn Lopez, doesn't he have point there? Say what you will about Edwards, but he is a rags-to-riches story. And he's going to be running against, should he get the Democratic nod, a man of privilege in George W. Why can't he portray himself as the Horatio Alger that America loves?
KATHRYN LOPEZ, EDITOR, "NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE": Well, he's going to.
And I actually don't think the trial lawyer issue, believe it or not, is going to hurt him. He has the advantage of knowing going in what his greatest disadvantage might be, this trial lawyer thing. I think he's going to take care of that pretty early on. I think that, you know, you saw what you're going to see for the primary season.
It's, you know, rags to riches, nice guy, fighting, championing for the little person. So, I don't think that's -- the trial lawyer thing is going to hurt him as much as we think today it will.
SMERCONISH: Well, I've got one of his constituent here.
Laurie, you're from North Carolina?
LAURIE: Yes.
SMERCONISH: Yes?
LAURIE: I live in Wilmington.
SMERCONISH: Is he a good guy? What's the deal on this fellow?
LAURIE: I hardly know him. He's spent the four years he's been in office running around the United States trying to be president and done very, very well for North Carolina, as far as I can see.
SMERCONISH: Now, I want you to tell me what you really think. Don't hold back on this guy, all right? Just because we're on national TV, you don't have to pull any punches.
LAURIE: The state has a lot of fiscal issues. And we have got problems, as other states. But he doesn't seem to be returning much to the state.
(CROSSTALK)
LAURIE: ... Horatio Alger or whatever for the people. He just seems to run from one fund-raiser to another, trying to get himself to be president of the United States.
SMERCONISH: Let me ask Sam what he's got.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Go ahead, Sam. I hear you.
GREENFIELD: Yes. The guy who John Edwards beat, Lauch Faircloth, was the guy who polluted all the streams and rivers around his hog farms. So, at least he has that going for him.
I think it's kind of a sad commentary that this guy is an attorney, a man with a law degree, a happily married guy, and they're trying to turn the fact he's an attorney against him. But, if history teaches us anything, this guy could be the next Democratic nominee, because the last two nominees that the Democrats had that were successful were Southern men. And both of those guys won the presidency, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
This guy, to me, is in the same mold, a little more clean-cut, a little more Kennedy-esque. But the Republicans railing against a successful lawyer is hysterical. That's great, seriously. That's the greatest joke of the rich. He's rich. Let's get him. Oh, good move for the Republicans.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Thank you, Sam. We're going to have to cut you if you don't let me cut in here every once in a while.
Listen, Floyd, you're out there in California running the Reagan Ranch. I can't imagine you've got too many favorable things to say about John Edwards.
BROWN: Well, I think, on the trial lawyer issue, actually, being a trial lawyer is going to help him, because he's going to be able to fund-raise very effectively all over the country with his trial lawyer buddies. And they have a lot of money. They're the No. 1 fund- raisers for the Democratic Party now.
(CROSSTALK)
AMBERG: Oh, his trial lawyers buddies like the Enron buddies?
BROWN: That will definitely help him.
But I think the weakness on Edwards lies in his, really, condescending way that he's proposing his plans. I mean, on the face, they really don't work. He wants to give everyone a free college education. He also wants to extend a lot of health benefits.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Hey, gang, we're out of time on this one. Save your energy, because we've got lots of good stuff coming up.
As a matter of fact, up next: Are they dollars from the devil or gains for God? When charities and churches are hurting for funds, why are some religious groups turning down donations from lottery winners?
Details when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Michael Smerconish, in for Arthel Neville. You remember Andrew Jack Whittaker? He's the West Virginia fellow who won $170 million in the Powerball lottery last week. In keeping with his practice of tithing, he's giving $17 million to the Church of God. And they're only too happy to receive it.
David Rush won more than $14 million in the Florida lottery last month. But when he tried to give $100,000 to the Salvation Army in Naples, Florida, they said, no thanks. Some officials at the Salvation Army branch consider the lottery to be a form of gambling. Surprise, surprise.
Now, Donna from New York is a lottery winner.
Am I right about that, Donna?
DONNA: Yes.
