Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Republican Path to Prosperity Plan; Shutdown Showdown; Future of Nuclear Power in Doubt
Aired April 05, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
We witnessed an unusual moment in Washington today. President Obama got just a little -- how do I say this -- angry. OK, so maybe that's too strong a word, maybe miffed is more like it, but by Obama standards, he got tough.
He really went after Congress for not closing a budget deal. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It would be inexcusable for us to not be able to take care of last year's business -- keep in mind we're dealing with a budget that could have gotten done three months ago, could have gotten done two months ago, could have gotten done last month -- when we are this close simply because of politics.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Every parent knows that voice. That was the president's version of, hey, kids, you don't really want me to pull this car over, now do you?
Well, the Republicans came right back swinging so fast, in fact, that they caught CNN's own Jim Acosta off guard. No sooner did he begin his analysis of the president's speech than John Boehner stepped up to the podium.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, he appears to be saying game on, Randi. I mean over the next couple of days we're going to be watching basically the theatrics of a high-stakes budget showdown in Washington, the likes of which we haven't seen --
RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: Jim -- let me interrupt you there, Jim. We want to get to John Boehner speaking. We'll get back to you.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: We've made clear that we're fighting for the largest spending cuts possible. We're talking about real spending cuts here, no smoke and mirrors. (END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: For Washington, this is high drama. It's also a high- stakes battle, and the possibility of a government shutdown is still very real. One of the most hard-liners and slash the spending guys is Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz who sits on the House Budget Committee.
I spoke with him just a few moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Let's jump right into this. How far apart are the two sides? We're just a couple of days away from a government shutdown. In numbers, what is the White House offering and what are you demanding? What is the gap between the two sides right now?
REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: It's hard to tell what the White House is offering. Obviously, the speaker has been in consultation there. I'm just glad that the president is hopefully engaging at this point because we need his help and leadership on this.
I signed a pledge. My pledge was I wanted to cut $100 billion in -- back to the 2008 levels. I think that's a reasonable thing to achieve for the entire year. So how we get from here to there, tough, difficult decision, but hopefully we get to the answer sooner rather than later.
SPITZER: Look, Congressman, I heard the president today talking about 73 is what they put on the table, and I'm not talking right now about where you -- how you spread these numbers around. But the difference between 73, even if you had to get to 100, you're talking about $27 billion here.
That's the gap at most on a budget of $3.8 trillion. We're talking way less than 1 percent of the budget. Isn't this kind of silliness? I mean let's put the rhetoric aside. Are you going to risk a government shutdown over less than 1 percent of what's at stake here?
CHAFFETZ: Well, I don't want the government to shut down, but if it were that close, if it's really that close, I would think that we could get to that $100 billion number because if you look at the $1.6 trillion that we're going to add up in the debt this year, yes, it is a small amount of money. So let's get to the finish line and move on with the business of this country.
SPITZER: Here's the question I've got for you. You said you're going to vote against raising the debt ceiling. Now raising the debt ceiling -- just so folks understand -- is a different matter than closing the budget gap for right now this year.
Is it true you're going to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you're going to throw the federal government into bankruptcy? Because even if you've got your $100 billion in cuts, we're going to have a federal deficit that's well over $1 trillion next year so the federal government is going to have to borrow.
So how can you rationally say you're going to oppose raising the debt ceiling?
CHAFFETZ: What I've said is I would not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless we're moving in a trajectory to actually cut the debt and move towards a balanced budget.
SPITZER: So you're saying that you will vote against raising the debt ceiling based upon what the president has offered, which is $73 billion in cuts, but you'll vote for it if you get your $100 billion. So that $27 billion is --
CHAFFETZ: No. I really think -- I really think that they are two separate issues. They're going to be dealt with separately. We need to get through this continuing resolution. And the only reason we're dealing with a continuing resolution is because the Democrats who have the House and the Senate and the presidency refuse to even pretend to do a budget last year. That's the only reason we're in this.
SPITZER: You voted to give tax cuts to the richest Americans, the top 2 percent, you gave them tax cuts of about $800 billion over a decade, which is exactly what you guys are saying we now need to cut from health care for the poorest Americans.
That was a trade off that you made. How can you justify that as a matter of ethics, morality or simply good conscience?
CHAFFETZ: Well, actually, when that package came up I voted against it but for different reasons than you're stating.
SPITZER: You wanted some more.
CHAFFETZ: Well, yes, and we added $300 billion to debt. That's why I think -- without cutting anything. That was the problem that I had with the tax packages. We didn't cut anything but we added additional $300 billion to our national debt.
SPITZER: But --
CHAFFETZ: Nevertheless -- nevertheless, the principles are the same. We are taxing, borrowing and spending too much money. We have to curb the spending. That's as a -- I mean it's the classic approach to whether you believe government should do, what is the proper role of government. I just don't believe that you're going to tax your way to prosperity.
SPITZER: Congressman --
CHAFFETZ: I mean we can't spend 25 cents out of every dollar. We just can't do it.
