Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Name Your Cuts: Solutions for the Deficit; Women in Politics; What to Spend in a $4 Billion Campaign Budget; Party of No; 2010 Angry Gridlock of 1994; Name Your Cut
Aired October 27, 2010 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN NEWS ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN NEWS ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program. Tonight in our "Opening Arguments," Kathleen, forget about it, that's what the Republicans are saying to the president. No compromise, now how, nowhere. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, saying making him a one-term president is mission one. And Mike Pence, who was the third ranking Republican in the House, is saying no compromise on any issue, back to being the "Party of No."
PARKER: Well, the Republicans have been very good at being the "Party of No." And actually, you know, it was a strategy and it's worked very well because guess who's coming to Washington.
SPITZER: It has worked for their electoral success, but not for governing and the public is saying we want compromise and that's why even before the election, to hear the Republicans saying we reject the very notion of it is kind of surprising to me.
PARKER: I almost called you "sweetie."
SPITZER: Oh, my goodness.
PARKER: This is what I always say with my husband when I'm about to disagree with him, "But sweetie. No, no, no." But listen, the reason we're in this situation is because Obama, President Obama and the Democrats, they put us here. I mean, this is the reason -- what are you supposed to agree to? You can't compromise on something you totally disagree with. The president had control of both houses. He was -- he's increased the debt by trillions, he took over GM, he took over health care. He created this mess.
SPITZER: He came in when the patient was on the floor bleeding to death and the patient is now ready to walk...
PARKER: And then he put a bullet through his head.
SPITZER: The patient is ready to walk out of the hospital. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month and now we've got an economy that's coming back. But look, having been in that position, having been a governor, having been in government for many years, you can't do it if the other side just slams the door in your face. There have got to be two parties willing to talk to each other. And when Mitch McConnell says we're gunning for you and when Mike Spence says, Pence says, we're going to do everything we can not to compromise, he says to himself, what are you supposed to do? He's not going to negotiate against himself again. He did that already.
PARKER: Well, the Republicans have their plan in place. There's no question. They do want to see President Obama out of the White House in 2012. I can't disagree with you there. What happens next is they have to come together in some way, but I have a feeling they're going to put the onus on President Obama.
SPITZER: I would say to the Republicans, be careful of hubris, be careful of overplaying their hand. It is very treacherous business they're about to get into.
PARKER: Well, I'm so glad you mentioned hubris because they had a hubris watch on...
SPITZER: Hubris or hubris.
PARKER: I say hubris. What do you say, hubris?
SPITZER: I don't know the word. All right. In a moment, we will talk with Mike Pence about the looming showdown, but more importantly, is he the first person who will officially declare that he's running for president in 2012? We think we know the answer to that question. But first, we have an outstanding show, Kathleen.
PARKER: Plus Eliot, you really know what "man-up" means? What about that "shovel ready?" We'll reveal true meaning behind the buzziest words from the election cycle.
SPITZER: And Kathleen, my favorite part of the show, "Name Your Cuts." Tonight, as we do every night, we'll demand answers for our quest to reduce the federal deficit. But, now, time for a "Headline."
PARKER: He is one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington and he says, "no compromise." He promises to stand in the way of an aggressive liberal agenda. That's how he sees it, anyway. And joining us from Wadesville, Indiana, Congressman Mike Pence.
Welcome.
REP MIKE PENCE (R), INDIANA: Thank you.
SPITZER: Congressman, you and I may not be on the same side of the aisle on this one, but enjoying keeping up your energy and making the most of the last couple days. And by the way, more important, perhaps, congratulations. I know you can't quite say it this way, but you're running for president, we hear and that's going to be one big endeavor for you. So enjoy it and we wish you nothing but luck.
(LAUGHTER)
PENCE: Well, thanks, Eliot. I've read that too. I tell you, my focus is entirely on November 2. You know, I really do believe this is one of those -- this is one of those generational moments in electoral politicians. You know, I'll agree with President Obama who said that this election is a choice. I don't think it's a choice between the failed economic policies of the present and the failed economic policies of the recent past, but I think the American people are going to decide and I hope in definitive terms, whether we're going to continue this pathway of more government and more spending and more bail yul bailouts and more takeovers or whether we'll turn back to fiscal responsibility and pro-growth policies and I'm honored to be some small part of that debate. And we'll let the future take care of itself.
SPITZER: Congressman, I want to jump in on something you said, and I think we would all agree, at the fulcrum of this election is jobs, jobs, job, how are we going to get them back. But I want to challenge you a little bit, when President Obama came into office we were losing jobs at a horrendous rate. We're going to throw up a graphic right behind us. You can't see it, but I'm sorry for that, but you've seen these numbers before. It's that curve that shows how many jobs we were losing until President Obama came into office: 700,000 a month. He passed a stimulus, he got the government geared up. We are now creating jobs. And yet, you have been intensely critical.
President Bush, we went over the cliff, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. President Obama, a stimulus package that by all economic accounts has worked. What is your answer to the charge you're playing politics. You're now the candidate of no, you've said that yourself. What was wrong with what President Obama did in the stimulus which a third of which was a tax cut as requested by the Republican Party?
PENCE: Well, I would say, Eliot, I don't know where the consensus is that it worked. The administration said we had to borrow $1 trillion in the stimulus bill or unemployment would reach eight percent. It's now more than 9.5 percent across the country. It clearly has not worked. And that's because this administration didn't learn the lessons of the last administration and that is you can't borrow and spend with deficits and debt your way back to a growing economy...
SPITZER: Congressman, look...
