Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Are Taxpayers Paying Too Much For Olympics?

Aired February 08, 2002 - 19:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Tonight, Salt Lake City's Olympic-size price tag. Are taxpayers paying too much for it? And the airline disturbance cut short by an ax. Would it have been better if the pilot had a gun?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the CROSSFIRE, Stephen Moore, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and radio talk show host Steak Shapiro. And then, Peter Goelz, former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board and American Airlines pilot Philip Beall.

NOVAK: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE.

The 29-year-old bank employee who kicked in the reinforced cockpit door of the United Airlines plane appeared in federal court in Miami today. He had been subdued by the airliner's crew and passengers with a pilot whacking him on the side of the head with a flat edge of the cockpit ax.

But should pilots carry guns? They think so. And so do the American people, but not the U.S. government. We're talking to Peter Goelz, former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board and to Captain Philip Beall, an American Airlines pilot and an officer in the Allied Pilots Association -- Bill Press.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Well Captain, let's talk about what happened yesterday. This pilot crazy -- I mean this passenger, crazy passenger, tries to get into the cockpit. He can't. The door's been reinforced. There's a metal bar. He can only get his head inside. The crew jumps on him. Passengers jump on him. And the co-pilot whacks him in the head with an ax. I mean, it worked, captain. Doesn't this prove that you don't need a gun on board a plane?

PHILIP BEALL, AMERICAN AIRLINES PILOT: Quite to the contrary. In fact, what it illustrates is just how poorly developed the system is. You represent that this individual didn't get into the cockpit, yet he got enough into the cockpit for the first officer to be able to strike him with the ax.

And I'll remind you, this was a single individual who was probably ill, mentally ill, deranged, on drugs something like that. Not a fire team of 4 to 6 terrorists that are definitely determined to get into the cockpit. Frankly, I think it's a miracle that it turned out as well as it did.

PRESS: Come on, captain. He banged against the door six times. He couldn't get in. The most he could do was kick the bottom of the door. He got his head inside. Hard for terrorist to do much damage with just his head inside.

And again, they whacked him with an ax. There was another incident today, where some crazy French man, smoking a cigarette on a U.S. plane, God forbid, gets unruly. And the passengers jumped on him. I mean, things are working, captain. Why do you want to make them worse by putting guns on the plane?

BEALL: Well, you say making it worse, but the fact is this has been extensively studied by a variety of highly qualified individuals to include the preeminent law enforcement agency in the world, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

They did a feasibility study in the fall that concluded absolutely pilots could be trained. It could be done in short order. In fact, the training program could be done in one week. And this would be the fastest, most efficient means of making sure that the airplane is not commandeered.

I mean the fact is, you're asserting that this individual, who was kicking on the door didn't get much into the cockpit. And I submit to you that if you had four to six highly trained and highly motivated individuals, we might have had an entirely different outcome. And without the opportunity for the pilots to carry a firearm as a last line of defense of the cockpit, the ultimate solution is going to be an F-16 shooting the airplane out of the sky. So frankly, I don't understand the discussion.

NOVAK: Mr. Goelz, we had an earlier today on CNN, we had a former airline pilot named Sam Ward. And I was really taken with the answer he gave on this question. And let's listen to it for a moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAM WARD, FMR. AIRLINE PILOT: Now I think you ought to have -- weaponize the cockpit. This is the last line of defense. If somebody comes through that cockpit door, which they did yesterday, and the first officer had to fight him off with a fire ax, I'd rather not have to use hand to hand combat against a terrorist. They're probably better at it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Now isn't that the point, that relying on you know, the ax is not in there as a weapon. It's in there for entirely different purpose, for ditching purposes. But wouldn't that be a deterrent for either a deranged person or a terrorist or goodness knows what if they knew that these pilots were packing a gun up there?

PETER GOELZ, FMR. NTSB MANAGING DIRECTOR: I really put this arming of the pilots under the category of for every complex problem, there's a similar, neat answer, and it's wrong. And this one's wrong.