SPITZER: Congressman, I don't believe you can tax your way to prosperity, but I'll tell you this. If you look at the Clinton presidency when the rates were 50 percent below where they used to be -- we used to have marginal rates up in the 90s during President Roosevelt's era, during President Eisenhower's era they were in the 80s.
We're down to 39. You are driving the government to bankruptcy and then balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and that's the choice I have. I'm saying to you, how do you justify that?
We had more job creation during President Clinton's era than we had by ratio about 4-1 over President Bush when he was cutting the tax rates. You're simply wrong on the economics and history.
But I want to ask you another question. The question I want to ask you right now relates to the tax code. You say you want to simplify it. Right?
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: OK. Now you say you want to bring rates down to 25 percent. You're going to eliminate all the tax loopholes.
CHAFFETZ: We want to broaden the base and lower the rates.
SPITZER: OK. I'm with you 100 percent on that. Which loopholes are you going to eliminating? Are you embracing the Bowles-Simpson plan which said they wanted to do the same thing?
CHAFFETZ: Well, there were several provisions. A dozen plus or so of the Simpson-Bowles plan that is actually in the House budget plan. What we're setting is the framework and then the committees of jurisdiction would have to come in and fill in the details. That's just the way the --
SPITZER: All right. Well --
CHAFFETZ: The budget -- how the process works.
SPITZER: I'm here to ask you about those details because I'm reading this stuff today and I'm expecting details in this plan that's been much ballyhooed for quite sometime. I want details -- I want to say I don't know if I'm with you. Are you -- one of the things Bowles-Simpson did, people didn't talk about it much, they eliminated the capital gains rate. Are you for that or against it?
CHAFFETZ: I want to reduce it. I don't know that I would fully eliminate it.
SPITZER: Wait, wait.
CHAFFETZ: If it was up to me unilaterally, I want to reduce that rate.
SPITZER: Wait, wait, I think we're --
CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Capital gains.
SPITZER: We're talking a different language here. CHAFFETZ: No.
SPITZER: When I say eliminating the capital gains here I mean they were going to tax capital income that is now capital gains, income at ordinary income rates are going to increase the tax rate on that. Are you for that or against it?
CHAFFETZ: No. I want to -- I want to actually reduce that rate.
SPITZER: OK.
CHAFFETZ: And historically, as we've reduced -- we've reduced the capital gains tax, revenues to the treasury has gone up.
SPITZER: OK.
CHAFFETZ: That's just the history of it.
SPITZER: No. Historically wrong. But that's OK. If you do that --
CHAFFETZ: No, it is. Factually, that is absolutely right.
SPITZER: If you do that -- wait, if you do that, you're never going to be able to reduce the rates the way you're talking. You talk about eliminating $1 trillion in tax expenditures. The thing that the Bowles-Simpson plan looks at is capital gains.
OK, let's go to another one. We disagree on this one. How about mortgage income tax deduction. You're eliminating that one for homeowners?
CHAFFETZ: No. No. Look, what --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Then what are you eliminating?
CHAFFETZ: What we've done -- what we have done is had this scored by the CBO. And so if you look at the plan in its totality, the way it's laid out, it is -- if you compare it to the president's plan, $6 trillion less, $6 trillion less in our debt that we're adding.
And no longer do we have these trillion-dollar deficits on an annual basis where we have been between $1.4 and $1.6 trillion this year, we're actually going to be less than $1 trillion next year.
SPITZER: Wait. No, no, no. Let's be real. The way the CBO scored it, even if you did everything in your plan, and most of it doesn't make sense, you'd have a balanced budget by 2040. 2040.
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: Right?
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: Is that a fact? So you're talking about balancing --
CHAFFETZ: It was -- late 2030s. But one of the principles that was --
SPITZER: Late 2030s. Now they said 2040.
CHAFFETZ: One of the principles that's important here is that we did not touch the seniors that are 55 years and older. We have obligations we need to live up to seniors.
SPITZER: You're right.
CHAFFETZ: And so if you look at -- Medicare and those types of things --
SPITZER: You exempted seniors, you beat up on the poor because they're easier to beat upon.
CHAFFETZ: No, we didn't.
SPITZER: I had to --
CHAFFETZ: No, we didn't.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Let me ask -- but no, no. Let me ask you this.
CHAFFETZ: No.
SPITZER: You say you're going to broaden the base of the tax code. You haven't given me one significant tax loophole you're going to close. Which one? Name it.
CHAFFETZ: Well, that's where we're going to go back and look at the totality of it, broaden the base, lower the rate. That is the principle by which the Committees of Jurisdiction, of which there are several, are going to go back and look and offer the specifics. That's the way the budget process works.
SPITZER: No, no, no. The way the budget process works is that Paul Ryan, after a whole lot of study, was supposed to tell us the details today. I read this. It was a whole lot of 70 pages of small printed footnotes. I looked at it and I was saying OK, good, they're going to broaden the tax base, eliminate a $1 trillion in tax expenditures, they say.
But where are the details? Which ones are you going to close? Because otherwise it's mumbo jumbo, smoke and mirrors, the same stuff you said you went to Washington to eliminate. So tell me which loopholes you're closing.
