|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Democrats Offer Competing Economic Plan; Which Country Poses A Larger Threat: North Korea or Iraq?
Aired January 6, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, a new year and new ideas to get the economy moving. The president and Democrats offer up competing plans. Which one will help your bottom line, and is either enough to jump-start the economy?
And the U.N. nuclear agency has tough words for North Korea, but will the communist nation listen?
And what does this movie have to do with tensions between North Korea and the White House? We'll tell you why the James Bond film "Die Another Day" is turning off some moviegoers on the Korean peninsula.
And a sign of the times? Automakers at the Detroit car show reveal their latest models and high-powered ideas. Can Americans fall in love hybrid gas and electric-powered cars?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. Thanks so much for joining us.
It is the first full week of 2003, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are wasting any time when it comes to the economy. Now tomorrow, President Bush unveils his stimulus proposal. The plan calls for, among other things, the elimination of taxes on stock dividends, tax breaks for businesses and individuals, an increase in the child tax credit, and a reduction in the so-called marriage penalty.
Today we're going to hear from the Democrats on Capitol Hill. Incoming House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will hold a news conference this hour. We are going to bring it to you live when it happens. In the meantime, joining me now with a preview is CNN Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl -- Jonathan, what is in the plan?
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, the Democrats are trying to beat the White House to the punch on this. Their plan looks much different than the president's. The first thing is simply the size of the plan. The president is talking about a $600 billion plan. The Democrats are talking about one that would cost $136 billion, so much less, a fraction of the cost. Also, the centerpiece of this plan is a $300 per person refundable tax credit. This is something like that rebate check that was given out in the 2001 tax cut. Also, there will be a tax incentive for businesses to go out and buy new equipment and new factory supplies. There will be aid to the states to deal with their budget deficits that have been a result of the economic recession, and also an extension of unemployment benefits.
Unemployment benefits that, for many people, expired on December 28. So, that's the Democratic plan. There's very little common ground between what they're talking about and what the president is talking about. About the only thing that is consistent there is the question of unemployment insurance extension. Both sides say they want to do that, and both sides say they want to provide some aid to those struggling states, although they disagree about how to do it, and how much money to spend on it -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Jon, the refundable tax credit includes everybody, even those who didn't pay taxes. Because remember last year, it was for those -- or the 2001 plan was for the head of household.
KARL: Exactly. It is every worker. So even if you are in a low-income bracket, you don't spend a dime on income tax, you would get that $300 per person refundable tax credit, or for a married couple, that would be $600. That is different than last time, and that is a point Democrats are emphasizing. Their whole approach on this -- they know their plan, look, does not have much of a chance of passing up here in a Republican-controlled Congress, but they want to make the point that they have a way to help lower and middle class income workers, whereas, they say, the president's plan will benefit the wealthy.
Of course, Republicans say the important thing here is not class warfare or class distinctions, but getting the economy going, and that's why they're trying to target many of their tax deductions at businesses and, of course, at dividends.
NEVILLE: Right. OK, Jonathan Karl, thank you so much for the preview.
And here's the question, though, who will benefit most from these plans? Here to talk about it now, Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, and Will Saletan, the chief political correspondent for Slate.com. Welcome, both of you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks. It is great to be here.
NEVILLE: All right. Here's -- we're going to talk about the Bush plan mainly, though, and let's talk about what's good, what's not. Kevin, I'll go with you first.
KEVIN HASSETT, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Well, I think that the Bush plan is very solid long-run policy. The fact is that right now, dividends in the United States are about the highest-taxed dividends in the world, and the reason that they're so highly taxed is that we haven't really done anything to that area of our tax code for a long time, while just about every other country in the world has been trying to encourage corporations to locate there by lowering their dividend taxes. In fact, Belgium and Italy just did it at the end of last year.
And so, right now, the only country that has a higher rate than us is Japan, and shucks, we don't want to emulate them, now do we? And so what the president is doing is, really, I think you could think of it as house cleaning. We are trying to catch up to our competition and create a climate that is attractive to multinational corporations.
So I think it is good long-run policy, but I don't think that it is something that would qualify it as a stimulus plan at all. It's not something that is designed for short-run benefit.