PENCE: Eliot, you know, I was a pretty harsh critic of the last administration. I supported the tax relief, but I fought against the big government programs of the Bush administration. I opposed the leadership of my own party because the American people know that the way to get the economy moving again is you combine pro-growth tax policy with real fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C. and that's the real pathway to prosperity in the future.
SPITZER: We will get to fiscal discipline in just a moment and we will have that conversation. I'm going to give you every opportunity to discuss it because that is a critical issue. But when you say it hasn't worked, when President Obama came into office, we were losing jobs at a clip of 700,000 a month.
PENCE: Right.
SPITZER: We now have positive job growth. And so how can you say that hasn't worked when the policies of President Bush, where the curve is going straight down, we turned that around 180 degrees? How can you possibly say that hasn't worked?
PENCE: Well, again, I think the administration said that we need to spend $1 trillion in the stimulus bill or unemployment would go to eight percent, it's 9.5 percent. It's now -- I think last month, Eliot. We're now at 9.5 percent or higher for the longest time in success since the Great Depression.
Look, we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. The economy is going to continue to wrestle its way forward and find marginal gains in the public sector, the private sector. But I think most Americans know the way you get the economy moving again is a combination of across the board tax relief and you put into practice real fiscal discipline which this administration clearly hasn't done, and frankly, the last administration didn't do that well with either.
SPITZER: Well, look, the trend line we had with President Bush would have taken us to 13 percent or 14 percent unemployment. But let's put that aside for a moment. You want to extend the tax cuts in perpetuity, which everybody agrees will give us an $11 trillion deficit over the next decade. And we're asking everybody this, "Name Your Cuts." How are you going to balance that budget? Specifically, where do you cut to close the chasm of this deficit?
PENCE: Well, look, I know that -- I know the way that sophisticates in Washington do the numbers, is they tend to talk about how you pay for tax cuts as though the government kind of owed all the money and if they let people keep more of their money, they got to find a way to pay for it. But just going with that kind of accounting, that's fine.
First, I think, to get the economy moving again, you ought to make sure that no American sees a tax increase in January of 2011, not one. You're never going to balance the budget in a combination of our three lifetimes if we don't get the economy growing again at three percent or four percent.
So, first thing you want to do is make sure no one sees the tax increase. Next thing, I think you ought to look for additional tax relief that will encourage capital formation and investment. And then in terms of your question about budget cuts, Eliot, I think everything's on the table. I mean, you've been a governor, you know, you got to look at the whole budget. I think we've got to look at everything from domestic spending to entitlement reform to even defense spending. I mean, this country's going broke. Two years in a row of $1 trillion deficits, we've got to take decisive, across the board action to put our fiscal house in order.
SPITZER: I may disagree with your promise that if you cut the tax rate further you're going to generate any growth, but let's focus in right now on the tax cuts. You said everything will be on the table, which I admire you, I agree with you, it's got to be on the table. Will you increase the retirement age for Social Security to 70 as has been proposed by Paul Ryan and many others?
PENCE: Well, look, my personal view of what we do with Social Security and Medicare is -- is we basically say to everybody 40 years old and older that we'll keep the promise that we've made to you in Medicare and Social Security, through the course of your life and career. So people that are within a generation of retiring, we just tell them, we'll keep you in the deal. But for Americans under the age of 40, absolutely, we've got to reform these systems. We got to make them a better deal for taxpayers. And when you combine them with private savings alternatives and private health insurance alternatives, I think we're going to give Americans under the age of 40 a better deal to replace the old new deal program.
SPITZER: And I admire you for being willing to say for those below 40 you would change the equation on Social Security, basically saying you're going to change the retirement age. But if you push it back that far, it's not going to do what we need to do. Are you willing to consider any cuts in defense?
PENCE: Well, look, I didn't -- the retirement age thing, I think all the alternatives to reforming Social Security and Medicare for people under the age of 40 ought to be considered. I didn't want to put my -- hang my hat on one peg. But you bet, Eliot, come one, I mean, we know there are inefficiencies in defense spending in this country. We have real challenges. There are rising threats around the globe far beyond the reach of the war on terror. We need to be preparing for, for the future. I think we can do that if we look for greater efficiencies and if we set into motion processes that will encourage efficiency and a better use of taxpayer's dollars in providing for the common defense which of course is the first article of the federal government. That's the first and most important thing the federal government is going to do other than protecting the basic constitutional rights of every person in the country.
SPITZER: And I want to come back to the tax rate one more time, because you keep talking about cutting the tax rate which of course everybody would love to do, but you know that historically -- and we can put a graphic up showing this -- the marginal rate, the top rate used to be up at 94 percent back in the early part of the '40s, the '50s and it has been coming down consistently until it is now at about 35 percent, which is really one of the lowest points it's ever been. And growth, in our economy, has not really been affected by this over time, if you look at that. So, when you say "cut the rate more," you realize that has not generated the growth that you're talking about.
PENCE: Well, look, I think -- I actually think when President Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate, when Ronald Reagan cult the top marginal tax rate, when President Bush cut the rate after the towers fell in your beloved New York, we saw those top income earners ultimately sending more money under a lower marginal rate because it generated economic activity. I think that's a pretty unbroken historical fact.
But, you know, I will stipulate that this notion that you can go back to the tax cut and spend policies of the recent Republican past is a nonstarter. It was like Republicans replaced the tax and spend liberal Democrat Congress and they become a liberal tax cut and spend majority. The way it's going to work is if we have serious, across the board tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms and we practice fiscal discipline. But the other thing is, when you talk about that marginal income tax rate, Eliot, I got to tell you, you know, whether it's Whirlpool here in Evansville, Indiana, or all across southwestern Indiana, we've been losing manufacturing overseas for some time.