CHAFFETZ: No, we're going to make some major adjustments to entitlement. I'm proud of the fact that we looked at entitlement reforms --
SPITZER: But you're reaching Social Security.
CHAFFETZ: Well, we do, because there are triggers in place which -- because --
SPITZER: No, no, no.
CHAFFETZ: Yes.
SPITZER: I got the sheets right here. You're increasing spending in Social Security. I've got the sheet in front of me.
CHAFFETZ: Well, if you look at Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security --
SPITZER: But not social security.
CHAFFETZ: We have not -- I'm just -- I'm talking about the entitlement programs.
SPITZER: So do I.
CHAFFETZ: We don't actually cut the expenditures, we slow the rate of growth, and in the case of Social Security there are triggers that kick into place because it becomes insolvent. And if it does become insolvent which we know it will be, then the president, the Senate and the House are required then to actually submit a plan which will bring everybody to the table to help solve it.
SPITZER: Congressman, I appreciate you coming on the show and --
CHAFFETZ: Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: -- over this stuff. And look, I mean it sincerely. Let's figure out this -- how -- what we're going to do with the tax code, how we're going to close those loopholes. I want to hear the answers and I'm sure you're going to have them for us down the road.
CHAFFETZ: Thank you.
SPITZER: Thank you, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: All right. He's a good sport. We enjoyed that conversation. I'm sure he will come back.
So who wins this lab fight between the White House and Republicans? David Gergen is the perfect man to mediate. He'll do just that when we come back.
And Will Cain is here.
Will, things are getting crazy in Wisconsin. Tell us about it.
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, we're talking about Wisconsin again. This time we're talking about a state Supreme Court race. And every viewer should wonder, why would I -- outside of my mother, why would I want to watch Will talk about a Supreme Court race in Wisconsin?
Here's why. It's become a proxy on Scott Walker and his collective bargaining rights law. Tonight, for the first time, we're going to hear what voters have to say and how they felt about those laws.
SPITZER: All right. Fascinating stuff. Electing the justices who get to pass judgment that was passed in the stealth of night. All right. Fascinating stuff. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: President Obama today scolded Congress, insisting they act like grown-ups or come midnight Friday the federal government shuts down. So let's talk to a real grown-up about who's right. One of the few grown-ups I know in fact joins me now, CNN's senior political analyst David Gergen.
So, David, thank you as always for being here. The president tried really hard today to show he was in command. Did he succeed at that political mission?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: He certainly seized the bully pulpit very well, Eliot. I think he was smart to get out there because he's been accused of being too passive in these deficit debates and he's now finally in the game and I think he did very well by it.
I don't think that gives him the upper hand in terms of who may get blamed if there's a shutdown.
SPITZER: You know, before we even get to blame and some of the numbers involved.
GERGEN: Sure.
SPITZER: A question that has been bothering me as I watch this unfold is why didn't the president and his party -- the Democratic Party -- pass a budget last year when the Democratic Party controlled the Senate and the House and the president had the opportunity to make this year's budget, at least, reflect his value structure?
Why did they let it linger so long?
GERGEN: Darn good question. Their public response -- Steny Hoyer, for example, the Democratic number two in the House -- Democrat -- said last year that they weren't going to pass a budget because they wanted to wait until December to see what the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission came up with. That was sort of the public excuse. I think underneath that, Eliot, the truth is that they were worried that if they passed a controversial budget with some cuts in it that they would then might face the wrath of voters in a very -- in an election in November that was already looked tough. I think they ducked for political purposes.
SPITZER: And I think it's fair to say that having ducked they certainly then got bitten by the worst of all possible worst. They lost control of the House and now they're stuck fighting this year over last year's budget. They're losing funding for all the programs that they do, in fact, care about. And so it's a lose-lose proposition. Makes you wonder if delaying all these tough decisions hasn't made it much worse for them, not better.
GERGEN: Well, that's right, Eliot. But doesn't that also suggest to you that if the Congress and the president continue to wait on the bigger reforms that are needed in order to bring deficits under control that those are only going to get worse, too, that the problems get worse, the politics get harder, the cost to the government paying interest rates on increased deficits only get higher?
SPITZER: Absolutely. Delay is the enemy of progress in this case.
I want to come back to the actual back and forth, the delta -- the big difference between the bid and the ask right now between the White House and the Congress seems to be reasonably small, not in terms of, you know, tens of billions of dollars, but small in the context of the entirety of the budget.
Doesn't the public look -- you know, if you're talking about $20 billion they're fighting over with a budget of $3.8 trillion, doesn't the public look at them and say, you know, a pox on both your houses and everybody loses from this?
GERGEN: Absolutely. And that's why I think the White House may be making a mistake in assuming that if there is a shutdown that the Democrats will benefit just as they did way back in the mid-'90s when President Clinton was in office and fighting against Newt Gingrich and Republicans.
As you'll remember, that shutdown absolutely paid off for the president. And so there's that sort of sense among Democrats. But if you look at the polls -- and I think just your sense of things is, that's not at all the case this time. There was a "Wall Street Journal" poll here just a few weeks ago that showed that if there's a shutdown 58 percent of Americans will blame both parties equally, 21 percent will then blame the Republicans more than the Democrats, but 21 percent will blame Democrats more than Republicans.