NEVILLE: Then here is the question, though, because William, you just heard Jon Karl saying that the Democrats are saying, Listen, we're about the people, we are about immediate plans and help for the average American. What do you think about the Bush plan? Will it help the average American, not just the corporations?
WILLIAM SALETAN, SLATE.COM: Well, there are several odd things about the Bush plan. One, as Kevin just pointed out, is that it is not a stimulus, not stimulus-oriented in an environment when we desperately need stimulus. I mean, that's the whole difference between when the original Bush tax cut was proposed and the economy we face now. It seems to me, especially in a situation of deficits, if you are going to cut taxes, we can't cut that many taxes without driving ourselves further into deficit...
NEVILLE: Yes, because already, the deficit is what, $145 billion for last year?
SALETAN: Absolutely. And here -- we don't have the luxury of non-stimulative tax cuts. There a couple of odd things also about the president's plan. One is this notion -- OK, we're going to cut the dividend tax because we don't think companies are putting enough into dividends. Suddenly, Republicans are second-guessing the market and want the government to make these decisions instead of trusting companies to decide how to allocate their money. Beyond that, this notion that, Well, the best way to get tax cuts to the little guy is to give money to rich people so they'll hire them. This is old trickle down theory. Well, you know, why don't you give me the whole tax cut, and I'll hire a bunch of people? It's just a very odd argument that leads to...
NEVILLE: So William, you're saying this is more of the rich getting richer?
SALETAN: Well, it certainly is -- it's the rich -- the Republicans say it is the rich keeping their own money. But this notion that the way you help person B who needs a paycheck is to give money to rich person A to hire them, can be carried in absurd lengths, and it is being.
NEVILLE: Kevin, before we go on, go ahead and tell us now -- we are talking about cutting taxes on stock dividends. Go ahead and explain to us how that all works.
HASSETT: Yes. So the basic idea is that right now, if a company earns dollar, then they pay about 35 cents tax at the federal level, and so then, you know, they're left with 65 cents, and then suppose they decide to pay it to me or to Will, then we pay a tax on that as well, and if we're lucky enough to be in a high bracket, we would pay a 35 percent tax on that.
NEVILLE: Or 38.6.
HASSETT: Yes, that's right. So the total tax right now on a dollar of corporate income delivered to a person is pretty darn high. It's in the 60 percent range depending on who exactly who is receiving it. And you know, I would have to disagree with something that Will said. I do believe that having that tax rate so high is not sensible economic policy, and that fixing the problem is a really sound long- run policy idea, so it is good for the economy to do that, it is just not something that is targeted to maximize the economic benefit in the next couple of quarters, and I think that that's a good idea.
You know, right now, we're looking at an economy that's not great, but it is not awful. The recession probably ended about a year ago...
NEVILLE: Kevin, there are a lot of people saying yes, it is awful, and we are going to talk about that when we come back. Got to take a break right now.
Coming up on TALKBACK LIVE, who has the better plan, Democrats or Republicans? That's our question of the day. Go ahead and let us know what you think, and I'll take your answers later this hour. We're waiting now for the Democrats to unveil their plan, and we are going to bring that to you live and hear what you think about it. Don't go anywhere.
TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: All right. Welcome back, everybody to TALKBACK LIVE.
We are waiting for a news conference from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She will be unveiling the Democrats' economic stimulus plan, and we are going to bring that to you when it happens live here on CNN.
In the meantime, Kevin, before we went to break, you mentioned how the economy is not so bad. There are people who are saying it is bad, and basically, what does all this mumbo jumbo mean for me? Is this going to put more money in my wallet?
HASSETT: Well, you know, there's no question that there are still people out there who don't have jobs and who are hurting, but the fact is that, you know, last year was a pretty typical year for the U.S. economy in postwar history. The average growth rate, I think, when the data are finalized, is going to be about equal to what we've seen in a typical year since the Second World War, and so it is not the kind of year that would make you want to rush out and do some kind of big tax thing that would focus a whole bunch of activity into one or two quarters. And it's also sadly very normal for unemployment to stay high in the early stages of a recovery, which is what we have seen.