The pilots have one principal responsibility, that's to fly that plane. And September 11th, the whole procedure on how you respond to terrorists or to activities inside the fuselage of that plane have changed. And I think what this pointed out is we need to keep going on strengthening the cockpit doors.

The idea that we're going to arm pilots the unintended consequences of that throughout the aviation system is enormous and will cause far more damage than the protection it supposedly would bring us.

NOVAK: Mr. Goelz, I don't know whether you're a pilot or not. But the pilots, the people who have to fly these big things, they don't think it's an extra duty. They think it's a protection.

But I have another reason why there's so much opposition to it. I think that we have in this country a culture of opposition to people trying to protect themselves with firearms. I call it the gun control nuts, who really don't believe, like in the city of District of Columbia, they put you new jail if you carry a gun. Don't -- isn't that what this is really about? This is a gun control phenomenon?

GOELZ: I don't think that's it at all. I think it's an issue of safety and who's really responsible for flying the plane, and who's responsible for protecting the public inside the plane.

For instance in California, they're now starting to train highway patrolmen to fly plain clothes, carrying weapons, inside the planes within the state of California. There are a number of steps that can be taken, that can bring greater protection inside the plane, without doubling up on the pilots' responsibilities.

PRESS: So Captain, you were citing all the law enforcement officers you say are hot on this idea. You know, this actually falls under the jurisdiction of the top Homeland Security person in this country, who happens to be former Governor Tom Ridge.

He appeared recently on one of Bob Novak's many other shows on CNN and talked on this subject. I'd like to you listen quickly to what Tom Ridge had to say about giving pilots guns. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: At this point in time, I still don't think there's a need to put side arms on your pilots and co-pilots. There are other ways to protect them. And I think we've been doing that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: So you're saying Tom Ridge doesn't know what he's talking about?

BEALL: I don't think that Tom Ridge doesn't know what he's talking about, but I believe that there is some political hysteria on this thing. And I'm frankly not sure who it is that's stirring it up.

You talk about this issue with the California Highway Patrol people going to be on board with their firearms. Let me just tell you, in addition to being a pilot, I also have 17 years as a licensed law enforcement officer. And I, too, am certified by the FAA to carry a firearm while flying.

I'll tell that you we have thousands and thousands of law enforcement officers on board airplanes that we fly all over the country, every year carrying their firearms. So what California is doing is no departure from what's been standard practice.

PRESS: Well, it's a hell of a lot different from giving the guns to the pilots, captain. That's my point, I guess you know. I have no problem with armed marshals on the flights, the person who's there for that particular purpose. I just don't want to see the planes become like the wild west.

Isn't the answer to have an armed marshal on each flight, so the pilot can concentrate, as Mr. Goelz said, on what his job is? Get the plane down safely.

BEALL: Well, to be clear, flying an airplane, there's this misconception that two pilots up in the cockpit are both concentrating on doing exactly the same thing. In the event of an emergency today, one pilot flies, and the other one deals with the emergency.

What we're proposing is tomorrow the same thing. The pilot flying flies. The pilot dealing with the emergency deals with the emergency. This issue of distracting pilots is totally, completely off the mark.

GOELZ: Captain, I can remember not too long ago when the pilots raised holy hell about reducing the cockpit crew from three to two, saying that it was absolutely essential that you have three people in the cockpit. Now you're saying that in a crisis situation, in a heavy workload situation, you can take one of the pilots out of the cockpit. I don't think that's a wise strategy, Captain.

BEALL: Well, I'm telling you that's the way it is dealt with today. When you have an emergency, one pilot flies. One pilot deals with the emergency. And if you want to talk about air marshals, all you have to do is take a look at the fact that on September the 11 there was an air marshal program. These government people that want to protect us, they don't really want to protect us.

There were 32 people. Only 22 of them were actually flying. And subsequently, the issue of American flight 63 across the Atlantic, the deranged individual that stormed into the cockpit from L.A. to Chicago and this incident yesterday. Where were the air marshals then? There were none.

