Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Interview with Former Governor McGreevey; Budget Deal Terms Changing; Bachmann Announces White House Bid; Supreme Court Rules on Key First Amendment Issues; Primary Care in Critical Condition
Aired June 27, 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 HOST: Good evening. Welcome to the program. I'm Eliot Spitzer.
Tonight's top story -- this weekend, the streets of New York City turned into one big parade. A celebration of gay pride just as the New York state legislature passed a law legalizing gay marriage. But perhaps the real news is this. America's fundamental attitude toward the gay community seems to be changing. A recent Gallup poll revealed that for the first time more than half of the population favors gay marriage.
Other states are tackling the issue -- Maine and Minnesota -- are gearing up already. Of course, there are Americans who still believe gay marriage is morally wrong like Christian televangelist Pat Robinson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REV. PAT ROBINSON, HOST, 700 CLUB: There isn't one single civilization that has survived that had openly embraced homosexuality. So you say what's going to happen to America? Well, if history is any guide, the same thing is going to happen to us.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: There was a time even recently when most people felt that way. Gay people stayed in the closet. One such case, Governor Jim McGreevey of New Jersey. A gay man who led a double life that ultimately led to his downfall.
In a moment I'll be talking to him about the change in American attitudes. But first, a look at the other stories I'll be drilling down on tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Michele Bachmann is off and running. But the misstatements keep on coming. Wait until you hear what she said today.
And violent video games. Hazardous to your kids' health? The state of California thinks so. The Supreme Court says it's free speech. Jeffrey Toobin looks at the law versus a license to thrill. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, hey, welcome to America.
SPITZER: Then, is there a doctor in the house? Maybe not when Obamacare gets going. E.D. Hill asks the man who used to be the president's physician. Are there enough doctors to go around?
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Now for tonight's "American Issue." He shocked America in 2004, Jim McGreevey was governor of New Jersey when he grabbed headlines for being the highest ranking elected official in the country to announce he was gay. Remember this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIM MCGREEVEY (D), FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: And so my truth is that I am a gay American. And I am blessed to live in the greatest nation with the tradition of civil liberties, the greatest tradition of civil liberties in the world and a country which provides so much to its people.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: McGreevey resigned the office later that year following revelations of a gay affair. Former Governor Jim McGreevey joins me now.
Jim, thank you for being here.
MCGREEVEY: Thanks, Eliot.
SPITZER: So here it is seven years later. Attitudes have fundamentally shifted. Could you have predicted that we would get to this tipping point?
MCGREEVEY: No. I could not have predicted. And neither would I have thought necessarily we would have had an African-American as president of the United States. But one thing I think so many of us believe in is that is the basic decency of the American people. And that in the narrative of civil liberties, expansion, the American public is typically ahead of the political class as they were most recently.
SPITZER: And so you're saying something fascinating. Do you think that politicians still are behind the American public on this issue?
MCGREEVEY: Yes, I think both -- Eliot, both in terms of culturally on television programming, on people as they become more and more public, they come out of the closet. You understand a nephew, a son, a father is gay, a mother. And that begins to make it very personal.
People understand -- people have a personal connection with someone who is a member of the LGBT community and it profoundly changes the dynamic. SPITZER: Well, I don't think there's any question anybody who has a relative, a friend and suddenly has that connection suddenly says, wait a minute. My preconceived views have to be wrong.
But you make such a deep point, Jim. And it wasn't just about same-sex marriage or gay issues. It is about women's rights, labor rights, the environment. All of these critical movements began in the public. Politicians only catch up much later.
MCGREEVEY: Exactly. You look at Rachel Carlson, you look at civil rights movement. You look at the battle for feminism. You look at -- and all of these movements. I mean there was a wellspring from the community. And people recognized the importance of advancing the public agenda.
SPITZER: But to come back to gay issues for the moment. It has crystallized in the last couple of years. I mean the movement for same-sex marriage, somehow the acceptance, you know, the military's perspective, all of these things have reached a critical mass. What explains that?
MCGREEVEY: I think activists. I mean people like David Mixner, David Rothienberg. You know people -- Evan Wolf (ph) said we're in the vineyard for years and years and years and moving the agenda. And I think --
SPITZER: Let us clarify. The vineyard you don't mean Martha's Vineyard?
MCGREEVEY: No, I --
SPITZER: Toiling in the vineyard.
MCGREEVEY: Toiling in the vineyard.
SPITZER: Leading the movement out there in the grassroots.
MCGREEVEY: And beginning to understand that being -- at least let me speak for myself. Being gay isn't an option. It isn't a matter --
SPITZER: Right.
MCGREEVEY: It isn't a discretion. It is who and what I am. And so when people began to understand that this is intrinsically who and what we are and that I don't have the ability to change and God knows as an 8-year-old child on the play ground had I had the ability I would have, then I think people understand, well, if this is how God makes one, we need to understand that within the ark of American liberties.
SPITZER: OK. You just stated it in such a way that it's hard not to feel that that is absolutely the case. So why are so many politicians still hesitant to accept it and why I assume you know politicians who are gay who still don't publicly acknowledge it? MCGREEVEY: Well, I mean, part of it is how we grew up. And part of it is the message unfortunately from certain religious leadership that have a condemnatory attitude toward the LGBT community. But I think that is gradually -- I think it's inevitable.