NEVILLE: It is at 6 percent right now. For African Americans, it is 11 percent.
HASSETT: And so I think that the best thing to do is to just look at the things that we're doing that are really silly and stupid, and try to fix them at this point, rather than focus our energies on things that can really juice up the economy for a quarter or two. And I think that right now, in the U.S. tax system, the tax on dividends, since it is a double tax, is the highest out there. It's the thing that's probably causing the most damage, and a good place to start if you're going to have a reform.
NEVILLE: OK. So Will, did you hear Kevin offer any solutions or answers to the folks who are out there saying, But what's in it for me?
SALETAN: Well, what I heard Kevin make was a principled argument about reforming the tax code, and leading to some sort of result that would be fair from one point of view, and I think it's a perfectly valid argument, but it matters that we are in dire straits right now. It matters because we are in deficit, and we have limited means. We don't have money to spend. We don't have money to return that we haven't already committed, and therefore, the tax cuts that we focus on, we have to choose -- to govern is to choose, and I think stimulation has to be a key criterion for choosing which tax cut you choose for now. In the long term, you can do what's best for the long term.
NEVILLE: OK. Well, listen, Janice here is from Lake Charles, Louisiana, owner of a small business, auto parts store. Is the Bush plan good for your business?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It will be, yes. Because the economy right now is bad, no matter what anybody says. Since 9/11 it's gotten worse. Things are not picking up. If we do not give the tax cuts to the businesses, there will be no businesses. There will be no jobs. In our town itself, we gave tax cuts, tax breaks, to people to come in to our town, because our economy was really bad, and a lot of people -- we didn't have anything in Lake Charles.
NEVILLE: That's what you said, Kevin, right? Give the tax breaks to the businesses so they can hire more people.
HASSETT: That's right. I think that Janice has really nailed the problem. You know, the fact is that if we look at the recession that we just had, it was one of the shallowest and lightest that we've ever seen, except for businesses.
NEVILLE: OK. Kevin, let me excuse you for a second, because we are seeing House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi taking the podium. She is getting ready to unveil that Democratic economic stimulus plan, and we are going to join her in just moments.
Go ahead, Kevin, finish your thought while Ms. Pelosi gets ready.
HASSETT: Yes -- I'm just saying that businesses really got hit hard during the recession, and so it is very natural to think of things that can help them out right now, and I think that's what the president is doing.
NEVILLE: Well, is the president helping out overall, though? Again, I'm about the average American, and of course, businesses, that's important, too, but folks at home watching, they want to know, again, what's in it for me?
SALETAN: Well, it's better to do this at the federal level than at the state level. I think what Janice is talking about is a situation...
NEVILLE: OK. Let me cut you off, sir, and go to Ms. Pelosi.
(INTERUPTED BY A LIVE EVENT)
NEVILLE: Okay. So the Democrats stimulus plan calls for short- term stimulus, long-term balance and calling for the wrangle bill to be passed, which is to extend unemployment benefits for 26 more weeks saying, look, there's $26 billion in the unemployment trust fund, give it to the people. But, here's the question you have the Bush plan or Democrats' plan.
Kevin will it end up being politics over people?
HASSETT: No. I think that the president has already signaled the unemployment insurance issue is something he agrees with the Democrats on. I'd have to say that the Democratic proposal is very disappointing to me, because the fact is that we're not at a time where we need Washington to do lots of tricks to the tax today code to try to get people to pull stuff they planned to do a few years ago into this year.
We're at a time we have a complicated, ugly system we need to work together to fix. Seems like instead of presenting something that looks like it was carefully thought out and well balanced in terms of economic theory, they came out with the same old list of things they've been proposing the last few years. And that means a political melee in washington.
NEVILLE: Will, how do you see it?
SALETAN: Well, I have to agree that the Democratic proposal is suspect in a couple of ways. Both sides here are just throwing money around like it grows on trees. No one's explaining where it comes from. No one's explaining what the consequence of running these deficits are. On the one hand, both sides talk about, oh, there will be trickle down for the little people, or tax breaks for little people. Guess what? If we run huge deficits the government is in the markets competing for money, the interest rates...