SMERCONISH: I'm not going to ask how much you won. Is that all right?
DONNA: OK.
SMERCONISH: You can whisper it in my ear.
My goodness. Good for you.
Now, let me ask you, what do you think? Who has got the right idea, the church that says, thanks a lot for the cash, or the Salvation Army that says, you know, these are ill-gotten gains and we don't want a piece of the action?
DONNA: Well, I guess it would depend on their opinion of things. The economy's bad now. I would think they would take the money. But, also, if it's the man that millionaire, how do they know the money's coming straight from his lotto winnings, not from his other millionaire businesses enterprises personally?
SMERCONISH: You kind of wonder why the fellow didn't just walk by -- you know, at Christmas time, when they're out there ringing the bell?
DONNA: Oh, yes.
SMERCONISH: He could have just walked by and dropped 100 grand in the kitty, I imagine.
DONNA: That's true. He could have did it that way, too.
SMERCONISH: I was figuring he probably needs a paper trail for the IRS and that's probably why he didn't do it.
DONNA: Absolutely.
SMERCONISH: All right. Well, congratulations to you. And rub some fortune on my elbow there, because I play back in Pennsylvania as well. I think I've got Rose from Florida on the line on TALKBACK LIVE.
Hey, Rose, what do you say?
CALLER: I'd like to know how many times he prayed to God that he would win? He thanks God that he did win. And what about bingos in churches?
SMERCONISH: Well, you know what it also reminds me of? It reminds me of the athletes who, if they score a touchdown and all of a sudden they cross the goal line and they're pointing up into the sky. I've never liked that, because, I mean, they should be giving thanks for good health and so forth. But I've never liked the idea.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Go ahead, Floyd. Tell me.
BROWN: One of the things here is that the Salvation Army works with poor people and they work with desperate people. And, a lot of times, these people are buying lottery tickets.
And it breaks my heart every time they go to a trailer park and people that are absolutely desperate financially are buying lottery tickets. And it's absolutely a terrible investment. The odds are terrible. It's legalized theft. And the lottery is a bad deal for the Americans that participate. We ought to not have lotteries.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Wait a minute. Floyd, you surprise. I would have thought, Floyd, that you would have been a free market guy who would say, if that's what they want to do with their dough, then more power to them.
BROWN: Well, these lotteries are not free market. They're big government. These are programs that only help big government and big government spending.
It's not about freedom. It's about really exploiting and taxing low-wage people.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: All right, I'm going to get to the rest of the panel after the break.
And I want to hear what people at home think about this one. Should churches accept lottery winnings? Call me or e-mail me and I'll take your answers later this hour.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Michael Smerconish in for Arthel Neville.
We're talking about religious groups accepting or not accepting lottery winnings as donations. Is it tainted money? Let me do a quick poll of the studio audience here at the CNN Center in Atlanta. I want you to applaud if you think the churches should give back the money.
(APPLAUSE)
SMERCONISH: Now let me hear from you if you think the churches should keep the money.
(APPLAUSE)
SMERCONISH: Pretty overwhelming. Pretty overwhelming. Let me get Kathryn Lopez in from National Review Online. Kathryn, what do you think about this controversy?
LOPEZ: Well, I agree with everything Floyd said earlier. It is heartbreaking to see people hoping against hope to win the Lotto. On the other hand, you know, it's a free country in both regards. People are free to spend money on the Lotto, and churches and religious groups like the Salvation Army are free to choose not to take the money if they want.
Some churches will take it. You know, as one audience member or caller mentioned earlier, some churches will sponsor bingos. On the other hand, if people like the Salvation Army or that branch in Florida doesn't want the money, that's their choice. And we shouldn't be criticizing them. I know the guy who wanted to donate the money said they were being sanctimonious and holier than thou. But I think, you know, more power to them; we should respect them even more for having...
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: But Kathryn, you know that one of the things that the Salvation Army does is they counsel people who are on the verge of becoming homeless. Wouldn't it be hypocritical for the Salvation Army to accept that money knowing exactly where it came from?
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Kathryn first. That's who I asked the question to. Kathryn first, and then your chance, Sam.