And you look at young people and -- you know, at the gay pride. I mean there's no sense of shame, there's no sense of recrimination, there's no sense of sackcloth and ashes. We are who we are. Let's move on.
SPITZER: But there's no question there's a generational demarcation point. I think you speak to the folks who are under 30 of almost --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGREEVEY: And they don't care.
SPITZER: That's right. Not only do they care, they say of course same-sex marriage should be public.
MCGREEVEY: Yes.
SPITZER: I mean do you counsel elected officials who gay but unwilling to admit it publicly that they should come out? Do you speak to them and have these conversations?
MCGREEVEY: I have talked to individuals. But I'm not so presumptuous as to say you should come out, you should not come out.
SPITZER: Right.
MCGREEVEY: Every individual has his or her own journey and I respect that.
SPITZER: How about President Obama? Are you disappointed in the hesitancy that he has shown to go beyond where he is?
MCGREEVEY: If he could only listen to Michelle more often. I think the president is moving. And you know for many elected officials they all started in the same place. You know marriage is between a man and a woman, but they understand that they are moving inevitably, catching up to the American public.
SPITZER: Are you tempted to get married?
MCGREEVEY: Yes. And when it comes to New Jersey, which I believe that it inevitably will, I think that time will come.
SPITZER: Now you're -- subsequent success. I guess there have been a few in between. Governor Christie said the other day that he -- he didn't say unalterably. But he's opposed to it. Let's listen to a quick sound bite from Chris Christie.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: My view on it is, in our state we're going to continue to pursue civil unions. I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. It's not something that I support. I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That's my view. And that will be the view of our state because I wouldn't sign a bill that, like the one that was in New York.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: All right. You have said you would like to get married in New Jersey. Move to New York, you can get married here. But would you try to persuade Governor Christie that he's wrong about that? Will you try to persuade the legislature to override his veto and then pass a bill?
MCGREEVEY: Well, I think 10 years ago what Governor Christie said was the norm -- was the normative statement by Democrats and Republicans. And I think that will change. And I think Governor Christie or whomever is governor across this nation, they will catch up with the decency of the American public.
SPITZER: Now you refer to one of the factors holding back a larger movement among the general public. Certain religious leaders who have attitudes that they claim are based in the bible or they have religious treatises that they look to.
MCGREEVEY: Yes --
SPITZER: You've studied. You're now in divinity school. You were raised a Catholic. Does it bother you that the Catholic Church institutionally has been so recalcitrant on this issue?
MCGREEVEY: Well, on one hand I mean the church was a beacon of light on questions on civil rights, on social justice. But unfortunately, the bible has been used -- I would argue, has been manipulated, whether to support racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and in this case, homophobia.
And so we can manipulate the language of the bible as we will. I would argue the bible should be a source of transcending suffering and arguing for better angels. But unfortunately there are those who ignore a whole swath of what the Leviticus says from everything from touching a pigskin on Monday Night Football but they still uphold certain prohibitions that are focused on Leviticus.
SPITZER: Well --
MCGREEVEY: So it's selective interpretation.
SPITZER: That's what I wanted to ask you. You have studied the text in a way that certainly deeper than I have. And so when you look at what is presented as argument by religious leaders, do you think they are simply flat out wrong?
You use the word manipulate. Are they distorting the text or is this -- do you have to acknowledge, OK, maybe it's a fair reading we just disagree with it and it's susceptible to multiple interpretations.
MCGREEVEY: Eliot, what they're doing is they're taking a literal translation and some would argue whether or not it's an accurate literal translation of a certain segment but then ignoring whole swaths of other segments of scripture that would prohibit them from doing things that we typically do today in American society.
So we have to understand where we have to look at scripture through the prism of a modernist society. And the purpose of scripture was not to engage in the prohibition of what I consider it to be as a Christian of law. And so I think the bulwark of the Judeo Christian ethic is to have an understanding of a transcending god. Not a god that engages in religious-based bigotry.
SPITZER: Look, I certainly agree with you. The argument you just made is identical to the argument I as a lawyer make frequently about the Constitution.
MCGREEVEY: Yes.
SPITZER: There are multiple ways to interpret any document, whether it's the bible, the Constitution. I'm with you in that camp. This is a debate that will no doubt go on forever.
Do you think there's progress within the church hierarchy on this issue?
MCGREEVEY: I think there's progress. And you know the reality is I have friends who are gay priests and I have friends of mine that are gay rabbis and they wrestle with these questions. And I'm proud to belong to an organization called Faith in America that tries to put these issues in front in the religious agenda to have a constructive dialogue, to move the religious community forward.
The religious community can be such a source of progressive voice and God willing that's where it ought to be.
SPITZER: Are you going to run for public office again?
MCGREEVEY: No.
SPITZER: OK.
MCGREEVEY: I'm working with women in prison and that's where my heart is and prison advocacy. And I'd love to come back to talk about what's not happening in America's prisons.
SPITZER: And we will make sure that happens.
MCGREEVEY: All right.
SPITZER: Jim McGreevey, former governor of New Jersey, thank you so much for being here.