I don't see how you can find a finer example or more clear-cut evidence that shows the public is going to do exactly what you're saying, declare a pox on both houses.
SPITZER: Yes, and there's also the larger issue, I think, that at the end of the day people want leadership out of the White House. And I think in a way he has ceded that authority by today, in fact, Paul Ryan coming out with what I think will be deemed a controversial budget plan.
But I wonder, has Paul Ryan now defined the terms of the debate so once again the president will be responding rather than defining how we view the -- defining the prism through which we view this issue?
GERGEN: Well, you know, when the president says there are too many children up there, I think that for many in the American public Paul Ryan looks like the adult who actually had the courage to put forward a plan.
Yes, controversial. I strongly disagree with elements of it. I agree with what you've been saying that it takes too much out of the hides of children and seniors and others. And any kind of agreement, just as the Bowles-Simpson commission said, has to have tax increases.
The Bowles-Simpson said they would take $2 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. That seemed to be a very sensible approach. The Ryan plan does not do that and it takes it all out of spending. So, you know, I object to it on a variety of grounds. But having said that, I give him credit as I think many Americans will do for actually having put forward a plan.
Now we've had Bowles-Simpson, a deficit commission bipartisan put forward a plan, we have senators working on a plan they're going to come up with. We have the Republican budget leader in the House coming forward with a plan.
Where is the White House plan?
SPITZER: Yes.
GERGEN: Where is the White House plan? That's the kind of leadership that you and I are accustomed to that the president picks up the banner and leads. And I think all of us are having a hard time adjusting to this alternative form of leadership when it's -- he sort of sits on the sidelines and waits for the moment to intervene.
SPITZER: Yes. Exactly. Waiting for the consensus to form and then joining it is not what we want out of the presidency.
You know again a slightly different strategic issue, it struck me as odd last December, even though the president had a good lame-duck session. We also said he got some things from -- Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed, and he got some stimulus money.
Why did he not at the moment that he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest in particular, why did he not at that point put some of these structural issues on the table so at least get Paul Ryan and the Republican incoming leadership to concede some points about Medicare, Medicaid? Then when the president theoretically had more a negotiating leverage.
GERGEN: I don't know. I thought he had two or three really good months of general leadership after the November elections. I thought he was more assertive, he got some things done. But he did let a window pass on the Bowles-Simpson commission and the -- and the momentum that was generating.
He could have picked up on that and said I'm not ready to lay down all the particulars yet, but I will tell you I come to this -- this coming two years with a sense of urgency about the need to pass long-term reforms that will kick in when the economy is stronger. We're not going to try to cut deficits, you know, slash the spending in the midst of economic recovery.
But when this economy is back on track, we want those various provisions to be in place that will ensure the bond market and the world that we're on a good path. We're on the same path. And I don't know why they let that moment pass. I think it was a terrible mistake.
SPITZER: You know, David, time is running out. But I just want to tee up an issue that I hope --
GERGEN: Sure.
SPITZER: -- that you and I will have a chance to talk about in days, weeks ahead, and that is what really drives the entire budget debate, which is the cost of health care. We don't control that -- Medicaid, Medicare are really about health care cost control. If we don't figure that one out, doesn't matter, these are ours, then we will go bankrupt someday. That it seems to me at least is the hardest issue.
GERGEN: I totally agree and it's going to be the most controversial part of the Ryan plan, but at least there is -- at least we have one party putting a view forward about how to solve the health care plan -- problem and now it's time for the Democrats to come forward with their version of how to do that.
SPITZER: Yes. David Gergen, as always thanks you so much for joining us.
GERGEN: Thanks so much, Eliot.
SPITZER: Pleasure.
All right. Coming up, the nuclear nightmare in Japan sparked a backlash around the globe. The growing fear over all things nuclear. That story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: This word just in from Japan tonight. Workers have finally plugged that leaky nuclear reactor, slowing the flow of toxic water into the Pacific, at least for now. But this nuclear nightmare is far from over. The contamination could be with us for decades. And it's already having a powerful effect on the nuclear industry.
Bjorn Lomborg is a renowned economist, environmentalist, and author, just the smartest person we could find to talk about the undeniable impact this crisis is having on all of us.
Bjorn, thanks for coming in to chat with us.
BJORN LOMBORG, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL: Great to be here.
SPITZER: So there is panic, and I don't think I'm overstating it. People are now looking at every nuclear facility and thinking is this the next Fukushima meltdown? What's your response? Is this an overblown emotional response?
LOMBORG: Well, it's a very natural response. I mean I -- when I saw first -- you saw that blowing off of a roof from a nuclear power plant, that's just not supposed to happen. So it's very obvious that we get scared. And we have bad precedents. We have Three Mile Island, obviously we have Chernobyl. Those are things that really make us worry.
But we also need to put it into context because, you know, being scared is not the right moment to make good decisions. And honestly, if we look at what happened, for instance, in Chernobyl, which is still much worse than what we're seeing in Japan, we're estimating about 31 people died instantaneously. If we look at the best studies, probably somewhere between 9,000 and 33,000 people died over the next 70 years, so even into the future.