(CROSSTALK)
LOPEZ: That's clearly what the Salvation Army guy in Florida thought. And I think it's clearly their choice to do that or not. And I think they have a principled position and we should applaud them for that. Whether or not we agree with it or not.
SMERCONISH: Sam, what do you say on this?
GREENFIELD: Very quickly, there are no bad guys in this. One of the reasons the Salvation Army turned down the money, specifically, that particular branch, is that they counsel people who have lost their livelihoods because of gambling. So he felt it would be hypocritical to take that money. The guy who won the lottery, therefore, has the option to turn and give it to another charity. But the Salvation Army, I don't think is being high-handed, I think they're being sincere.
They counsel -- I used to live in Las Vegas, where people lose their whole livelihoods and their kids' college education. So the fact that they're saying we don't want the money, they're not being high-handed. They counsel people who are gambling addicts, and they feel they're (ph) being hypocritical. I think they have a point.
SMERCONISH: Alan Amberg, do you agree?
AMBERG: You know, one of the things that I think gets lost in all of this is that the problem with lotteries is not, per se, that they're gambling. It's that the money comes out of the neighborhoods and is redistributed away from poor people. Unlike casinos that are set up, for instance, in the Chicago area to please people who live in poor neighborhoods, lottery winnings at least go to education and things like that.
And if we had a system where the lottery winnings were coming back to the neighborhoods where the tickets were being purchased to support education, to support services in that neighborhood, that wouldn't necessarily be such a bad thing. Now, the Salvation Army, they do a lot of great things, but have some mighty peculiar ideas as well.
SMERCONISH: Let me try and get to Steven (ph) -- thank you. I'm going to get somebody in from the studio audience. Steven (ph), where in Georgia are you from, pal?
STEVEN: Cartersville.
SMERCONISH: And how old are you?
STEVEN: Twelve.
SMERCONISH: Now you've never played the lottery, have you?
STEVEN: No.
SMERCONISH: Do you have an opinion on this issue? You know the drill. I mean, some guys won big money in lotteries and they want to give it to charity, and the charity says there's something not right about this dough; we don't want it. Or at least one of them said that.
STEVEN: Well, it was all over the news that the Salvation Army was in dire need of money and some generous guy tries to give them money. And now they're not going to take it?
SMERCONISH: Hey, listen. My buddy Steven (ph) here has got a good point. From a business standpoint, isn't the message being sent by the Salvation Army that they don't need the money?
AMBERG: Michael?
SMERCONISH: Go ahead.
AMBERG: I work with poor agencies all over the south and west side of Chicago. If he's looking for people who do god's work, I can give him a list. People in the trenches who need that money, who could use that $100,000, and would really benefit these folks.
SMERCONISH: Let me show you an e-mail that we got from one of our viewers at home. "When the Salvation Army sets those belling ringing, Santa's out on the streets each holiday, they don't question where the money comes from." That's Jacqueline down in North Carolina. Doesn't she have a point?
AMBERG: But would they take (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of stock that have appreciated?
SMERCONISH: Floyd, what do you say on this? You're a little silent out there on the -- what do they call it -- Rancho de Cielo (ph)?
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Well, frankly, I think...
(CROSSTALK)
AMBERG: Wouldn't they take gifts of appreciated Enron stock?
BROWN: ... there is a bad guy in this. And the bad guy is big government that exploits poor people.
AMBERG: Oh, please. Please. Enron, man.
BROWN: The Salvation Army is right. Lotteries exploit poor people and they give people false hope. And that's why they're wrong. Besides that, they're bad investments.
AMBERG: And in the meantime, you have an administration that is cutting billions of dollars from essential services to fund a war we don't need in Iraq.
SMERCONISH: Wait a minute. You better save your breath on that one. That will take a whole other segment. Monique (ph) is from Michigan. Where in Michigan?
MONIQUE: I'm from Morenci.
SMERCONISH: Morenci, not sure where that -- how about Dearborn? I've heard of that place.
MONIQUE: Kind of near Dearborn.