MCGREEVEY: Thanks, Governor. SPITZER: Coming up, the other side of this issue, I'll talk to the minister who helped pass legislation banning gay marriage rights in California. He's just begun to fight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Now for the other side of tonight's "America Issue," same-sex marriage. My next guest saw this coming. In 2008, he helped pioneer California's notorious Proposition 8 that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Jim Garlow is senior pastor of the Skyline Wesleyan Church and author of "Encountering Heaven." He joins me now from San Diego.
Thank you for joining us.
PASTOR JIM GARLOW, SKYLINE WESLEYAN CHURCH: Good to be with you.
SPITZER: So you heard in the introduction to the show, I think, Reverend Pat Robertson's statement, and I want to read it precisely. "No civilization that tolerated homosexuality has survived."
Do you believe that?
GARLOW: Well, let me respond first of all by saying the intriguing conversation, the privilege of getting to hear two former governors discuss biblical aspects. I'd like to respond specifically to that issue.
I think probably you have a keen mind in legal issues, and I respect you for that, sir.
SPITZER: Well, thank you.
GARLOW: But when it comes to biblical issues, let's draw the reality the bible begins with a marriage and it ends with a wedding from Genesis to Revelation, as a male and a female. When Jesus spoke on this issue, he spoke very clearly, male and female were created, Matthew 19th, for the purpose of very clearly putting them together.
And he says what I have put together -- God speaking now in the text -- don't let anybody mess with the definition of that. That's a loose paraphrase of that. That's precisely what the bible says. And that's why in 31 states you failed to point out when you talked about the American people and the shift, every state, 31 states that have voted, all 31 states have voted for traditional marriage.
There's never been a single state that has voted to obliterate the definition of marriage.
SPITZER: The reason we said the public's attitudes are changing is that the national polling, and I think you'd acknowledge the Gallup poll and others showed that over 50 percent now say they favor same- sex marriage.
But look, I don't want to go off on that detour. I think -- GARLOW: No, sir. I want -- let's talk about that. That's one poll out of many. And I might point out that when we started here in California, the field poll said our definition of marriage, the natural definition of marriage was behind 38 percent to 55 percent. But when people go in the polling place to vote and they are not intimidated or bullied any longer, guess what? That shifts anywhere from 2 to 19 percent based upon surveys done across America.
When people walk in to vote, they vote what is right their conscience and New Yorkers should have had the privilege to have done exactly that.
SPITZER: Look, we will perhaps have a chance to deal with that issue down the road in other electoral context. Here's the question I want to ask you, though. And answer I don't mean to come back to where I started but do you agree with Pat Robertson that -- as he said that a civilization that tolerates homosexuality has not survived.
GARLOW: My question would be framed broader than that. Not the issue of Pat Robertson. It has to do with God and the bible. I believe that God knows better than you and me put together. I believe what the bible speaks on this issue is crystal clear. I stand with it. I don't judge it. It judges me.
SPITZER: OK.
GARLOW: So I am very confident that God's word is true on this issue and great harm is done any time we violate any aspect of God's word, including the definition of marriage. And there's enough Judeo Christian values in the country, even among people who don't go to church. That's why they consistently 7 out of 10 Americans are voting in favor of traditional natural marriage.
SPITZER: Let me come at this from a different angle. Because I certainly am not in a position nor would I think it appropriate for me to challenge your religious views or anybody else's religious views. I think that that is an area --
GARLOW: I'm not interested in my religious views. It's not my religious views. I'm not defending that. I'm defending what the scripture has to say about this issue.
(CROSSTALK)
GARLOW: Not about me.
SPITZER: No, wait. I understand. I understand. And I'm not opining on -- and even when I was talking to Jim McGreevey, former Governor McGreevey, I was not weighing in on the proper interpretation biblically. I think that is an area where I'll let you, certainly you've studied it more than I, even though we might disagree about it.
Here's the question I do want to ask you, though. There's a fundamental distinction. I think on this you'll agree with me, between how civil society, not religious society, not you as a pastor, not religions, but how the -- our civil society defined by legislatures in a civil context defines marriage and that is separate and apart from how you as a religious official can define marriage.
Do you understand that duality?
GARLOW: No, I don't accept that duality because that tries to intimidate people like me to be silent and assume that our views as we walk into the voting place or vote for somebody that somehow our views framed by biblical scripture and God's truth over the history that we somehow cannot carry that particular understanding into the voting booth.
So -- we happen to be in a democracy. So you have the vote -- the right to vote the way you do. I have the right to vote the way I do. And if in reality mine is framed by scripture then I have the right to vote that way. It's not separation of church and state as you are defining it. It's the reality that God established three forms of government, civil government, church government and family government. And he's the foundation to all three. That's what I believe. And that's why --
SPITZER: Well, maybe that's -- maybe that's where we disagree. If you had said he's the foundation to your religion, absolutely. The First Amendment rights that you have, the separation of church and state, inviolate in my view. Family, I will leave to each family.
But the civil society where rights are defined through our political process -- and just so it's clear, New York's law does not nor could it require any religion to recognize a marriage, that religion does not want to recognize. So doesn't that separation permit a civil society to vote to have marriage between same-sex marriage, between men or women, whatever combination, and you will still reject it.
Isn't that something you conceptually understand even though you might disagree with it?
GARLOW: Well, you're making my case.