NEVILLE: Where will the money come from?
SALETAN: Absolutely. When interest rates go up because of deficits, that is a huge tax. That's not a literal tax, but it is in effect a tax on poor people, working people, who have loans and depend on those interest rates.
NEVILLE: Absolutely. Listen, we are out of time for this segment. Do appreciate your time here. Kevin Hassett and William Saletan, thank you both for joining me here today.
And in the meantime, two world hot spots get a little hotter today. The latest from Iraq and North Korea, when TALKBACK LIVE returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. North Korea is being told to come back into compliance or face the consequences. That was the message from the International Atomic Energy Agency at its meeting in Vienna, Austria. Now the UN nuclear watchdog said North Korea will be given one last chance to drop its nuclear weapons program and readmit inspectors, or the matter will be turned over to the UN Security Council.
And in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein marked Army Day with a speech accusing UN inspectors of conducting intelligence work instead of looking for weapons of mass destruction. So the question is which country poses the larger threat?
Joining me now to talk about it is Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of "The Nation." Hello. And Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy. He is also a former assistant secretary of defense. And I want to welcome both of you.
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Thank you.
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR, "THE NATION": Thank you.
NEVILLE: And Frank, I want to start with you, and say, listen, first of all, will the IAEA have any impact on Kim Jong Il, North Korea's dictator?
GAFFNEY: I'm sorry. Are you speaking to me?
NEVILLE: Yes.
GAFFNEY: I beg your pardon. I think it unlikely, as has been pointed out. They have no enforcement power in their own right.
They will be -- assuming he passes on this one last chance -- turning the matter over to the UN Security Council. And whether it will actually be able to command Kim Jong Il's attention remains to be seen. My guess is that they probably will not either, but I think this is still the right approach -- is to try to use whatever can be conjured up in the way of international pressure to contain this regime. And I hope very much that the net result of it will be to isolate it and to end the practice of sort of propping it up that we have seen so much of in recent years from our own government, for that matter, as well as others more close to the Korean peninsula.
NEVILLE: Well, Katrina, how do you see it? I mean, the question is why is North Korea so bold?
VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, I think what we're seeing is the incoherence and bankruptcy of this administration's policy. You now have North Korea announcing it has -- or close to nuclear weapons and kicking out inspectors. Yet the administration is engaging in tailored containment or bringing to bear international diplomacy through its allies.
NEVILLE: That's right.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Yet with Iraq, which has allowed inspectors into the country...
NEVILLE: To come in, claim they have no weapons of mass destruction.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Exactly, which claims it has no weapons of mass destruction. You're seeing an administration rushing, it appears, through the buildup around the world to war. And I think that's incoherent. We have a national security policy now, which is essentially a warfare policy.
And if I might add, yes, weapons of mass destruction endanger us all. We must eliminate them. America has many. But war is not the answer, neither with Iraq nor with North Korea. And I think diplomacy, which has been so maligned by the neo conservatives in this administration, must be brought back to center stage in a way that I think North Korea is bringing all of us to realize.
NEVILLE: And before we get to North Korea, I want to go to your comment about Iraq, and you're right. You're absolutely right. And so I ask you, Katrina, then, is it all about the oil in Iraq?
NEVILLE: I do think that with all the talk about how we can't go to war in the Korean peninsula because of how destabilizing it is, and war is not the answer, that it has to arouse in the Middle East. A region that is equally going to be destabilized, where this mistrust of American intentions are so great. It has to arouse deep suspicion that this war against Iraq is about oil, about reshaping the Middle East, empire and oil.
GAFFNEY: If I may, I'd have to disagree on practically every point. I think there is a coherence to the administration's approach. It is deriving from, I believe, what is seen as the existing threat to this country from Iraq. That is a threat that I think has been shown to us in repeated incidents in the past of acts of terror in this country.