PRESS: All right, Captain, we're going to have to leave it there. That's got to be the last word. Peter Goelz, thanks so much for joining us. And Captain Philip Beall, thank you for joining us, too. Next up, the Olympic Games begin shortly in Salt Lake City. Should taxpayers be stuck with an Olympic sized bill for the Games?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. And let the games begin. They do tonight in Salt Lake City with all the pomp and color we love, but something else this year, a massive show of security.

Anxious to protect athletes and spectators and prevent another 9/11, officials have deployed a security force of 10,000. That's six cops for every one athlete. That inflates the total Olympic price tag to $2 billion. And you and I are paying for a big chunk of it.

$400 million in U.S. tax dollars helping fund the Winter Games. Are the games too expensive? Is so much security necessary? Should American taxpayers be footing the bill?

Our guest tonight, Stephen Moore, senior fellow at the CATO Institute, joins us in the studio. And in Atlanta, back again, sports radio talk show host Steak Shapiro -- Bob Novak?

NOVAK: Steak Shapiro, Senator John McCain has recalled this -- these funds being paid by the American taxpayers for the Olympic games as outrageous, disgraceful, and obscene. And the reason he's so upset with it, Steak, is that it was snuck in. There was no hearings. There was no proper legislative procedure. The -- it was put in like other pork barrel projects.

If this was something the American people would support, I'm sure most American taxpayers don't know it, shouldn't they have gone the regular procedure?

STEAK SHAPIRO, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, it sounds like very dramatic words. But again, you're spending money on the Olympics and the American athletes. You're spending money on something that brings more patriotism.

How can you put a price on what the value of the Olympics means to our country? Go back to 1980 and what that gold medal meant. Go back to the thousands of athletes that will never be professions. Of all the things we spend money for as taxpayers, the fact that the Olympics are in our nation and it says U.S.A. on the uniforms, should we really be that worried about the fact that we're spending money?

It looks like a good place to spend money, as far as I'm concerned. Why don't we just support the red, white and blue, now more than ever, and not get caught up? I mean, I can think of a lot worse places to support our athletes.

NOVAK: Steak, I'm sure you know that a lot of those Olympic athletes, the day of the Olympic amateur ended a long time ago. These are professional hockey players, professional skiers, professional everything.

But I just want to let you know what we're spending your taxpayer's money and mine for. And let's put it up on the screen and look at the Olympic budget; $37.6 million for ceremonies; $8 million for the Olympic flame cauldron; $3 million for drug testing -- I love this -- $322,000 for limos for the IOC members; and $209,999 for parties for the volunteers. Is that patriotism or is that just excess gone, run amuck?

SHAPIRO: Why don't we put a value on what the level of patriotism has been when America wins gold medals, when athletes are given the opportunity of a lifetime. And no, most athletes don't become professionals. Not the guy in the luge, not the guy for the most part doing downhill skiing. There are amateur athletes.

Two hundred thousand dollars for parties. That's two weeks worth of parties. That doesn't sound so high to me. Why don't we not worry so much about this area? Of all the money that we could be worried about as taxpayers, this is the great international event. It's a chance to showcase our country. And it's chance to give young Americans the opportunity of a lifetime. And how can you put a value on patriotism? Let's not get so caught up in this. Those numbers -- those look nice on the screen, don't bother me.

PRESS: OK, Stephen Moore, I guess it's up to you to be the skunk at the lawn party here. But you know, after 9/11, there really was a serious question about whether the Games could go forward. And they decided that the Games should go forward.

To send a message, you know, that number one, the terrorists can't shut down the Games. And number two, the terrorists can't shut down this country. So there is a lot at stake. I mean, they're carrying that flag that was found at the World Trade Center into the stadium. It's going to fly over that stadium.

It's an important message around the world. I mean, in light of that, and the special significance that these Games have, doesn't your whining about the cost seem a little trivial and maybe out of place?

STEPHEN MOORE, CATO INSTITUTE: Well first of all, Bill, there was $400 million already appropriated for these Olympic games before 9/11. So most of this spending that's taking place is not a result of security measures. It's a result of -- and you of all people.