SPITZER: (INAUDIBLE)
GARLOW: Why don't we let New Yorkers vote on it. One of the neatest things you could do for the American public -- you're the former governor. You know what went behind the scenes. You're friends with some of these. You do an expose on what actually happened when Republican leaders sold out not for 30 pieces of silver but for an identifiable $1 million that was raised and the mayor of New York was involved in that.
The backroom dealing was done. The doors locked on the capitol. Cell phones shut off. The closed door policy, the violation of the three-day rule. You know what took place on this. You are privy to that information. You have access to it. Do an expose on what actually happened in New York.
The voters of New York would be insulted if they heard that.
SPITZER: Look, I think a fair bit of that has come to light. Agree or disagree with that. I'm not asking about the specifics of those transactions or those votes. I'm raising the theoretical argument because I have great respect for your views. I may disagree but respect them and understand the zone protected for those rights by the First Amendment. By those views by the First Amendment.
And I'm just trying to get us to acknowledge that you do acknowledge that there is an equivalent zone on the other side so that even if it was voted by the legislature, not the people directly in which is certainly what our Constitution permitted here, you understand that this is not only legal, but fairly now represents what New York state government is entitled to do. You can -- you have to accept that, I presume.
GARLOW: Well, based upon a $1 million payoff to a few key Republican people who sold out, you're exactly right. It is going to be law. I recognize that. What you fail to point out in the religious exemption. A Christian counselor, for example, is not covered. The language regarding religious exemptions is very weak. A religious counselor, for example, who feels the same-sex marriage is biblically wrong, is not protected.
Individuals. A photographer of a gay wedding. If they prefer not, I prefer not to, others will take the pictures, other will be photographers. They are disallowed. Businesses and individuals will lose their individual religious expression. There's plenty of historical precedence for that in the nation already.
SPITZER: Dr. Garlow, let me -- time runs short. We don't have enough time to parse it. I -- as a matter of law, I think you are wrong about that. But let me raise a different issue in the few seconds remaining.
GARLOW: No, no, and religious exemption, it does not include Christian counselors. It does not include private individuals, organizations or companies. It includes only pastors, not being forced to perform same-sex marriages. And I'll offer myself to come back on the show and talk more about this because my time is about up.
SPITZER: OK. Now I want to raise a separate issue because I want to -- we'll have you back. Trust me. The question I have for you is if you had one of your parishioners, somebody who was a relative of yours, close friend come to you and say, I am gay. What would you counsel them?
GARLOW: I will love them and care for them. They are created by God. They were not created gay as your previous speaker just said a few moments ago. There's no verification of that statement. But they are created. They are special. I love them. I have many people in my congregation are homosexual. We love them just the same at anybody.
But that's not what you brought me on here to talk about. We have a wonderful ministry to people who consider themselves homosexual. What you brought me out was the issue of this definition being changed. A 5,000-year institution being trashed by a few people who sold it out in Albany. SPITZER: OK. Again, I disagree. I don't think it was being trashed or destroyed. Let me ask you this. When you said you counsel them, do you counsel them to not be gay? Do you counsel them that it is wrong? Do you counsel them that somehow they have to view themselves as being imperfect or flawed because they are gay?
GARLOW: You won't like my answer because the mood of the nation is to drop the standard of whatever lifestyle we're following rather than hold the standard to biblical truth. I counsel them the exact same way I counsel every other person that comes to me with whatever issue.
We're in a broken, hurting world with lots of people who are impacted by sin, heartache, suffering, disease, a lot of trauma on the lives of people. So when people come to me, I counsel them all the exact same way. Let's bring ourselves to a position of submission to Almighty God, Jesus Christ as lord and savior, and we rise up and powered by the Holy Spirit to live in accordance with the way he calls us to live.
That means in the case of homosexuality, people can be and are set free from that particular practice. But I don't focus on just that one. Any issue.
SPITZER: Dr. Garlow --
GARLOW: I would say the power of Jesus Christ can set a person free.
SPITZER: Time does run short. Just one last question. Do you tell them that it is sin for them to be gay?
GARLOW: According to the word of God it says my opinion doesn't count. But the bible calls that sin and anybody who comes to me struggle with areas of sinful areas, of course, I use that word.
SPITZER: OK.
GARLOW: Because the bible used that word. But the glorious news is people can be set free.
SPITZER: OK.
GARLOW: All of us for that matter can be set free from that.
SPITZER: All right. All right. Look. Dr. Garlow, we've gone longer that we should. You're right. I don't agree with you so much. I don't like some of what you said but that's -- I have deep respect for it. Still intrigued by the fact that you acknowledged we are all creatures created by God and therefore what we are is created by him or her.
GARLOW: Yes.
SPITZER: But anyway, look, we'll continue this one other day.
Dr. Garlow, thank you so much for joining us.
GARLOW: Thank you. Good to be on with you. Thank you.
SPITZER: Thank you, sir.
Coming up, only weeks away from the deficit deadline and default, the president joined the debate today. We'll see if it changed anything. First, E.D. Hill is here with a crisis in American health care.
E.D., what do you got?
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, that's right. We're about 40,000 primary care doctors short. We've got millions more people that are coming in with health care. And the way that the president has decided to look at this problem, study it, has doctors frustrated and furious. We'll examine that.