SMERCONISH: What's your thought on this charity controversy. MONIQUE: My opinion is that it would be hypocritical for the church to take the money. They have such a firm stance against gambling. And if, for instance, a bank robber wanted to donate all their money, they'd say no way. And their opinion is the same. Both robbery and gambling are wrong. So there is no way...
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Did you ever play bingo, Monique (ph)? Did you ever play bingo?
MONIQUE: Not for money.
SMERCONISH: Not for money. But you know all these churches -- bingo is a big source of fundraising. I mean, it's the same as bingo, isn't it? I got you stumped. I got you stumped.
All right. That's all right. Who wanted to get in on that? I lost track of where we were -- Sam.
GREENFIELD: The church took the money. The Salvation Army turned down the money. And the guy in West Virginia who tithed 10 percent of his money, those churches took the money. It's the Salvation Army that's not taking it on the principle of they counsel people who have lost money due to gambling.
They're not being high-handed. I understand people's position, they should take the money, but they're being sincere.
SMERCONISH: But, hey, I've got to call time, because we've got more fun stuff ahead. As a matter of fact, you're going to love this one. The next time you board an America West airplane, you might want to keep your wallet handy. In a moment, why paying that airfare is only a ticket to ride and not a ticket to eat. More, when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Oh, you're going to love this one. We have all heard that the airline industry is facing tough economic times. Now America West is hoping to save some cash by charging passengers for something that many take for granted: food. The airline is going to test if travelers are willing to shell out a little dough for meals on flights lasting two and a half-hours or more.
Food service was cut back after a drop in revenue following last year's terrorist attacks. Now I have to tell you something. Two days ago, I flew America West from Phoenix back to Philadelphia. They served -- I thought it was lasagna. My while told me it was manicotti, and they served it with wafers. Now I don't remember since college eating wafers with manicotti or lasagna, but, anyway, now they want to charge for it.
And I want to ask the audience first. Applaud if you've ever had a memorably good meal on an airplane.
(APPLAUSE)
SMERCONISH: Holy smokes. You got to be kidding me. David (ph) from North Carolina, you had a good meal on an airplane?
DAVID: It's been a decade. It's been more than a decade.
SMERCONISH: I bet it was British Air or Air France or one of those overseas carriers. Who was it?
DAVID: Delta.
SMERCONISH: Delta, all right. Well, now I'm going to tell you my Delta story. Are you ready for this? I last hosted TALKBACK LIVE a couple of months ago. And I go over to the Atlanta airport to fly back to Philly and some guy gets on next to me and he has Chinese take-out. And he sits down and he opens the Chinese take-out next to me.
The whole plane stunk. And my attitude is, fly me, don't feed me. Anybody share that view? Let them focus on flying the airplane and not feeding me.
(APPLAUSE)
SMERCONISH: Not too many of you. Let me ask the panel. And we'll start with Kathryn. What's your thought on this? America West wants to charge for their food.
LOPEZ: I actually think it's a great idea. There's very little that differentiates airlines right now besides, you know, who gets you there on time or, more so, what's the cheapest price. And so, you know, create a little difference, a little competition, have people pay for a decent product, and see has what you get out of it.
You know, people can always choose to not fly America West if they don't want to pay extra for the food. On the other hand, you know...
SMERCONISH: Alan Amberg, have you ever had a good meal on an airplane, Alan?
AMBERG: Well, nowadays, we have pretty good restaurants in O'Hare and Denver and places like that. So I buy the meal in advance and I take it on.
SMERCONISH: Oh, no, no, no.
AMBERG: Now wait a minute, Michael.
SMERCONISH: Listen, when I got home that night, I smelled my Kung Pao chicken. You can't do that to the guy sitting next to you.
AMBERG: I think what would be interesting is if United and American paid us to eat their food. SMERCONISH: I love that. Let me ask this gentleman what he thinks about this. Al, are you from the state of Washington or Washington, D.C.?
AL: State of Washington.
SMERCONISH: What do you think about America West saying we're going to charge you for some chow?
AL: I'd rather that they charge, and then I wouldn't pay it. So then it would keep the cost of my ticket down. They're going to charge for the cost anyway, whether it's meals or airline service or whatever. So let them charge. I won't buy it, and it will keep the costs down.