And as I talk to business leaders, we have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Individuals who -- business owners who file as individuals pay some of the highest business taxes in the industrialized world. We've got to stop looking at just what America's done in the past, but what are those countries doing that we're losing jobs to and create the tax structure that's going to encourage capital formation and jobs here?
PARKER: Congressman, I think the American people would like to see Congress work together. Is there anyone across the aisle you feel you can work with to cut the deficit next year?
PENCE: You know, I really believe -- I believe there is, and more than one, Kathleen. Look, I think there are many honorable men and women in Congress who are ready to roll their sleeves up...
PARKER: Can you name people?
PENCE: ...and work on both sides of the aisle to put our fiscal house in order. Well, look, I don't want to intrude myself in campaigns. But let me tell you, I think the American people are possibly -- I'm not making prognostication predictions, here -- I think it's possible the American people will send a deafening message to Washington, D.C. that they want our fiscal house in order. And whether it's new conservatives being elected or Democrats who managed to return to Capitol Hill, I fully expect, and I hope and I literally pray, that we'll be able to come together and do the hard work to put our nation on a pathway toward fiscal solvency and a balanced federal budget.
PARKER: Well, thank you very much. We hope those prayers get answered. Congressman Pence, thank you for being with us. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Have you ever run a business?
NICK GILLESPIE, REASON.COM: Yeah, actually, I have and I'm also in charge of a budget.
SPITZER: That's right. That's right. And when you -- and so have I. And when you invest is when your consumers are showing...
GILLESPIE: And when I know -- when know that I won't even know what an employee is going to cost come January 1, because I don't know the tax rate, I don't know how the health care bill is going to play out, I'm not going to hire anybody.
SPITZER: The most convenient smokescreen...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know.
SPITZER: ...my business, unrelated to the massive contraction of demand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Seems that the anger of 2010 is being superimposed on the gridlock of 1994. Is this going to be the worst train wreck in modern times when it comes to actually governing?
PARKER: And joining us tonight in "The Arena," Katrina vanden Heuvel, who is a liberal and the editor of "The Nation," and Nick Gillespie, who's a Libertarian journalist, editor-in-chief of Reason.com.
Thank you both for being here.
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, THE NATION: Thank you.
GILLESPIE: Thank you.
PARKER: Katrina, we'll start with you. As we've all seen, compromise has seemed impossible for political reasons the last couple of years. Is it going to be possible November 3? Do we have a shot at compromise?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I could see and polls show Tea Partiers also support Social Security benefits, strengthening them, not cutting them, and we've seen an trans-partisan alliance between Ron Paul and Barney Frank, Libertarian and progressive liberal, on cutting $1 trillion out of the defense budget over 10 years. Those are my ideals for some trans-partisan coalitions moving forward. Am I living on another planet? I hope not.
PARKER: Wait, Barney Frank and -- that would be a great coalition...
SPITZER: That means ideological (INAUDIBLE) does that make sense to you, Nick?
GILLESPIE: Yeah, some, but one of the things you mention is big banks, big corporations, we also big government. That's what energizing the Tea Party. I think we can make real cuts. The problem isn't gridlock come November 3, the problem is what has been passed in the past two years. The reason why the Democrats are in trouble in the midterms and the reason why Obama is so tremendously unpopular is not in spite of what he did but all of the stuff that he passed through, starting with the stimulus, going through Obamacare, various -- pushing more auto bailouts which he voted for under Bush and TARP. These are unpopular programs. And then trickling down in Afghanistan, please. Gridlock would be a nice breather.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, the tricking down in Afghanistan -- but, here's where I disagree with you, I don't think President Obama went the bridge far enough. The stimulus could have been bigger. The stimulus could have been bigger. GILLESPIE: The stimulus failed.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Let her finish.
GILLESPIE: OK.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Libertarian politeness.
GILLESPIE: That's right.
VANDEN HEUVEL: The stimulus could have been bigger. I think that in the health care you see that the public option, which was driven out by lobbyists and others, would have been more popular. And I think there were millions of people who wanted to see banks reformed, not rescued. So I think you do see some anger, but it's not the conventional wisdom of overreach. It's that not enough was done. But to roll that...
GILLESPIE: Wait, so you're saying it was under-reach, that if Obama had doubled the stimulus, even though he has said that he got what he wanted, and it's a complete failure...
VANDEN HEUVEL: It's not a complete failure. It saved or created 3.5 million jobs. It was not a complete failure.
(CROSSTALK)
GILLEPSIE: It did not save or create.
SPITZER: Let's put some numbers into this equation. It's undeniable that until the stimulus was passed we were losing jobs at the rate of about 650,000, 700,000...
GILLESPIE: We were also in a recession...
SPITZER: ...per month. Since then, the additional spending has brought us back to positive private sector job growth. Not what we...
(CROSSTALK)
Let me just finish. Are you suggesting that if the government had done nothing that we would have gotten jobs back faster? Simple question.
GILLESPIE: OK, what I am suggesting is that what hurts as much as economic contraption -- contraction and turmoil is uncertainty. All that has been injected into the economic and political arena, in the past two years, and actually I would argue this includes at least the last two years of the Bush administration, has been massive uncertainty. And if you want an economic recovery -- OK, the stimulus didn't work by obam Obama's own measures, unemployment is higher, et cetera, but we don't even know what the budget of the federal government is going to be next year. We don't even know our tax rates, massive uncertainty. VANDEN HEUVEL: Wait a minute, Nick. Nick, you know what, there is no uncertainty on Wall Street or in the big business community...