SPITZER: All right. Should be interesting. Thanks, E.D. Looking forward to it. We'll be right back.
And up next, the president meets with Congressional leaders just in time or too little, too late? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Remember the billboard saying the world would end on May 21st? Well, thankfully that one didn't happen. But there's a new disaster countdown and this one is real. We are less than six weeks away from hitting our national debt limit. If the president and Congress can't make a deal by August 2nd, the U.S. government could default for the first time ever.
What kind of deal are we talking about here? The president wants to cut the deficit by $2 trillion with 80 percent, $1.6 trillion in spending cuts. And just 20 percent, about $40 billion over 10 years in raised revenue.
That's chump change, folks. But with Republicans saying no new taxes, it may be enough to blow up any deal. Senate leaders Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid each met with the president today.
Senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash is here with a progress report.
Welcome, Dana. And am I right that just 20 percent coming on the revenue side is really penny ante and especially given how he's suggesting they do it?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's certainly what the Democrats are saying. And that's why they are insisting that this deal, this global deal that they are working on in order to get votes to raise the debt ceiling does include some of those -- getting rid of those tax subsidies or tax loopholes.
Because the truth is, I was told by sources who are involved in these negotiations that were going on before, led by Vice President Joe Biden that they actually probably could have found about or close to $2 trillion in spending cuts but Democrats, really for the first time in a series of these negotiations over the past six months or so, are putting their foot down and saying, no. We're not going to do that. We want to have what Jay Carney at the White House said several times today is a balanced approach.
SPITZER: Well, but here's what I don't understand. It is -- I think as you just said, a fact, the White House and the Democrats have lost every one of these negotiations over the past year and a half and it has been much more on the spending cut side. Nothing on the revenue side. Most importantly the extension of the Bush tax cuts, now the Bush-Obama tax cuts, for the extraordinarily wealthy.
But putting that aside, if the president's opening bid is 20 percent, clearly that isn't going to be the final deal, so the 20 percent in revenue is going to come down and the way they are doing this is just a couple of the sort of most obvious loopholes. Nothing fundamental. None of the fundamental loophole closures that were suggested by Bowles-Simpson or even by the White House over the past couple of months. That's why I'm mystified by where they are.
BASH: You know what, the bottom line is, Eliot, that Republicans feel that they have serious leverage here. And in some ways, they're not wrong. They feel that they -- that the president -- both sides would get the blame, obviously, if, god forbid, this ceiling -- we got to the ceiling, we got to August 2nd and nothing happened.
But Republicans feel that in terms of the narrative, in terms of the political dynamic and the political atmosphere right now there is much more of an appetite to cut spending. And that's why they are pushing this. And that's why they have been setting up this narrative.
Really it's not just today that we heard from Mitch McConnell going into this meeting but also for really for weeks saying over and over again they perceive anything that is cutting subsidy, cutting a loophole as a tax increase because they know that politically, as you well know, that sends the fear of God into certainly Republicans and many Democrats who are up for reelection.
SPITZER: But isn't there another reality? And Nancy Pelosi, I think, got it right when she said that John Boehner, the speaker of the House, may need Democratic votes to pass this.
BASH: Yes.
SPITZER: And so he may need some Democratic support. Nancy Pelosi is saying, hey, I've got to have a chair at this negotiating table or else this deal isn't happening. Is there some truth to that?
BASH: Yes. And it's so interesting the way she's handling this. Because frankly she got iced out the last couple of times there were these big negotiations over keeping the government running earlier this year and over the tax cut extension late last year. And both times, Eliot, you remember, she's right. Republicans did need Democrats, especially the House, to pass it. Because no matter what, you're going to have a chunk of Republicans who are going to say, I'm not voting to increase the debt ceiling. Doesn't matter what kind of condition is on it.
So she's trying to push her will here and trying to use her power here. She had a meeting last week with the president and some of her deputies. And she's had a series of interviews including with our Candy Crowley over the weekend saying, I want to sit at the table. And guess what she is one of those Democrats who's going to say we've got to fight for less spending cuts, more on the tax side.
SPITZER: She will fight hard. She'll try to get a seat at the table. Of course the other reality is, the Democrats who might end up voting for the package are not Democrats she might control. So it's unclear to me that she's the one who gets the seat at the table.
Anyway, thank you, Dana Bash, as always.
And my next guest tonight is a Republican congressman who's pushing for what may be the toughest deal of all. A cut, cap and balanced budget pledge. He vows to oppose any debt limit increase without substantial spending cuts. $650 billion next year alone. Caps on federal spending, meaning over a trillion dollars a year in permanent budget cuts and passage of a balanced budget meaning to the Constitution, meaning no more deficits ever, ever.
Congressman Joe Walsh joins me from Illinois.
Congressman, welcome to the show.
REP. JOE WALSH (R), ILLINOIS: How are you doing, Eliot?
SPITZER: Wonderful. So let me ask you a political question before we get into the numbers.
WALSH: Yes.
SPITZER: You know me I love the numbers. If you refuse to vote for this, aren't you empowering Nancy Pelosi by saying Democrats are going to provide the votes to get this over the finish line and they're going to undercut your position? Aren't you really empowering Nancy Pelosi?