SMERCONISH: But see, here's my beef, pun intended. My beef is I don't think the price is coming down. I would like to think that somehow I'm getting the money back in my pocket if I don't have to pay for your sandwich.
AL: But I think it will go up. So I'd rather let them charge everyone else. I won't buy it, and it will keep my costs down.
SMERCONISH: Let me go to Gunner (ph) in Idaho. He's on the telephone on TALKBACK LIVE. Hey Gunner (ph), how are you doing?
GUNNER: I'm doing great, sir. How about yourself?
SMERCONISH: All right. What's going on? Tell me what you think about paying for food on an airline?
GUNNER: I'm glad. When I had to fly across the country, the United States, it was only first class that got that real meal. So I'm kind of actually excited to maybe be able to get to eat and get myself full on the airline.
SMERCONISH: Sam, I got to hear from you on this. I haven't heard from you. What do you say?
GREENFIELD: This is food that you turn down when it's free. Now, they want to charge you. But let me say this. A couple of years ago, American Airlines -- this a true story -- took the olives out of their salads on their meals and saved $980,000. They're not going to charge you less, because they're losing money. They're trying to get back to even. But if they think I'm paying $4 for ice cream on an airline, woo!
SMERCONISH: I can hear them. They'll say, you know, if you're eating overnight on a Saturday, it will be one price. If you're eating before without staying over on -- you know, they got all those crazy rules for everything else. I want to see how they'd handle all the food on the airplane as well.
BROWN: Michael?
SMERCONISH: Go ahead, Floyd. BROWN: Don't you know what's driving this, Michael? I think this is great, because it's going to lead to better food. If you have the market's mechanism in there, and if people buy the food if they like it and don't buy it if they don't like it, then we're going to get better food on airlines.
So I think it's great they're charging. I think if they have a menu that provides a variety of options, it's going to lead to better food on airlines. And frankly, I'm one of the guys that pays for it now and turns it down anyway. I usually like to buy my food in Denver or Atlanta or wherever I'm flying through. I think it's a good move, though, for the airlines.
BROWN: I've never understood why, when you leave a destination that has good food -- like you leave Philly, right? They ought to serve you a cheese steak and they ought to buy them in south Philadelphia. But they never incorporate the delicacies of the area that you've just departed from. Makes no sense.
LOPEZ: Very quickly, the people -- you should know this, and I think people do -- the larger the group of people you're cooking for, the less quality taste the food is. So high school cafeterias, college cafeterias, the food isn't as good as when you cook for maybe 10 or 15 people.
Floyd, if they're cooking for a million people, it's never going to be great food. It's just not.
BROWN: Really, that has to do with captive audiences. On a college campus they're a captive audience; on an airline they're a captive audience. Hopefully with this differentiation we're going to get better food, because people will only buy it if it's good.
SMERCONISH: Thanks, Floyd. Hey, coming up, speaking of tasting, tempting treats, maybe, of the holiday season, why is a group of high school students in trouble for handing out candy canes? Details when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Michael Smerconish in for Arthel Neville.
In our "What's the Story" segment today, some Massachusetts's high school students are facing possible suspension for handing out candy canes on campus. The school's principal has nothing against the sweets. It's the note attached to the treats that's causing all the trouble.
Katherine Shepardson with CNN affiliate WGGB gives us the facts.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SHARON SITLER, WESTFIELD HIGH STUDENT: It's a "J" for Jesus. It's a shepherd's staff.
KATHRYN SHEPARDSON, REPORTER, WGGB (voice-over): It's not the religious symbolism of this candy cane causing the problem, but this biblical message attached and distributed to hundreds of students just before Christmas break. Westfield High School senior Sharon Sitler and junior Steve Grabowski are two of six students facing suspension. For the second year in a row, the school's bible club was denied permission to pass out the candy with scripture. Last year they changed the message. But this year, they did their homework and claim it's protected under free speech.
STEVE GRABOWSKI, WESTFIELD HIGH STUDENT: They told us no. We showed them cases. They told us no again. We had the lawyer call them. A lawyer from Liberty Council (ph), which is Jerry Falwell's (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
SITLER: We tried every way that we could to get it to be all right, because we didn't really want to have to go against the administration.