GILLESPIE: How can you possibly say that?
VANDEN HEUVEL: ...in the sense that they are sitting on $2 trillion in investments and they're not investing in rebuilding this country. They are speculating and doing paper speculation...
GILLESPIE: But they're not going to invest...
VANDEN HEUVEL: But here's the question I have for you...
GILLESPIE: Are you planning for a future when you don't even know what your tax rates will be on January 1?
VANDEN HEUVEL: What are the alternatives? It's always interesting to me, in the (INAUDIBLE) of all alternatives, how would we have created jobs...
SPITZER: Katrina, he's right -- no, he's right in one sense, there is uncertainty, but the uncertainty comes from a lack of demand.
GILLESPIE: No, no, no.
SPITZER: It is imminently clear, the $2 trillion that Katrina talks about is sitting on the sidelines. You don't need to build...
VANDEN HEUVEL: Or being massed as speculation...
SPITZER: You don't need to build a new facility a new manufacturing plant or increase your capacity when nobody's buying.
GILLESPIE: I mean, think for a second so you're going to put more -- there's all this money out there in the economy and then we're going to take money from the future because that's where government stimulus money comes from...
SPITZER: Have you ever run a business?
GILLESPIE: Yeah, actually, I have and I'm also in charge of a budget.
SPITZER: That's right. That's right. And when you -- and so have I. And when you invest is when your consumers are showing...
GILLESPIE: And when I know -- when know that I won't even know what an employee is going to cost come January 1, because I don't know the tax rate, I don't know how the health care bill is going to play out, I'm not going to hire anybody.
SPITZER: The most convenient smokescreen...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know.
SPITZER: ...my business, unrelated to the massive contraction of demand. Look at the way factories are sitting there at 50 percent capacity utilization. That's why nobody's hiring or buying more capital...
PARKER: Look, there's a reason, though, that businesses leave high tax states like New York and go to Texas where the tax rates are lower. There's a reason why that works.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But there's also a reason that...
(CROSSTALK)
GILLESPIE: No. Wait, hold on, you're saying that tax rates have no effect on economic activity...
SPITZER: No, no, of course they do...
GILLESPIE: Have you ever taken a tax cut or do you always just say give me the highest rate possible?
SPITZER: Nick...
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: Nick, the taxes codes -- the taxes are so low in this country at this moment in comparison to the last 50 years in our history. I believe that...
GILLESPIE: How...
VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, under President Eisenhower, it was a very different tax code...
GILLESPIE: The business taxes were different...
VANDEN HEUVEL: And this country had shared prosperity and security that the Tea Partiers...
PARKER: Eliot is so excited because he has this...
(CROSSTALK)
GILLESPIE: Business taxes were lower under Bill Clinton. When Bill Clinton increased income taxes he lowered business taxes and capital gains taxes and it's relative to where you were in any case...
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: In any case, how do we rebuild this country? There should be some shared agreements. I'm for public/private partnerships, but you're not seeing a private sector reach out to help create the demand that would rebuild the country. I'm not talking only government...
GILLESPIE: Can we agree that TARP was poorly structured. It shouldn't have been done...
SPITZER: Totally agree.
GILLESPIE: -- the stimulus was poorly structured if, in fact, it did not create demand.
VANDEN HEUVEL: There were too many tax cuts larded into it. In order to really create the demand this country needs...
GILLESPIE: Hey, you know what? Obama -- I'm sorry, was there a Democratic Congress? I mean, the Democrats had everything that they needed.
SPITZER: They gave a third of it to the Republicans in the hope of bipartisanship which didn't work in the terms of bipartisanship, but a third of it went to 95 percent of working Americans who got a tax cut -- 95 percent.
VANDEN HEUVEL: That's right.
PARKER: Look, I don't see how anybody can disagree that corporations are going to -- they're going to be influenced by their lack of confidence in the marketplace...
GILLESPIE: If you want a vision of the American future, look to Japan which went through this about 15 years ago and we are doing exactly what they are doing and mow they're in their second decade...
SPITZER: Which is why I've been intensely critical of Geithner and Bernanke and Summers who...
(INAUDIBLE)
Well, we think we should be doing more.
GILLESPIE: That's right.
SPITZER: But with the uncertainty that you're talking about was created by Wall Street, by the investment banker, by the overleveraging, by the crazy...
GILLESPIE: By Obamacare, by Obamacare...
VANDEN HEUVEL: Oh, no, no, no...
SPITZER: You're saying that...
VANDEN HEUVEL: GM...
SPITZER: Oh, this is some pabulum, guys.
(CROSSTALK)
Good, join the libertarian world.
VANDEN HEUVEL: ...that doesn't create an uncertainty when millions of families...
PARKER: One at a time, guys.
GILLESPIE: All I am saying is that when you have a massive health care legislation bill that is passed, we don't know the price tag is, we don't how it's going to play out. And the person who passed it, Barack Obama, says this is transformative and then you're saying, oh now, that can't have any effect on the way people act in the middle of a recession -- you know, I'm sorry, but you're not credible.
SPITZER: What we're saying is we're looking for primary causes here and it is the lack of structural demand because the wealth of the consumer has dropped because the housing market collapsed...
GILLESPIE: Wait, wait, why did the housing market collapse?
VANDEN HEUVEL: But there's no uncertainty...