WALSH: No, and Eliot, I got to tell you, it was just curious for me to listen to your interesting exchange with Dana.
I just -- I think that too many people in the media, and truthfully too many people in my profession, are behind the times on this discussion. I am back home now. And obviously I'm not in D.C. People back home want us in Washington to be bold. And when we talk about $2 trillion worth of cuts over 10-some years, that may sound big to folks in Washington.
But, Eliot, we're going to have another $1.5 trillion deficit this year. Our debt is $14 to $15 trillion and it's going up.
Unless we change, Eliot, I think structurally the way that town changes money, our kids and our grandkids are still in a heap of trouble.
SPITZER: Congressman, you and I agree on one thing. I don't think $2 trillion over 10 years is bold at all. I think it is merely at the fringes. And I think if you're talking about fundamental reform and entitlements or revenues or anything else, you're going to have to deal with numbers much bigger than that.
WALSH: Yes.
SPITZER: At least that's what Bowles-Simpson did and even more Paul Ryan, your budget chairman, actually adds $6 to $7 billion -- excuse me, trillion dollars to the deficit over 10 years. We'll get to that later.
Let me ask you, and I think you heard when I introduced you. You want to cut $650 billion next year. How are you going to do it? Where are you going to take out that battle ax and cut?
WALSH: Everything is on the table, Eliot, from nondefense discretionary to defense to -- I mean, cuts in every single aspect of government. We've got to get serious. And I love this discussion that we always have about subsidies to big, bad oil companies. Agreed. They should be gone. But we're talking about $18 or so billion of cuts.
I give -- Eliot, when I ran for Congress, I hit both parties over the head for spending us into the abyss. But you got to give the Republican Party some props for at least having the courage to acknowledge that unless you look at Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, you're not going to solve this problem. And shame on the president for ignoring that.
SPITZER: Congressman, I interrupt you only because time is so short.
WALSH: Yes.
SPITZER: Look, I agree with you. The $18 billion, and I said this just a moment ago. I said closing out the loopholes, the ones they're talking about now that are really meaningful in the long run if you're going to be serious about this. But again I ask you this, where would you -- because you're talking about $650 billion in one year. That's a -- that is a huge number.
Where are you going to apportion it? Nondefense discretionary is only 12 percent of the budget, you and I both know that. Are you willing to say right now you'd have to cut and make real cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, to hit that number? Are you willing to do that next year?
WALSH: Absolutely, Eliot. And I may be alone, but absolutely. Look. I think we're going through something, Eliot, here that we haven't gone through in a long time. We're having an honest-to-god discussion about what our government is going to do. And this is an education process. We've got to look at everything, including entitlements.
Unless we reform these things, Eliot, they're going to be gone. The American people are starting to realize that.
SPITZER: Congressman, I am one of those folks who says we absolutely must deal with them in the long run. But you're saying $650 billion next year. So here's the question. You just said you'd cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security next year. You're willing to do that for beneficiaries who are expecting those checks next year when the alternative would to be raise taxes on those who have income over $1 million or $2 million or $3 million a year who are seeing the lowest marginal rates they've seen in many decades.
That's the choice you want to make is to cut the Social Security rather than --
WALSH: Well --
SPITZER: I'm just -- it's a policy choice.
WALSH: No -- yes. No, but again if you want to extend my policy choice, again, we're not going to raise taxes on anyone. This economy right now is quaking. The last thing, Eliot, they need are more taxes and regulations on them.
You know, part of the problem in this equation is the economy is not growing. We talk about revenue increases. We're not going to get them, Eliot, unless we grow the economy. And the only way we're going to do that is to get government off the backs of businesses.
SPITZER: Congressman --
WALSH: So, yes, again, from defense, everything is on the table.
SPITZER: OK, look. There are some things you said in there that I agree with. Only growth is going to solve this problem. The reality, though, is there's $2 trillion of capital sitting on the sidelines, not because of marginal tax rates, not because of regulation. There's insufficient demand.
Look, we're going to -- Congressman, can you do me a favor?
WALSH: Yes.
SPITZER: We're out of time. I want you to come back. We'll continue this conversation, for better, for worse, this issue is not going to be resolved tonight.
WALSH: Thank you, Eliot, love to.
SPITZER: OK. Thank you, sir. Thanks for joining us.
Up next, Michele Bachmann may not always get her facts straight but she speaks loudly and clearly for the Tea Party. And now she is running for president. We'll look at her chances when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: She's best known as a Tea Party fire brand prone to making embarrassing gaffes. Now Representative Michele Bachmann is officially a candidate for president. Democrats privately snicker at the idea of Bachmann as the Republican nominee in 2012.
But in the race for the White House, who will have the last laugh?
Joining me now are Republican strategist Susan Del Percio and Laura Flanders, host of "GritTV."
Welcome to you, both.
Susan, is this just a mini wave that Michele Bachmann, she did OK in a debate, and she's the flavor of the month and she's the only alternative to Mitt Romney? Or can she really ride? Is this a tsunami that's really going to carry her to a place where she's something to be dealt with?
SUSAN DEL PERCIO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, it's too early to be a tsunami. There's a lot of time between now and the upcoming primaries. We're talking six, seven, eight months. And we have to see a few things.