You know, this is basically a big corporate welfare grant to large corporate developers in Utah, to the International Olympic Committee, and to the corporate sponsors of this. This is not really an issue of whether this benefits the athletes. The Olympics would go on with or without these subsidies. The real beneficiaries are big, corporate America. And they shouldn't be getting a handout from the federal government.

PRESS: Yes, but I think Steak made a point here. That is, you know, I'd like to get rid of all pork, you know, but not -- that's really not possible. But I mean, this is Washington, D.C., Steve. We spent more than $400 million on chicken manure across the street. We spent it on buffalo manure.

MOORE: Well, I'm not for that. PRESS: I mean, well, but isn't this a better expense of the money for these athletes?

MOORE: Do you know what is outrageous?

PRESS: And these Games than some of the other crap we spend money on.

MOORE: Well, it's all crap. But you know what? A lot of this money is actually being, when Bob Novak was talking about these hidden appropriations, a lot of the money is coming right out of the defense budget. So it's coming out of national security budget that can certainly be used for higher purposes.

PRESS: Oh, come on.

NOVAK: You know, Steak, I don't know if you know this, but in the old days, we used to brag in this country that our Olympic games were paid for by corporate contributions. That all these socialist countries in Europe used to pay for their Olympics, but we didn't. That has changed.

Why didn't you belly up to these big corporations, which have all this money, and say why don't you pay the $400 million? They could afford it. Wouldn't that be better than having the taxpayer pay for it?

SHAPIRO: Well corporate America pays for a lot. They pay for uniforms. They paid for training facilities. They take a big portion of it and also gain a lot in advertising.

But I mean, you're not talking about that a large sum of money. Every four years, to be on an international stage and represent the United States of America. And no, it's not all going in bogus places.

Talk to the athletes who have training for eight years and needed some form of funding. And by the way, when we were getting corporate America to spend it, we're also getting screwed over by, you know, the East Germans and the Russians with all their training facilities and all the illegal drug -- everything else that was going on at that time. It's a different era. We're in a different place.

MOORE: Yes, Steak, this is just a classic example of basically saying that if the government doesn't pay for it, it's not going to get done. These Olympic Games are going to make billions of dollars for corporate America. They can underwrite this. It can be underwritten by private, voluntary contributions by Americans.

SHAPIRO: Oh, come on.

MOORE: It doesn't have to come from the government. Just to put it in perspective about how much money we're talking about, it's about $500,000 in subsidies per athlete. That's a pretty large subsidy.

SHAPIRO: You know, you can make numbers look like whatever you want them to make it look like. Corporate America... MOORE: Well, half a million dollars is a lot of money.

SHAPIRO: Well, you know what? You can make, you can put those numbers any way you want. The reality is this. Americans want to watch Americans perform.

NOVAK: That's right.

SHAPIRO: The Olympics are one of the great traditions going on in the world today. To get this caught up -- and why not showcase Salt Lake City? Why not showcase the great things our nation has? You know, this is something that is bringing international community together.

PRESS: Let me get a word in here because I want to pick up on something you said. This is not just money gone down a rat hole. I mean, I went to the Olympics in L.A. And I've been down to Atlanta and seen the great Centennial Park with that area.

So the communities get something back. They get new parks. The get new facilities. Salt Lake City is saying that they're probably going to get $5 billion out of these Olympics.

MOORE: Right.

PRESS: To me, that sounds...

MOORE: Well, you're exactly right.

PRESS: Wait, you're harping. You spend $2 billion and you get $5 billion. Where I come from, even Enron accounting, that's pretty good deal. What are you harping about?

MOORE: No, no, here's the point. You're exactly right. Utah, the state of Utah makes out like bandits in this Olympics. Why shouldn't the taxpayers of Utah pay for it? I mean, after all, they had to basically bribe the officials at the International Olympic Committee to get the Olympic Games.

PRESS: Because they...

MOORE: And now they did bribe them.

PRESS: Yes.