GILLESPIE: First off, it was pumped up by government policies. And I'm not talking about is the Community Reinvestment Act, what I'm talking about is the fact that big banks knew they were being bailed out. Fannie and Freddie were buying up paper at the government's request with an implicit and then explicit government bailout.
SPITZER: Which is why we agree...
(CROSSTALK)
Let me finish. Too big to fail should have been ended. I think we agree on that.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Should have been structured, not rescued...
GILLESPIE: What do we have with the Dodd/Frank bill that was just passed? Put, now too big to fail is government policy.
SPITZER: I agree with you. It was a mistake. I've been intensely critical of it from the very beginning. I said...
GILLESPIE: It's critical of so much, I mean, you don't seem to have a grasp of why people are sitting on the sidelines, everybody is tentative...
VANDEN HEUVEL: But, wait a minute, how can you say...
GILLESPIE: You don't know what the future hold because you've got a runaway government...
VANDEN HEUVEL: Oh, my god. This government is not runaway. And I would argue that look at Wall Street...
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: How is Wall Street uncertain when you were looking at record compensation levels this year and the stock market has done well? When this business community says that Obama is anti-business, it's laughable. It's laughable.
GILLESPIE: No, I would -- I will agree with you...
VANDEN HEUVEL: He, like Roosevelt, has rescued capitalism from its excesses and should have done more to reform a system in light of the crisis we...
GILLESPIE: I think we can agree on this, Obama is definitely pro-Wall Street. He is in the pocket of Wall Street, more so than Bush, I would argue. He is anti-business because he does not believe in laissez-faire and he does not believe in free markets.
PARKER: Nick, Katrina, hold it right there, we've got lots more to talk about and we'll be back in just a minute. Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: We're back in "The Arena" with Katrina vanden Heuvel and Nick Gillespie.
SPITZER: You know that every night we are saying to smart, thoughtful guests, like you two, who agree on some much, apparently, "Name Your Cuts." We're trying to say we know we need to...
PARKER: They agree on leather, let's just be clear about that.
SPITZER: Well, I was a little scared to go there. You converge on a fashion statement.
GILLESPIE: Neither of us would agree to being called left or right. Or at least I'm not...
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: All right. How do you...
VANDEN HEUVEL: End off-shore tax havens. Senate report estimates bring in $100 Billion each year. I would find a negotiated way out of this war in Afghanistan which is costing this country $16 billion a month and I would work in a trans-partisan way to cut $1 trillion out of the defense budget over 10 years.
SPITZER: OK, but I just want to say, look, those are good, I agree with them, but they're not enough, give me something bigger.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I think the defense budgeted $1 trillion is big, and I...
SPITZER: That's over 10 years, that's $100 billion a year.
VANDEN HEUVEL: And $100 billion a year from the offshore tax havens.
SPITZER: Well, that's not going to be every year.
VANDEN HEUVEL: And Afghanistan, $16 billion a month.
SPITZER: OK, so you're going to chop defense, you're going to get offshore revenue and you're going to do something significant...
VANDEL HEUVEL: And then, of course, I would rework the tax code in this country. I would, of course, end the extension of Bush tax cuts to the very richest in this country.
NICK GILLESPIE, LIBERTARIAN JOURNALIST: What are you defining as the very richest? And why would you leave $3.2 trillion on the table of people making below $250,000?
VANDEN HEUVEL: Because I think the working class, middle class in this country --
GILLESPIE: Working class is 245,000.
VANDEN HEUVEL: No, but those under 250,000, all of those under I think have gotten the shaft.
GILLESPIE: They're all working class. Yes.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Middle class, upper middle class and the working class have gotten the shaft in this country over the last 30 years when wages have stagnated and we see in finance, we see in the economy.
GILLESPIE: And personal living expense have gone up.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But I would put a super billionaire tax up there as well.
(CROSSTALK)
GILLESPIE: Let's put a trillionaire tax.
SPITZER: Just so it's clear, social security, Medicare, Medicaid? What would you do?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I would not put those on the table because I (INAUDIBLE) on the social security expected, time of growing inequality and poverty. Do you really want to cut a program that has been the greatest force for dignity, decency and poverty driven in this country?
KATHLEEN PARKER, HOST: Paul Ryan has put some of those on the table.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I believe that very deeply. And you know, listen, I believe in conviction politics. I will respect yours, too. I wouldn't --
GILLESPIE: No, no, but I'm saying when you're talking about 12.4 percent off of the poorest people's payroll tax, it's like they were --
VANDEN HEUVEL: I would lift the tax above $106,000 --
GILLESPIE: No, no, no, but what I'm saying is that's giving them more dignity to say, look, well, you know, in 50 years, you might be --
VANDEN HEUVEL: We have different definitions of dignity.
SPITZER: Nick, give us your cuts. GILLESPIE: Well, to start with, just a quick -- first off, we need to think about getting rid of the idea of entitlements versus discretionary spending. We need to reconfigure the way we talk about spending. It is all government spending.
First off, Medicare, get rid of the Medicare prescription drug benefit which is about $70 billion a year and it goes to people regardless of income.
SPITZER: What do you mean, get rid of it --
(CROSSTALK)
GILLESPIE: When it was passed, seniors on average were paying 3.2 percent of their income in prescription drugs. They can afford it. The old are not -- you know, this was passed in the '60s but it's actually a depression era mentality program. The old -- the retired are not poor anymore. And to the extent that they are, then you give them welfare, you know, to help pay for drugs. OK. So you get rid of that. But $70 billion here.