One, can she raise the money? Two and most important, she's been extremely disciplined. And will she be able to stay that way and will her campaign team have her to tightly wound that maybe her Tea Party people won't like her that way.
SPITZER: But isn't she just kind of the fringe candidate kind of like Ron Paul last time who gets the 15, 20 percent of the real angry outsiders but she'll never be able to expand and become sort of a mainstream candidate?
DEL PERCIO: Well, the thing that she's going for her is that people don't really know her outside of a certain demographic. So she has room to grow unlike other people.
SPITZER: Right.
Laura, now, I think we can agree she would be the Democrats' favorite candidate because -- inconceivable she could win the presidency, but isn't she also Mitt Romney's favorite opponent. Doesn't she make him look centrist, reasonable and safe?
LAURA FLANDERS, HOST, GRITTV: Well, I think you're absolutely right. Except at this point he's the one that has to define himself. She is very well known to her base. What it comes down to is this question of growth. And what we need to see grow is some real reporting like the great reporting that's being done in her home state about her liabilities.
I mean she could be brought in to testify in a case coming up in January that involves a former money launderer who set up a Ponzi scheme and is a major contributor to her campaign.
There are a lot of skeletons in her closet that don't just have to do with misstatements but misplaced priorities and real problems there she's got to face.
SPITZER: Look, I -- and maybe this is unfair but I still don't take her seriously as somebody who is likely or even conceivably the Republican nominee. But I think what's interesting is that she has eclipsed Tim Pawlenty. She has eclipsed Huntsman. She has eclipsed other candidates who three weeks ago everybody was saying they're viable, they're serious governors.
What's happened to them?
(CROSSTALK)
FLANDERS: Well, it's probably awful. In the media when we set this bar so low for her that suddenly when she didn't -- you know, she didn't flub every line, she didn't come out as a flame thrower, suddenly she was an eye opener for the press.
SPITZER: Right.
FLANDERS: Same thing. The continuing focus on the flubs can have the pundits falling all the way to her winning the nomination. Now you can talk about what happens after that but I wouldn't write her off.
SPITZER: OK. If Pawlenty clearly hasn't had any traction yet, Huntsman doesn't seem to, well, somebody -- is Chris Christie going to jump in?
DEL PERCIO: But that's not -- I don't think Christie is going to jump in. But it's just too early to say they don't have traction yet because they can go another three, six months and see if she makes a lot of mistakes, if Romney makes mistakes, as long as they hang on and they don't make terrible gaffes, they can still become viable.
SPITZER: You -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
FLANDERS: It's got to get beyond gaffes. We've got to have somebody out there talking about jobs and housing --
DEL PERCIO: Well, no, I guess I was --
(CROSSTALK)
FLANDERS: If it's just going to be about God and gays, neither of these candidates are going to come through.
SPITZER: Here's where I disagree with you a little bit. You're right, it is still an eternity. Twenty-four hours these days an eternity in politics. Having said that, Pawlenty and Huntsman haven't had any traction even with the media focus. They were given this big bills up, each of them, given the chance to explode on the stage.
Neither one of them has done what Michele Bachmann has done which is to have that line, that sparkle, that attraction. You're --
(CROSSTALK)
DEL PERCIO: Well, Mitt Romney -- Mitt Romney hasn't had it either. And he's the leader of the pact --
SPITZER: But he's winning somehow.
DEL PERCIO: No, and he -- but the point is that I think everyone is trying to keep their powder dry and stay in this as long as possible.
SPITZER: OK. Let me change gears on you. What is the unemployment rate below which Barack Obama wins? Or stated the other way what is the unemployment rate above which he cannot win? We're at 9.1 now. If it goes up to 9.3 percent, does he lose it no matter what?
FLANDERS: I think he's in trouble and if we talk about real unemployment we've really got something for Obama to grapple with?
SPITZER: We'll get your number.
DEL PERCIO: Probably -- my guess is 8.7, 8.8, he can't --
(LAUGHTER)
FLANDERS: Unfortunately it may be the stock market -- where the stock market is that really matters. But you know --
DEL PERCIO: Well, I think it's going to be where inflation is.
(LAUGHTER)
FLANDERS: I mean I think the -- I was interested in something that Susan said that -- earlier which was, you know, Bachmann is attractive in part because she adds a certain kind of a spice to a picture of a lot of stuffed shirts. The more that she tries to hold in her personality, you were talking about, Susan, the more that her own base may say, where's the fire? And I think that's an important point.
SPITZER: You know, I think you're making -- you are making a critical point. There is something about politics. There's passion, there's energy drive. Barack Obama had it, more when he was running than he has -- has had as president.
But nonetheless, when you are a candidate you've got to have that energy so the audience so that the audience feeds off you. You feed off it. Mitt Romney doesn't have it but he's there as the lumbering frontrunner right. We'll see if it lasts.
All right, I hate to do this. It's been so quick.
Susan Del Percio, Laura Flanders, thanks for being with us. Coming up, violent video games. The Supreme Court doesn't like them but the justices say they're still free speech. When we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: It's official. Video games are art. You could have fooled me. But the Supreme Court today said video games, even extremely violent ones, should be characterized as a kind of art and should be protected by the First Amendment.
Joining me now for an up close look at the highest court's opinion is Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's senior legal analyst and an expert on all things emanating from the Supreme Court.