MOORE: And now they're saying they need federal taxpayer dollars. We built for them a subway system. We built for them roads and highways.

NOVAK: Steak, you know, you talked a lot about patriotism. Don Rumsfeld, who is -- doesn't kid around, he said the other day we have more troops in Utah than in Afghanistan. I mean, we're supposed to be at war. Is this the way we're supposed to be spending our defense budget, sending them all to fight the battle of Salt Lake City?

SHAPIRO: Yes, I think so. I think one thing we want to make sure is that we're more secure than we've ever been at any point in our lifetime. I was at the Super Bowl. That was the safest place to be in the world.

And of course, making sure that Salt Lake City is secure. Building up Salt Lake City, like we did here in Atlanta is important. Steve, I recommend you put on your red, white and blue pin and watch the Olympics Monday night, but you'll probably watch Ally McBeal. Watch the Olympics. Root for our athletes.

MOORE: Do you think that taxpayers should have paid for the Super Bowl and the World Series? Those were patriotic.

SHAPIRO: Are you going to compare the Super Bowl as a show of patriotism?

PRESS: All right.

SHAPIRO: I tell you what, you either root for the Patriots or the Rams.

MOORE: Well, the Yankees were in the World Series.

PRESS: All right, come on.

NOVAK: And the Patriots were in the Super Bowl.

PRESS: All right.

SHAPIRO: The right team won, too.

MOORE: I'm for the Olympics, just not for taxpayers...

PRESS: All right.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: Hey, sports fans, it's all over. The game is over. Thank you, Steve Moore, very much for joining us. Steve Shapiro, always good to have you here. Good man.

And next, we've got mail. During the break, Bob and I are going to put on our bulletproof vests. And when we come back, since it's Friday night, you get to fire back at us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: And now your favorite part of the week, when we sit back and you fire back. The first e-mail tonight is for me from R.R. McWilliams, Indian River, Michigan about Enron. "Bill, I have a solution to the Enron mess. If a defendant wants to take the Fifth, he should be advised that he might face life in prison."

Well I hate to disappoint you, R.R, but I believe that even Enron executives have a right to their constitutional privileges. That's what is great about America. Even corporate scum can take the Fifth. NOVAK: You work those people up, and they come up with ideas like that. This was Ronald Reagan's 91st birthday. And I get this e- mail from Will Cunningham, who asked, "How can the Republicans think Ronald Reagan was our greatest president? I'll tell you why. They are all rich!"

Will, you've been caught up in this class struggle nonsense. The fact of the matter is that if only rich people voted for Ronald Reagan, he wouldn't have won two landslide elections and be considered by Americans as one of the most beloved and favorite president's of the 20th century.

PRESS: But still no Mount Rushmore. That's what they're arguing about. All right. This one has to do with our discussion last night about peace in the Middle East. And from Dan Leahy in Santa Barbara. "Bill, there's plenty of blame to go around but siding exclusively with Sharon is a shameful mistake by Bush."

Mr. Leahy, I could not agree more. We can never be an honest broker in the Middle East when we only talk to one side. President Bush should meet with Yasser Arafat if he really supports the Palestinian state. The sooner, the better.

NOVAK: That's something we agree on. Kathy Hilton says, "Mr. Novak, when you talk about Hillary Clinton, you sound like a man full of envy. Maybe she'll make you her press secretary and you can call her Mrs. President in a few years!"

God forbid, Kathy! One thing I don't do is envy Senator Clinton. I feel a little sorry for her, considering who she's married to.

PRESS: This Kathy's a very smart woman. But you know, Bob, Hillary would never appoint you her press secretary because she wants someone nice, Bob. You know, she wants someone with a sense of humor, Bob.

NOVAK: I know. I refuse to serve if selected.

PRESS: OK, folks, that's it for this week. Don't forget we love to hear from you. Read as many e-mails as we can. So send in your e- mails to me, Bob and Tucker to crossfire@cnn.com. For tonight, that's it. I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE and have a great weekend.

NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time on CROSSFIRE and enjoy the Olympics.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com