Now that's terrible. But let's remember to put that into perspective of what happens with the energy supply that we have for the whole world. We kill many, many more people by using a lot of fossil fuels. Simply put, we have lots and lots of deaths just, you know, digging out coal from -- in China, for instance, about 2,300 people died last year just digging out the coal.
And of course from air pollution we're estimating somewhere between a third and 1 million people die each year from air pollution in the western world.
SPITZER: You're sounding like such a rational hard-nosed, cold- blooded economist, not a guy sitting here wearing a t-shirt, but you're right. I mean what you're basically saying is we've got to understand the real human cost from the multiple energy sources we've gotten, not just compare nuclear against some abstract solar power, which isn't an option right now.
LOMBORG: And not only, that but also have the idea of saying this is terrible because, you know, we watch the pictures, but let's remember all the things we don't watch, all the Chinese workers that die in coalmines and all the countless, faceless people that die from air pollution. And if we stop using our nuclear power plants, the ones that we already have, it simply means that they're going to be replaced with coal-fired power plants.
SPITZER: We'll get to that in a second, what the other options are, because some people would say -- and I'm among them -- look, to define it as nuclear versus coal misses the other option, but one of the issues about nuclear is where do you put them? Even for those of us, and I've been a fan of nuclear -- as a bridge energy source certainly for some period of time. Having Indian Point 2 20 some odd miles away from New York City so if an event like this happened the scale of the tragedy would be that much greater, that doesn't seem to make sense to me.
LOMBORG: No. That's silly and there's been a lot of silly decisions on where we put those nuclear power plants. I come from Copenhagen and Denmark. We actually have just across the sound just five miles away a nuclear power plant right next to a big international city. That's stupid.
We shouldn't have done that. But we also need to realize that we're stuck with some of the choices that we've made. We need to make them secure and obviously we need to improve them, for instance, for tsunamis and we need to go back and learn from our experience, but we also need to not have that sort of visceral reaction and say, all right, let's get rid of it which of course is what --
SPITZER: Panic --
LOMBORG: -- German is now doing.
SPITZER: Panic is never a good moment to make a tough decision. But how do you deal with the issue of the waste? And we have the spent fuel ponds, which is where so much of the radiation leakage it seems on first blush to have come from in Japan. We got spent fuel ponds, similar design, in some significant number of nuclear plants here in the United States. Should this be a reason for concern?
LOMBORG: Well, it definitely should be a reason for concern. And it has been for a long time. I think it's one of the big concerns that we have for nuclear power. It's also one of the reasons why I think we shouldn't be building lots of new nuclear power plants.
But we need to realize that once we've built the nuclear power plants we've already accepted having the problem. Decommissioning them, just only saying all right, we don't want them anymore, doesn't make -- get away with all the waste fuel that we already have.
So in a sense we're really talking about, so do you want one ton or 1 1/2 ton? It's about the same problem. That's the really silly decision of saying, all right, let's get rid of nuclear because now we're worried. Well, too late in a sense to make that decision.
SPITZER: This is a fixed cost, we're stuck with it.
LOMBORG: Yes.
SPITZER: You might as well look forward and say what do we get. But look, how about natural gas? I mean the natural gas industry, rightly so, right now is out there with a lot of advertising saying hey, we're domestic, there are the natural gas supplies here in the United States. We're cleaning it from a greenhouse gas perspective and we're not funding foreign nations when we buy it who may not be friendly to us. Is that a solution we should go to in the short term? LOMBORG: We definitely are going to be using a lot more gas partly because it's cheaper, partly because it's less impactful on global warming. But it's just not going to be possible to make up for all the extra nuclear power. Remember it's not really the U.S. that's talking about that you're going to scrap your nuclear power plants. But it is happening in Europe. We're seeing Germany at least saying they're not going to commission another seven of their oldest power plants. In France, there's talk with France being the leader --
SPITZER: Eighty percent.
LOMBORG: Yes. And the socialist party is now talking about maybe getting rid of some of these. And certainly we're also seeing Japan talking about this, and that will mean increases in their greenhouse gas emissions and probably going to --
SPITZER: Am I correct? Even China said it was slowing down its nuclear industry, which was the shock to me because they have not been historically quite as concerned about some of the safety issues.
LOMBORG: I have a hard time quite finding out what they're actually saying. It seems to me that they've been saying they're concerned but they're going to go ahead.
SPITZER: Let me use the word which I haven't used yet but maybe we should earlier, efficiency. When I was in government, the real focus was look, these are all second best choices, as some economists would say. Look, we don't want nukes, we don't want the dirty coal, we don't want -- even gas has problems in terms of how you get it out of the earth and such.
Efficiency is the great answer. If we can get cars to get twice the miles per gallon, if we get light bulbs to give us the same energy or the same luminosity or whatever the word is, for less power, why don't we just mandate that and technology can get us there?