It is a threat that is going to get worse, if it is possible for Saddam Hussein to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. A step that has, unfortunately, already been taken by the North Koreans in the period when we were allowing diplomacy to work. I think what has been shown to be bankrupt, really, is the notion that arms control with regimes that are despotic and have contempt for the rule of law, the policy of leaving ourselves vulnerable to attack from them, for example, without a ballistic missile defense, and cutting back our military capabilities, even as these sorts of dangers are beginning to develop and are growing around the world, precisely the sorts of things that I think we've seen out of Katrina's magazine for many years is their recommendation is simply wrong headed.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Frank, Saddam Hussein has been effectively neutralized in the region through containment.
GAFFNEY: I disagree.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Through containment. There is no evidence of any link to terrorist activities to al Qaeda...
GAFFNEY: That's not true.
VANDEN HEUVEL: ... which, let us not forget, is the real threat, the imminent threat facing this country. And the nuclear agreement with North Korea was working. The Bush administration did everything in its power despite Colin Powell, and let Colin Powell be Colin Powell. He wanted to pursue that. It was undermined by this administration.
And let us not forget that words have consequences, Frank. And the discussion of national security doctrines, preemptive war, the use of nuclear weapons, going from mutual (UNINTELLIGIBLE) destruction to what I would call nuts, nuclear use theories, has endangered America in ways that this administration...
NEVILLE: OK. I actually -- Frank I have to take a break. I'll give you a chance -- pardon me, Katrina. I'll give you a chance when we come back. I do have to take a break right now.
And coming up on TALKBACK LIVE: tensions in North Korea we're talking about here escalate, over all things a movie, including the other stuff we've been discussing. We're going to explain the fury behind James Bond's "Die Another Day" when we return. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Bond is back in a big way with "Die Another Day." But North and South Korea are not applauding the film. We're going to tell you why coming up on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Frank, before the break I had to interrupt. I want to go ahead and let you go ahead and finish your thoughts right now.
GAFFNEY: Yeah. Well, I think the main point that needs to be born in mind here is we're dealing with a country in Saddam Hussein that has been bent on revenge ever since 1991. And I simply disagree that there's no evidence of involvement between Saddam and acts of terror in this country. There is considerable evidence of it. The case needs to be prosecuted.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Frank, I mean, he may be a brutal dictator...
GAFFNEY: Excuse me just a second, Katrina. The case needs to be properly prosecuted and it hasn't been to my satisfaction to this point. But the larger message is unmistakable. Saddam Hussein's influence is real and is growing in this region, if we allow him to gain access to weapons of mass destruction beyond those he already has. The nuclear weapons in particular. That influence will metastasize even further and be vastly more destabilizing than the act we need to take, which is to liberate the Iraqi people.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Oh, but Frank, you're engaging in a different discussion. The issue at hand is about disarming Iraq. Iraq is an effectively neutralized country.
GAFFNEY: You keep saying that, Katrina. That's just on the face of it not true.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Saddam may be a brutal dictator, but there is no evidence of ties to al Qaeda. Furthermore, the larger point, Frank...
GAFFNEY: That's wrong.
VANDEN HEUVEL: ... is, instead of undermining 30 years of arms control treaties, trashing them, pouring money into national missile defense, which is a faith-based program, not a reality, instead of providing for security at ports, borders, at coasts to really deal with any threat from weapons of mass destruction, we now have a policy that is, essentially, we will use force to counter weapons of mass destruction. That confines (ph) Americans to endless war.
We have enormous unmet needs at home. Enormous.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Excuse me. Katrina, speaking of endless war, I want to take a look at some statistics here regarding the sizes of the militaries. Look, there are US military personnel, 1.3 million. North Korea, one million. Iraq, 432,000. So the question, Katrina, can the US afford to take on North Korea?
VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, I think the important point is that we shouldn't be thinking in war-like terms. Real national security involves restoring diplomacy to its highest purpose. Why is war now the alternative to trying to engage other countries to work with international allies and to have a series of treaties to reduce the threat?
NEVILLE: Right. What about diplomacy?
GAFFNEY: Arthel, that's a very good question.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I mean, do you know that are nonproliferation budget is...
GAFFNEY: The answer to the question is, because we are now confronted, unmistakably in the case of North Korea, with evidence that diplomacy doesn't work when you're dealing with ruthless, murderous, despotic thugs like...