For Medicare and social security, you get rid of saying they're entitlements and you create fixed pools each year that can be spent. It should be means tested and it also probably should be phased out for younger people. Let them do what --
SPITZER: You have to raise the retirement age.
GILLESPIE: Well, both. I mean, I'm just saying it should be --
SPITZER: I'm trying to understand.
GILLESPIE: No, means tested, raise the retirement age so that it reflects actual growth and life expectancy and things like that. I mean, it's ridiculous that it takes a decade to go from 65 to 67.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But could I just say one larger point? I think we need in this country something that western industrialized countries have, which is to make a big distinction between an operating budget and an investment budget. And I think if we had that, we would have a different discussion about the deficit.
GILLESPIE: That is essentially what we're talking about when we talk about entitlement spending --
VANDEN HEUVEL: I don't know. I mean, I can --
GILLESPIE: Discretionary spending and you need to have one range planning. But what I'm saying is to say immediately get rid of Pell Grants which were just entitlements. That's ridiculous. All it does is inflate education costs.
PARKER: All right, gang, I got to end it.
GILLESPIE: But then beyond it -- no. Also, then --
SPITZER: Turn the mic off.
GILLESPIE: Not $100 billion a year from defense but $200 billion. In 2015, we're going to spending --
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: I was grounded in the reality of an actual partisan coalition working on that.
PARKER: OK. Well, let me just say this. You all have both done better than any politician we've had on this show.
GILLESPIE: Wow.
PARKER: So, Katrina and Nick, thank you so much.
VANDEN HEUVEL: All right.
PARKER: And you'll have to come back and finish that thought.
GILLESPIE: I was barely getting started.
PARKER: All right. Thanks for an interesting conversation. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Three men have been intensely critical of the ad. You said they're going to lose. You said they laid people off. And I said Meg Whitman (INAUDIBLE) across the border. So, you know, clearly a gender argument is going on here.
PARKER: Yes. And as usual, you all will lose.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: It's time for "Fun with Politics." Those buzzwords that attach themselves to a campaign like gum on your shoe but they tell us a lot.
SPITZER: Sure do.
PARKER: There's text and then there's subtext, right? So in 2008, the word we heard over and over again was "change," which, of course, meant throw the bums out. And then we have one of your favorite words, Eliot.
SPITZER: Which is?
PARKER: Narrative.
SPITZER: Narrative, I love it. You know what it means? Fiction. They're telling us a story. Don't believe a single word you're about to hear. And then your favorite from this year, man up. PARKER: Man up. That means you're a wimp or a wuss, right?
SPITZER: And you're telling a lot of people that, aren't you?
PARKER: No, no, no.
SPITZER: She's telling everybody to man up.
PARKER: All right. Here's one for you, shovel really.
SPITZER: Shovel ready, you know what that means? Photo-op. It means a politician wants to stand there. A lot of money is going to be spent. Nothing is going to happen. And here's one for you, teachable moment.
PARKER: I think I know that one. That means we screwed up big time.
SPITZER: Somebody did, absolutely.
PARKER: Yes. Right.
All right. One of your favorite ones, Eliot, infrastructure.
SPITZER: A project so big our grandkids will pay for it, nobody will ever use it. And then after that one, what we got, the word that's going to be said over and over starting next Tuesday, gridlock.
PARKER: Gridlock. And that's no fiction, unfortunately.
SPITZER: No, no. No subtext to that one.
PARKER: That's all we have time for now. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA BASH, CNN SR. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The end of this election will be about $4 billion that will be spent. And I actually calculate some of what could be spent. $4 billion. Eighty thousand students could be sent for one year either to Princeton or Harvard for $4 billion. Or you could buy three Big Macs or fries at McDonald's for every American in this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Welcome to "Our Political Party," a chance for our guests to speak their minds in a whole range of subject. Let's meet our guests. First, we have John King who is CNN's chief national correspondent and host of our lead-in show "JOHN KING USA." And John is one half of our CNN political power couple. He's married to our next guest, Dana Bash, who is CNN's senior congressional correspondent.
SPITZER: And joining us as well, Errol Louis, who's back. He's a columnist at the "New York Daily News" and recently named anchor of the influential NY1 political program "Inside City Hall." Congratulations.
ERROL LOUIS, "NY DAILY NEWS": Thank you.
SPITZER: And S.E. Cupp, a columnist at the "New York Daily News" and senior writer at thedailycaller.com.
Thank you all for joining us. Let's begin by taking a look at this ad from the Kitchen Cabinet, a group of conservative women.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
In 2010, women who rock the cradles of the world who know the meaning of sacrifice are looking up from their service and their work to provide leadership. Not celebrities. Not career politicians. Women. With the hearts of servants.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: All right. What am I missing here? Meg Whitman heart, what did she do to her servant? Kicked her out and said, no, I never met you. For 20 years, she worked. Is this some sense of irony, to use your word, S.E.?
S.E. CUPP, CONSERVATIVE BLOGGER: No, I love this. I love this. First of all, it comes on the heels of a citizens united movie called "Fire from the Heartland" that celebrated the rebirth of the conservative movement and the role that women are playing. I think what's very interesting in this, and I don't know if everyone noticed, Christine O'Donnell is not in this ad, not once.
PARKER: Yes.
CUPP: I think that's intentional. And I think it's very smart.
SPITZER: So let's talk about her now. Cut her out of the ad, then let's talk about her.
CUPP: One of these things is not like the others, you know? I think conservatives realize that she's not right up there with Bachmann and I think that's a good thing. She's a very problematic candidate.
PARKER: I like that ad. I was getting chills.