LOMBORG: And listen, we are getting a lot more effective and there's a lot of good arguments for getting even more effective. We know that that saves you money, gives you more comforts but the problem with that is that we actually just end up using more of all the other stuff. If your car drives longer, that means you spend less on gasoline, it means you buy other stuff. If your light bulbs get cheaper, you light up more of your house and you light it better. So we actually have very good data that indicates that although you get efficiency you also just spend your money.
SPITZER: OK.
LOMBORG: So it's not actually a solution for what we're going to do with energy.
SPITZER: And I thought we have the perfect answer. All right. It's usually important and we shouldn't diminish the need to find efficiency.
LOMBORG: No, no. Absolutely. SPITZER: Quickly, we haven't said much about solar. I said it can't get us there yet. Is it the long-term answer once we actually perfect the technology and manage to harness that sort of never-ending power?
LOMBORG: The real point here is to recognize that unless we find other and cheaper alternatives, for instance, solar, also maybe fourth-generation nuclear, a lot of other technologies, those are the ones that are going to be powering the rest of the 21st century and that requires us to spend a lot more money on research and development because unless we get that, we're all just going to go back to coal.
SPITZER: And is it fair to say that the sad thing is that after 30-plus years, I remember Jimmy Carter's speech, he's sitting in his cardigan sweater, we still don't have an energy policy.
LOMBORG: And we don't spend very much on research and development.
SPITZER: Right.
LOMBORG: The depressing thing is since the late -- the early '80s, it's gone downhill dramatically. And despite the fact that we all worry about global warming, we're not spending more money on it because we're so focused on next year that we forget this is about the long term. This is about the next two to three to four decades.
SPITZER: All right. Long term means next week. Join us in this generation.
All right. Bjorn Lomborg, thanks so much for joining us.
All right. Coming up, we'll take you back to Wisconsin where that infamous anti-union bill is taking center stage again. And believe it or not, the battle has gotten even hotter. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Remember those crazy demonstrations in Wisconsin we covered so much last month? Well, the day of reckoning is here. Right now, voters in that state are electing a Supreme Court justice. The polls close in just a few minutes. The new justice will cast the deciding vote on whether people in Wisconsin have the right to bargain as a union. Remember, the governor says if you're in the public sector, you don't. Take a look at this negative ad about the conservative candidate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: A priest sexually abuses children for 30 years across Wisconsin. A mother tells D.A. David Prosser her two young sons were sexually assaulted. What does Prosser do? Prosser refuses to prosecute, doesn't even ask the police to investigate. Tell David Prosser judges should protect our children, not sex offenders.
(END VIDEO CLIP) SPITZER: Seems just a little down and dirty for state Supreme Court justice campaign, don't you think? Well, take a look at the ad Prosser's side ran about his liberal opponent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: Every crime has a victim and every victim expects the judge to deliver justice.
JOANNE KLOPPENBURG: I never said I was tough on crime. Being tough on crime was not my message.
NARRATOR: Call JoAnne Kloppenburg. Tell her being weak on criminals is dangerous for Wisconsin families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Will Cain joins me now. Will, how did a campaign for state Supreme Court justice get so ugly?
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think for two reasons. One, because the winner is supposed to be the swing vote on a court that very soon judged the validity of Scott Walker's collective bargaining law. And second, for better or worse, this whole race has become a proxy for Scott Walker himself and for that law in particular.
Right now, we're joined by John Nichols live from Madison, Wisconsin. He is the associate editor of "The Capital Times."
John, you've been there in Madison all day. Tell us what's happening. You probably can call this race by now. I know polls haven't closed yet, but you can tell us who won, right?
JOHN NICHOLS, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, "THE CAPITAL TIMES": Well, I wish I could. Look, this is the most intense, most passionately fought race bar none that we've seen in Wisconsin for a very long time. And when you start to make predictions in a race like that, you get into dangerous turf.
We are going to have an unprecedented turnout for a spring election for a court. We will have more people voting in this election than we've had in some gubernatorial elections, at least in some areas of the state. And I can tell you that in Madison, it looks as if some precincts will have a presidential election level turnout. So when you start to make predictions with so many new people coming out, you've got to be careful.
CAIN: John, we should say that the two candidates for this Supreme Court seat aren't necessarily a Democrat or a Republican.
NICHOLS: Yes.
CAIN: But that being said, one is perceived as a liberal judge, one is perceived as a conservative judge. So who does a large turnout favor in your mind? NICHOLS: In my sense, the large turnout definitely gives an advantage to JoAnne Kloppenburg, who is the challenger. She's an assistant attorney general right now, not a judge, but if she's elected, she would join the highest court in the state.
Now, JoAnne Kloppenburg has definitely drawn strong support from union members and their allies, and the strong turnout in Madison in Dane County, which has been a hotbed of criticism of the governor's approach should be very good for her. Also the strong turnout in Milwaukee County, which is a very Democratic area, should be good for her. But I caution, we are still watching the whole of this state. Usually in Supreme Court elections, the incumbent wins. In fact, since 1848, only two incumbent justices have been defeated and no conservative justice has ever been defeated for re-election. So if JoAnne Kloppenburg win, it will be a historic moment and it will be totally tied to this whole fight over labor rights.