SHEPARDSON (on camera): But school administrators say the issue is not religion. They say that they're simply adhering to a policy that bars them from allowing students to hand out non-school related literature on campus.
SITLER: We're allowed to meet at school. We have a room that we use after school. He allows us to put up our signs advertising our bible club, and I see no reason why he wouldn't count us as a school activity.
SHEPARDSON (voice-over): School superintendent Timothy McDowell (ph) could not be reached for comment, but in the "Springfield Union- News," he said the issue was not about free speech but school policy. And he said any disciplinary action will come from the principal after further review. Meantime, the impact of a possible suspension is on the minds of parents involved.
ED GRABOWSKI, PARENT: It's hard as a parent right now, when push comes to shove may cost something to stand up for what we believe in. But I am very proud of him that he is doing this and he is doing what I've taught him to do.
S. GRABOWSKI: Basically, we believe that god's authority is -- comes first. God's word comes first next to the school's decision.
SHEPARDSON: In Westfield, Kathryn Shepardson, News 40.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SMERCONISH: All right. So the students say their first amendment rights are being violated. The school says it has the right to police what the students hand out regardless of their religious affiliation of the material. Let's quickly check in with the panel.
I'll tell you what. We're going to go right around the horn. We'll start with Floyd. Floyd, what do you say on this one? BROWN: These students are great. I'll tell you what, I think it's fantastic. They're standing up for what they believe, they're standing up for the first amendment and the Constitution. They have a right, and I'm just sick and tired of these liberals that are so scared of a little bible verse.
SMERCONISH: Sam, what do you say, quickly? A quick sound bite from each of you.
GREENFIELD: That kid, Grabowski, said the red in the candy cane is the blood of Christ. If you really think that, then your meds should be torqued up.
SMERCONISH: Alan Amberg, quickly.
AMBERG: You know, I find it interesting that our conservative friend forgets that in Utah, when a gay and lesbian student group wanted to meet, they shut down every extracurricular in the state rather than allowing these teenagers to meet. Hey, it's just free speech, it's just the school activity.
SMERCONISH: Kathryn Lopez, in a word, what is it?
LOPEZ: Obviously, this is free speech. And no one should be scared that kids want to pass out bible verses with candy canes. I wouldn't be too worried about it.
SMERCONISH: Hey, you guys are great. Floyd Brown, Sam Greenfield, Kathryn Lopez and Alan Amberg, thanks for joining us today on TALKBACK LIVE. We'll return with our final segment. And I want to hear from you on the question of the day. Should churches and charities accept lottery winnings as donations? I'll take your calls and e-mails right after this short break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back. I'm Michael Smerconish. It's time for our question of the day.
We told you about two different lottery winners trying to share their good fortune with religious groups. Should churches accept lottery winnings?
Two great e-mails on the subject. Let me give you a look. "I don't believe they should accept the winnings, because it's a form of gambling. If you're going to talk the talk, then you should walk the walk." That's from China.
"I believe any money put towards the work of the lord is not tainted" -- how about that -- "regardless where it came from." That's Larry in New York.
Jennifer (ph) is in Georgia. After that, we go to Sleepless in Seattle. What do you think of this? JENNIFER: Money is just a tool. I felt it's not good or evil. It's what you do with it.
SMERCONISH: What you do with it is -- so you agree with her? How about Susan (ph) in Ohio. Can I squeeze in Susan (ph) on TALKBACK LIVE? Hi, Susan (ph).
SUSAN: Hi. I absolutely believe that churches should accept lottery money. I agree with that woman. It's a tool. The lord -- we're faulting the good (UNINTELLIGIBLE) according to his purpose, and he can use that money just as well as anybody else. I think if you're lucky enough to win the lottery, you should definitely -- one of the first things you should do is give to any charity of choice.
SMERCONISH: Give something back. That's a great way to end the show. Hey, we're out of time. Thanks for watching. I'm Michael Smerconish in today and tomorrow. Come back to me, for Arthel Neville.
"INSIDE POLITICS" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
be Allowed to Strike?>
|