DANA BASH, CNN SR. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And the music, I'd be sitting in a movie theater or something.
PARKER: Yes.
BASH: But the other thing that I noticed, it just is a reminder that these candidates, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and, of course, Linda McMahon in Connecticut, they are spending a lot of their own money but it's their money. It's not their husbands money, it's not their daddy's money, it's money that they earned which is a very different phenomenon this election.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Those three at the moment happen to be losing, so it will be interesting. You do have this -- you do have this field of remarkably --
(CROSSTALK)
PARKER: Thanks, John.
KING: -- high-profile conservative women, or moderate to conservative women running in these races. Some of them will break through. We also have a number of African-Americans running as Republicans for Congress. So the usual narratives could be changed by this election year. We've seen some changed already. And come Tuesday night, we might break a few more.
PARKER: Well, win or lose you have to feel good about the fact that more women are running this year than I think have ever run. Is that right, John? You're the expert on stats.
KING: Well, there are more women running and you get to the gubernatorial level, you add some in there too. Although many analysts who crunch the numbers think there will actually be fewer women in the United States Congress come January.
SPITZER: Right.
KING: Despite the more candidates just because of some of the Democrat incumbents getting washed out.
PARKER: Right. Well, anyway, the only thing that would have improved that ad for me is if they had been on horseback.
(LAUGHTER)
LOUIS: Well, to spoil the party just a little bit, I do wonder about all the people who were laid off by Carly Fiorina, by Meg Whitman --
CUPP: Debbie Downer.
LOUIS: You know, they're wearing blue smocks and pushing carts up and down Wal-Mart and, you know, trying to --
SPITZER: Notice what's happened here.
LOUIS: They're servants too. And they're the heroes of their families, but they're in a very different position.
SPITZER: The three men have been intensely critical of the ad. You said they're going to lose.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's weird.
SPITZER: You said they laid people off. And I said Meg Whitman --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
SPITZER: (INAUDIBLE) across the border. So, you know, clearly a gender argument is going on here.
PARKER: Yes.
SPITZER: And it's good for women in these races.
PARKER: And as usual, you all will lose.
SPITZER: We'll reconvene next Wednesday night and see.
PARKER: Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics which is a nonpartisan watchdog group, says that $3.6 billion has flowed into the 2010 election. So, here's the deal for you people. Somebody is going to hand you $3.6 billion. They're not going to tell you where it comes from. You have exactly one week to spend it. We'll start with you this time. Where are you going to go?
LOUIS: Well, aside from my consultants fee for spending this money, I would say with the remainder, frankly, I would use every dollar to find people who didn't vote in the last two cycles in 2006 and 2008, and I would contact them directly and tell them get off the couch and go vote. And honestly, that's what I would do --
PARKER: Would you pay them to go vote?
LOUIS: Well, no, but I'd spend a fair amount of money trying to get them and ask them, do you need a ride? Do you need some motivation? Do you want to see some ads? Do you want to figure out what you want to do because we really need your involvement.
SPITZER: Are you doing this as a social purpose or because you think it will change the outcome?
LOUIS: I think both, frankly. I mean --
SPITZER: It won't change the outcome. Every study that's been done shows that when you go to the people who don't vote, they are a mirror image of those who do which makes sense statistically --
PARKER: They cancel each other out.
SPITZER: Yes, that's right. And so it's amazing. At a cynical level, but it won't change outcomes.
BASH: Kathleen, let me actually tell you that I did a story on this today. And the watchdog group that did this actually estimates that at the end of this election year, it will be about $4 billion that will be spent. And I actually calculated some of what could be spent, $4 billion. Eighty thousand students could be sent for one year to either Princeton or Harvard for $4 billion. Or you could buy three Big Macs with fries at McDonald's for every American in this country.
KING: Would I have to spend it on politics?
PARKER: I think not. Spend it on whatever you want.
KING: I wouldn't spend a dime of it on an ad saying "hate my opponent a little less than you hate me," which we essentially what we have all this money being spent on this year. I think I would put a little slice aside for a vacation for me selfishly.
PARKER: Just you?
KING: And then maybe we can -- I have to take my wife with me.
(LAUGHTER)
And then maybe we could, you know, feed some hungry people or build some homes or build a shelter or give it to food banks, do something nice with it.
BASH: Especially in this bad economy.
SPITZER: Everybody says we spend that much in politics, I wish we spent more. Give you a reference point. We gave Goldman Sachs $13, 12.9 million when we bought them out of their position at AIG. Taxpayer money. We only spent $4 billion total on an election that will determine the fate of this nation, arguably, the world. We should spend more to educate people not in the wasteful way we do it. Spend it in a way that's smart. I'd love to see that.
PARKER: There's no topic that Eliot cannot tie to Goldman Sachs.
(LAUGHTER)
S.E., what about you?
CUPP: I'm a woman of simple pleasures. I probably just buy a ranch somewhere down south, buy a couple guns, spend the rest of my life just getting heads on the wall and then maybe --
SPITZER: Whose heads, can we ask?
CUPP: Goldman Sachs.
Generally exclusively only eat things that once had parents so that's what I would --
SPITZER: Wow.
CUPP: -- maybe a couple charities. I mean, I'm not giving it to anyone who doesn't need it. So no politicians, no media.
SPITZER: Wow.
CUPP: Yes.
SPITZER: A ranch, guns and heads on the wall.
PARKER: You said down south which I really appreciate.
CUPP: My favorite is Kentucky.
PARKER: Oh, that's not quite far enough south.