CAIN: Well, OK, then that's the question, John. You heard me say that in the setup. This whole thing has become a proxy on Scott Walker and that bill, which repealed collective bargaining rights.
Let me ask you, John, is that appropriate? This is a 10-year seat for someone to sit on the Supreme Court. Should this race be judged by one issue like this?
NICHOLS: Probably not. But let's be honest with ourselves. We have had presidential races, congressional races, and judicial races throughout the history of this country decided on single issues or a handful of issues that are of the moment. What this really comes down to in Wisconsin is a question of how independent this court will be of the governor.
Now, it happens at this point that the court is 4-3 conservative split that leans toward a position of being very favorable toward this governor, not just on this issue but on a host of issues. If JoAnne Kloppenburg beats David Prosser, then the court will be narrowly aligned in opposition to or at least in skepticism toward the governor. That's really what it comes down to. So it's a little bit bigger than just the labor issue. It comes down to some of those core questions of checks and balances.
SPITZER: You know, John, I think that's right. I think this issue, and you're exactly right, very often even the most important political races we have single issues become proxies for metaphors for the way the candidate views an entire raft of issues. And I think that's what we've got right here. But to come back to the particular issue relating to the power of public sector workers to unionize, even if the court were finally to say that the mechanism, the process by which this bill was passed violated the open meetings law of Wisconsin, the governor and the Republicans who control the legislature could go back and do it again. Am I right about that? So it seems at the end of the day that bill probably will become a law but your larger point about what this speaks to the ideology of the public and the court is really what has gotten the public exercised.
NICHOLS: You're absolutely right. And let me suggest something to you, though.
Wisconsin is a very closely balanced state. It's a swing state in most presidential elections and also frankly a swing state in a lot of other races. If JoAnne Kloppenburg is elected, if she defeats an incumbent Supreme Court justice, really coming out of nowhere, a candidate who six weeks ago wouldn't have been considered particularly viable, if she wins, that signal is going to send some shockwaves through the body politic of the state. And my sense is that it could affect even some of these labor issues because if the governor and his legislative allies seek to bring this issue back, they may have a much harder time getting members of the Republican caucuses in the state Senate and the state assembly to stick with the governor if they know that the voters are so angry that they're voting out Supreme Court justices. So it could even affect the current struggle over the labor bill.
SPITZER: You know, it does strike me -- and I said this back when this issue was being framed when the governor was there trying to push it through -- this was a bridge too far. Look, I disagree with them as a matter of what the law should be regardless, but I just thought as a matter of politics he was going a bridge too far saying not just we want the money back from the workers but we want to change the process by which they get to exercise their rights. And I think the public gets that distinction. It's one thing to say contribute more to your pension, contribute more to your health care costs. It's something very different to say and by the way, we're taking away from you freedoms that most people still think kind of go with the workplace.
NICHOLS: You're exactly right. And let me suggest something to you about this. When you poll on this issue, if you say do you favor collective bargaining, roughly 50, 55 percent of the people say yes for public employees. If you ask them do you favor collective bargaining rights, add that word "rights" on and the numbers go well into the 60s, even into the low 70s. So people are very, very finely attuned to that question of taking away rights. And I do think that when Governor Walker went into this zone particularly, he really woke a sleeping giant. People who hadn't been energized on a lot of other issues and many people who are not union members came out to these demonstrations and I frankly think an awful lot of them are voting today.
CAIN: Well, we're about to find out tonight. Instead of projecting, we're about to find out if voters feel that way. And I think it's interesting both of you note that while this is certainly one issue that a proxy for it, there's a bigger issue at stake here and that is the independence of the judges.
Let me ask you this, John, you've been in Wisconsin for a while. These ads that Eliot rolled at the top of the segment, the things that are being said that Prosser is abetting the sexual misconduct of priests, and that Kloppenburg is not qualified, have you ever seen ads like this run for a state Supreme Court judge in Wisconsin before?
NICHOLS: These are the most intense I've seen, particularly the ad against Judge Prosser. That's a very, very old case, one going back 30 years. And so, yes, there's an intensity here and a passion that has, I think, crept over lines that make a lot of people uncomfortable. We've had intense races in the past, however. Our state Supreme Court is very, very powerful, and it is an elected Supreme Court, unlike many states. And so you do see interest groups come in with a lot of money and a lot of passion. But there's simply no question. This is an unprecedented race. And the level of attention to it, the level of voter turnout is a reflection of that. Usually negative ads turn people away from the polls and often suppress turnout. It doesn't look like that's going to be the case today.
CAIN: All right. John Nichols, thanks a lot for being here. Eliot.
NICHOLS: Thank you.
SPITZER: All right. Fascinating stuff. We'll keep an eye on it.
And you can see links to more of those outrageous Wisconsin political ads on our blog. It's cnn.com/inthearena.
Up next, the rebels in Libya forced to flee a key battlefront again. Tonight, it's looking like a losing battle in Libya. That story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: It seems as if NATO has entered into a secret deal with the Gadhafi regime. That is the claim today of a rebel leader in Libya. The resistance looked for help that never came as Gadhafi's men unleashed a vicious attack driving the rebels out of the all- important oil town of Brega.