(APPLAUSE)
VANDEN HEUVEL: Oh, Frank.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: But Frank -- Frank, excuse me. But Frank, on that note, though, if you're saying that diplomacy doesn't work, then why would South Korea and Japan and Russia call for diplomacy? Wouldn't you think they would say, listen...
GAFFNEY: Look, I think the United States and these other countries are hoping against hope that they will be able to contain a problem that is growing and is going to become vastly more serious in the days ahead, as the plutonium is presumably put into the hands of the international market, just as North Korea's ballistic missiles are put into the hands of the international market. This is something that will not, I believe, end the threat. It may, for the moment, help us get past the period when we are dealing with that other threat that I talked about earlier from Saddam Hussein.
But in the end, I think it may come down to military steps are needed if we are not able to contain and intensify the pressure on this North Korean regime. Something that I believe diplomacy has very little role in playing.
NEVILLE: Well, unfortunately, that is the last word. Frank Gaffney and Katrina Vanden Heuvel, thank you both for joining me here on TALKBACK LIVE.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Thank you.
GAFFNEY: Thank you.
NEVILLE: All right. A possible war with Iraq has some wondering whether oil prices will shoot up. And coming up on TALKBACK LIVE: we're going to head to Detroit and find out if American auto makers are worried about that as well. And we'll get a look at the next generation of the American car. We're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: OK. We want to know what the folks on the Web are saying about today's topics. We're going to find out now. Today, we start a new segment on TALKBACK LIVE: the AOL Buzz Index.
Joining me now from Washington is Regina Lewis from AOL, which happens to be part of our corporate AOL-Time Warner family. Regina, hello. Nice to see you.
REGINA LEWIS, AOL BUZZ INDEX: Thanks, Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right. Let's start now with North Korea. What are the folks talking about on the Web?
LEWIS: Well, it's interesting. An op-ed piece by Warren Christopher was widely circulated online and it helped prompt a lot of attention. The overall feeling was, wow, maybe we better really pay attention here. Although you get the sense that people don't really want to believe that there's imminent danger there.
This message posting that we polled is fairly representative. And at the risk of oversimplifying diplomacy, it says, why don't we just stay out of it altogether. Here you see it says, "Why is the US continuing to try and push North Korea around? Just leave them alone. We have nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. Who is the US to say who can and can't have them?" Which is kind of an interesting point.
NEVILLE: OK. So what are the folks saying about Iraq?
LEWIS: Iraq is a little bit more charged, and there's a real emotional reaction, tracking some of the things that George Bush has said. We've got a representative posting here from someone who says, "Look, I don't pretend to know everything about this issue, but here's what I do know. There are some pretty dangerous people over there." He calls them very bad people. "And something needs to be done before they hurt you or someone in your family here in the US."
And I think that echoes concerns about that entire region. And people just feeling a little nervous. He goes on to applaud President Bush for the job that he's doing to eliminate terrorism. And I think this is an interesting sentence "... and making me feel safe."
At a minimum, once you -- you know, whatever they decide to do and however this plays out, Bush is making people feel safer. And, of course, we know how important that is.
NEVILLE: OK, Regina. So what's the buzz about the economy?
LEWIS: Well, I think you said it best today. People think it stinks, quite frankly. And they are getting very practical. So, you know this is going to play out in terms of what happens and whose policy is approved with people on each side of the aisle. But the bottom line is most people are trying to figure how they can make it to the 15th, and then the next paycheck on the 30th, if they even have a job.
NEVILLE: That's very true.
LEWIS: So people are gravitating towards really practical things. There are all kinds of tools online that people should know and take advantage of, including, you know, how to create a budget, a play-by-play budget. All of these are free resources. How to plan for retirement, for college. And there are tens of thousands of job listings online at sites like monster.com, jobdig (ph), and on AOL's digital city.
So look for those, remembering that employers are trying to cut their costs too. And it's highly efficient for them to recruit online. So it's good to see those resources there and people taking advantage of them.