CUPP: Sorry. (LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: All right.
PARKER: All right. We have to take a break. But we want to hear from you. Check out our blog at CNN.com/parkerspitzer and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
We'll be back with another quick question.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Welcome back to "Our Political Party." Let's do one more quick whip around the table. This has been a tough political season for everyone, political parties, presidents. Is there anything nice you can say to cheer people up and who would you cheer up?
CUPP: You know, hang in there, guys. At least you're not part of the nation's, you know, 10 percent unemployed. We should still have jobs for now.
SPITZER: Not yet, as of Tuesday --
CUPP: They might be back on the dole. I mean, you know, these things have a way of working themselves out. I'm sure no one who's campaigning now is going to go hungry.
PARKER: So this too shall pass.
CUPP: Right.
LOUIS: It's true. I actually -- to every candidate who's running for the first time who loses, having done it once myself for a local office, I would like to reassure them that life does go on, that it was a worthwhile exercise, and that, you know, things will look a little bit different in a couple years and that if they learned from it and they want to stay involved, they've done a great service to the country. Even though a lot of people are going to jeer at them or forget about them, they made a big difference.
SPITZER: Lincoln ran, what? Five times before --
LOUIS: Oh, yes, lots of people --
SPITZER: Just amazing.
PARKER: Dana?
BASH: I think all of the people who are really sick of raising money, the politicians out there, they don't have to worry because the day after the election all they have to do is start raising money again for the next election. That's the silver lining.
KING: I would cheer up the losers this way. You're not going to have to come to Washington or go to your state capital and have to deal with huge budget gaps and social security and Medicare and balancing the budget and all the things that make those voters who just sent the other guy to Washington mad at you.
PARKER: You know, I want to say something sincere. I would say good show and thank you, because it's a hard, hard thing to run for public office. Good people are reluctant to come forward because the media gives them such a hard time. So those who do are really I think performing a service to their country, at least trying, and they deserve a medal of honor for courage. How's that?
KING: Bring back that music from that ad?
(LAUGHTER)
PARKER: Seriously.
SPITZER: You're right. Those who do it well, those who elevate the conversation, and we do not give those limited number of folks enough credit for how hard it is to do that. And John's right, it's very tough once you win if you do so. All right.
PARKER: Yes. That's the hard part.
KING: That governing thing.
SPITZER: Yes, the governing thing.
PARKER: Yes, The really hard part.
All right, John, Dana, Errol, S.E., thank you so much for joining us. We're throwing a party here every night on "PARKER SPITZER." We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: I'm Joe Johns. More of "PARKER SPITZER" in a moment. First, the latest.
The extreme weather that slammed the Midwest yesterday has moved east spawning heavy thunderstorms and tornado watches and warnings from Alabama to the mid-Atlantic. High winds caused delays at several large airports.
Federal authorities have arrested a 34-year-old Virginia man in connection with an alleged plot to blow up subway stations around Washington, D.C. Farooque Ahmed, the target of an FBI sting, is accused of conspiring last spring with people he believed were Al Qaeda operatives.
In Arkansas, there's growing pressure to dismiss a school board member who posted anti-gay comments on his personal Facebook page. The man under fire, Clint McCance is vice president of the Midland School District, an elected position. State education officials have condemned his comments but will they take action? Tonight on "360" we're keeping them honest.
That's the latest. "PARKER SPITZER" is back after this. PARKER: In tonight's postscript, you may have noticed we've been abs obsessed with this whole idea of naming your cuts. We've asked every guest to tell us what they would cut to balance the federal budget and we're not going to stop until we get some truly great ideas to reduce spending.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE ALLEN, FORMER VIRGINIA GOVERNOR: Right off the bat, they ought to get rid of every one of these czars.
RALPH REED, FAITH & FREEDOM COALTION: Return the unused TARP money.
GOV. ED RENDELL (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Get the heck out of Afghanistan. We're spending $150 billion a year.
REED: Return the unused stimulus money.
RICHARD VIGUERIE, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Let's start with public radio.
REED: Freeze federal hiring and pay.
ALLEN: I think there obviously needs to be a reduction and the defunding of Obama care.
REED: Cap and reduce discretionary spending.
VIGUERIE: Education Department, Energy Department, humanities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Well, these are all good ideas. And we've gotten a big conversation going. But as you also know from listening to the show, a lot of these ideas don't come close to adding up to the big numbers we're talking about. But real folks out there are sending e-mails in that do have some good ideas. And there's Doug, for instance. He had a seven-point detailed plan. He must be running for office somewhere. You know, part of it was, you know, not popular things like put a tax on gas, which raises a lot of money. They have good consequence. A lot of senators have come out for that once they leave office.
PARKER: Oh, of course. Well, there are a couple in here, too, that were interesting related to marijuana.
SPITZER: Yes.
PARKER: One person suggests that we let all the prisoners out who've been imprisoned for marijuana and save however much money that would be. And then others who say let's --
SPITZER: He wants to tax it too.
PARKER: Let's legalize it and tax it.
SPITZER: California votes next Tuesday. PARKER: My favorite comes from Athena. I want to get her last name right. Where did it go?
SPITZER: I don't think we have it.
PARKER: Athena Damian.
SPITZER: There we go.
PARKER: It says no salaries for the GOP because in 2009, all they did was say no and that is not a business model.
SPITZER: All right. And I promise I'm not the one who sent that in under a pseudonym but I agree with it 100 percent. All right.
Thanks so much for being with us. Be sure to join us tomorrow night.
PARKER: Goodnight from New York. "LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.