Now joining us from eastern Libya is Ben Wedeman. Ben, the battle for Brega has been one of those seesaw battles going back and forth for weeks now. What's the latest in this battle for Brega?
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Eliot, it's not really any longer, the battle for Brega. The rebel forces have been pushed way back, probably about 25 miles away from there. We were with them as this was going on, and yesterday there was a lot of talk about the rebels -- rather the loyalists running out of ammunition, that their supply lines had been cut as a result of the no-fly zone. Was not the case today. They had plenty of ammunition, and they were firing it with deadly accuracy along that highway, forcing the opposition fighters to really make a mad rush away from Brega.
At this point, it doesn't look like there's any possibility that they'll be getting anywhere near the town. In fact, the worry is that the rebels may not be even capable of protecting the town of Ajdabiya, where I am right now. This is a city that was occupied last month for more than 10 days. A lot of destruction, many people, in fact, disappeared as a result of that Libyan occupation. So the situation very unstable at this point. Brega is no longer the place where the battle is. The battle could be coming here.
SPITZER: Have you seen any evidence of the NATO-provided air support? What happened after those first couple of days when we had the U.S. fighter jets going in there sort of really carpet bombing the loyalist troops, taking out all the tanks? What is the state of play recently? Any sign of that NATO air support?
WEDEMAN: Well, certainly we hear it. We heard just a little while ago planes overhead. While we were at the front lines, you hear planes overhead. But they don't seem to be striking.
Now, NATO officials are saying that they destroyed 30 percent of the Libyan army's military capabilities, but that other 70 percent is proving to be incredibly deadly and effective. The air strikes seem to have just come to an end. They may be occurring in places like Misrata in the western part of the country, but we are seeing nothing. And as a result, there's growing frustration with NATO. One of the senior military officials of the Libyan opposition in Benghazi this evening complained that NATO has left them down. He said that they're giving him intelligence on the movements of the Libyan army in eastern Libya but they don't seem to be doing anything about it. In fact, one of the commanders at the front I spoke with today said before we put our faith in God and we were winning this war, now we put our faith in NATO and we're losing -- Eliot.
SPITZER: You know, and finally, Ben, yesterday there were rumors, reports that an offer had been made that the father, Moammar Gadhafi, would step down, that his son, Seif Gadhafi, would step in in a transitional way and somehow this would permit a reunification of Libya as one nation. Have you heard either that this is, in fact, an offer that's been made or any response to that from the opposition forces?
WEDEMAN: Well, we don't have solid proof that the offer was made. Certainly, though, we have heard the response. The response from one official in Benghazi was we don't want Moammar Gadhafi and we don't want the little Gadhafis. What is clear is that people are not revolting here against one man. They're revolting against a regime that's been in place for nearly 42 years. And they've dismissed it out of hand.
If you recall, there was a cease-fire offer made from Tripoli a few days ago, and the response was that, well, we might consider some parts of it but our ultimate goal is a change of the regime. And that means an ouster of Moammar Gadhafi as well as his sons.
SPITZER: All right. Ben, as always, thank you so much for that report from the front lines in eastern Libya. Appreciate it and stay safe.
All right. The president thinks he has headaches dealing with the Republicans on Capitol Hill. What's happening in Libya certainly is not making things any easier for him. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SPITZER: You know, Will, we had the Paul Ryan budget proposal today. Clearly the Republicans slashed Tea Party perspective on what should be done. You had Bowles-Simpson, the bipartisan proposal, a couple months back. The one piece missing here is the president's blueprint. You got to believe at some point soon he's going to have to come out with what he wants to do about the tough budget issues that are really confronting this nation.
CAIN: I guess. Let me ask you quickly. Don't filibuster.
SPITZER: Yes.
CAIN: Is the debt and the rising national debt, the debt and the rising national debt one of the major issues facing this country?
SPITZER: Long term, yes. Here's the way I see it. Everybody says debt, debt, debt is the issue. Right now, we've got a jobs crisis. Jobs crisis, jobs crisis. . We've got jobs, we'd have growth, we have revenue. Then some of these numbers would recede. Long term what we have is a health care cost crisis.
CAIN: Oh, yes.
SPITZER: If we don't control that, then all this falls apart.
CAIN: Good. I got you to say yes, that's one of the major crisis facing this country. The point is this.
SPITZER: Long term.
CAIN: Right now, the leader of the free world on this issue is Paul Ryan. It is embarrassing --
SPITZER: I agree with you that's embarrassing.
CAIN: -- our president has offered nothing on this front.
SPITZER: Well, no, he hasn't offered nothing. What he's done is --
CAIN: You just said you're looking for it.
SPITZER: I'm looking for it. He's kept his powder dry and I think there is rationale there. I'm hoping that he does something soon that will say here's the answer. Jobs, as I said, is the short- term crisis. Health care costs, long-term crisis.
No question we've been having this debate. I've been keeping people's feet to the fire.
CAIN: You have.
SPITZER: We have to break. Will, thanks for being here. Good night from New York.
"PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