We've got a post from one person who really echoes this sentiment, who says, "Look, I'm having trouble having ends meet. I can't keep track of my bills. I always end up broke. I've got so much money going out." Who can't relate to that? "And I never feel like I'm making progress. Please help."
Now this cry for help was actually to an expert author who wrote a personal finance book. Not only did the author write back, but a lot of other people said, look, here is what I do in my house. I take advantage of coupons, here are some menu suggestions. So a lot of people exchanging ideas trying to make ends meet.
NEVILLE: And you must live on a budget. I do. Regina Lewis, thank you so much for joining us.
Listen, talk of war with Iraq has many saying American needs to reduce its dependency on oil. So are the auto makers listening is the question? And CNN's Jeff Flock is in Detroit, where we're going to Jeff right now live at the Detroit auto show. So, Jeff, are we talking about gas-guzzlers this year again?
JEFF FLOCK, CNN CHICAGO BUREAU CHIEF: Oh, boy, Arthel, are we ever. For some reason, you know the economy sounds like it's not doing too well. But you couldn't prove it here at the auto show, because there's a lot of big muscle cars and new concepts, and not a whole lot of talk about reducing fuel consumption, although the folks at GM today with a new plan to do those hybrid cars. You know, the ones that mix both gasoline power and electric power together and save you some gas there. But beyond that, not a lot of talk about it.
NEVILLE: Then they were talking about a hybrid SUV. That's what I'm waiting for. What, maybe 2005?
FLOCK: You know, I've got one that I think you'd like, Arthel. Check this one out here. This is a concept car from Honda. Look at this back seat. You got a whole stereo deejay area back in here, some jump seats. And then go ahead and show Arthel -- take a look at this.
NEVILLE: Oh, my goodness.
FLOCK: You could put TALKBACK LIVE on there.
NEVILLE: Oh, so this is like for a tailgating party, I guess, right?
FLOCK: They describe it for guys that like to do raves in the desert is what they basically say. So, if you're into that or you have a 17-year-old daughter, however, you don't want to hear that talk.
NEVILLE: No, you don't. Hey, is that the hybrid SUV?
FLOCK: No, this is actually not a hybrid.
NEVILLE: OK.
FLOCK: Although they do have a hybrid here at Honda, which is -- take a look at that over there. That is a small fuel celled -- that's actually not a hybrid; that's a fuel cell powered car.
So there are just not many of them out there. And that's why that GM announcement today was so important, because they're talking about doing literally thousands of vehicles, which could be a real boon to the whole thing.
NEVILLE: All right. Jeff Flock, always nice to see you. Thank you so much.
FLOCK: Thanks, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And when we come back -- of course -- your chance to get in on our question of the day. Do Republicans or Democrats have the better plan for the economy? I definitely want to hear from you. We are back in a moment after this break. Talk to you then
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: It's time for our question of the day. Whose plan is best for the economy, the Bush administration's or the Democrats'? You say what, Ed (ph)?
ED: I'm going with the Republican plan. I think the Democrats, with that $600 rebate for married couples is a waste. I mean we're just going to blow it on something stupid. Put it back into the economy, lower the deficit. Put it where it's going to do some good.
NEVILLE: OK. We have some e-mails coming in right now I want to share with you. From Robert, says, "The Republican plan is best by far. I am sick to death of my reward for hard work and sacrifice being higher and higher taxes.
Another e-mail coming in right now from Augie in Florida. "The Democratic plan would be..." -- something. I can't read that.
OK. Dennis (ph), which plan is better?
DENNIS: I think the Democrats' would be better simply because the small business plan is quicker (ph). I could actually use the $600, and the income starting now I think is what we want it see. We got -- all of them are futuristic. I don't know where the money is coming from. Whichever one works, that's what I want.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. Josh (ph) in Tennessee, you've got ten seconds. Which plan is better?
JOSH: The Democrats. After all, it's the Republicans that got us in the great depression.
NEVILLE: OK. Listen, we are out of time. Thank you very much for your call, Josh (ph) in Tennessee.
I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE. "INSIDE POLITICS" with Judy Woodruff is up 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
Poses A Larger Threat: North Korea or Iraq?>
|