Are they nuts or is this the First Amendment at its best?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, this court for all its divisions is a very protective court of the First Amendment. And they said, look. What's really the difference between a video game and a rap record, or a movie or a book for that matter?
I mean, these are a form of expression and this extreme court is not going to let you ban it even for kids.
SPITZER: You know what? I hate to say this, but this is an easy case to me. This is core First Amendment speech. It may be awful, ugly, disastrous. But here's the question I think a lot of people are asking.
Why, then, my 13-year-old wants to go to an R-rated movie. He can't get in. She can't get in. Why? Is this different?
TOOBIN: Well, the -- yes, it is different because the Motion Picture Association of America, MPAA, which makes the ratings, that's a voluntary organization. That is not the government. The motion picture business set that system up so the government wouldn't regulate them.
The video game business has the same thing. These -- these video games are rated. So basically, the government has stayed out of the movie business and the court said they should stay out of the video games.
SPITZER: So what you're saying is something that unfortunately not everybody appreciates. The First Amendment limits the government from doing stuff but not private parties.
TOOBIN: Correct. Private parties chose to --
SPITZER: And so the movie industry says your kid is not coming in. That has nothing to do with the First Amendment?
TOOBIN: Correct.
SPITZER: Now the Supreme Court also came down today with another First Amendment decision about campaign finance which you think is even more important.
TOOBIN: I think this is like son of Citizens United because it is yet another example of the Supreme Court saying -- this time in a case out of Arizona, that if you are spending money, that's like giving a speech. That the expenditure of campaign money is like -- it should be protected by the First Amendment.
And basically what they are doing is they are deregulating campaigns. They are getting rid of limits on campaign spending, limits on political contributions, who can give, you know, corporations, companies. I mean, we are basically looking at, soon, the law of the jungle when it comes to political campaigns.
SPITZER: So you're saying the equation of cash and speech is where we're heading under the Supreme Court?
TOOBIN: Exactly. Because people remember the Citizens United case. They said corporations can spend money. Corporations have free speech rights. This is another case where they said, government, get out of the business of regulating things.
SPITZER: Do you think they're wrong about this? If you were sitting up there, one of the nine, would you vote the other way?
TOOBIN: You know I -- I do think they're wrong. You know in this country, we have had rules limiting campaigns for 100 years. Whether it's limiting campaign contributions to -- by corporations, and that to me spending money by -- in a campaign is not free speech.
SPITZER: Look, contributions -- contributions have always been viewed differently because there, there's a countervailing concern of corruption. When you give somebody $1 million, they are going to be indebted to you. And so you're worried about what will happen. But here's the other thing. Buckley V. Vallejo, don't want to (INAUDIBLE) a law school seminar.
TOOBIN: Yes.
SPITZER: That dealt with somebody spending his own or her own money. Would you overrule that as well?
TOOBIN: Absolutely. Mike Bloomberg spent $100 million to become mayor of New York City. And his opponent spent, you know, less -- around $10 million. That's not right. But it is currently constitutionally protected. And that's why rich people have --
SPITZER: OK. OK.
TOOBIN: -- have had a lot of success.
SPITZER: Which is a real tension. A lot of the problem, though, is then you're going to say to somebody you can't spend your own money to make your own political argument. That does get a little dicey from the First Amendment, looks like.
TOOBIN: You know what I say to them? Tough luck. That's the rule.
SPITZER: Tough luck. Right. Chief Justice Jeff Toobin says tough luck from the highest bench in the court. All right.
Jeff Toobin, as always, great to have you here. Come up --
TOOBIN: The highest bench at this table.
SPITZER: All right. Not even.
All right, coming up, the president's ex-physician makes a house call. E.D. Hill asks him if Obamacare is good for what ails us or will it lead to a shortage of doctors. That's story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Just how difficult is it to get in to see a primary care doctor? President Obama wants to know. So the White House has a team of mystery shoppers calling doctors' offices randomly to see if they can get an appointment. Why? Well, because millions more Americans are about to gain health care coverage. And at the same time, there's an increasing shortage of doctors to see them.
How bad is the problem and what's the solution? We're joined by the man who treated President Obama for two decades. Dr. David Scheiner.
Thanks for being with us.
DR. DAVID SCHEINER, PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FORMER DOCTOR: Thank you.
HILL: So the president wants to study this some more. Doctors complain this is kind of spying on them. And they say no more research really is needed to know what the problem is. Do you agree?
SCHEINER: Well, first of all, the spying aspect, in 1994, a similar study was done about Medicaid so this -- these kinds of studies have been done before.
I agree with doctors, though. We don't need to have another study. It just pushes real reform further away. We know there are too few primary care physicians. We know that when the 30 million some new patients come aboard there's not going to be enough primary care physicians.
HILL: Let me ask you, Doctor --
SCHEINER: We know that when 17 more million more Medicaid are not going to be able to be handled.
HILL: Doctor, why is it that there is such a shortage of primary care physicians? You know, the typical country doctor, the guy, you know, the Marcus M.D., you know, the person that you went in to see and, you know, and just was sort of your first line in preventive care? SCHEINER: Well, you know, there are several reasons. Studies have been done about this. One, the number one is not just money although money is very close to the top. A dermatology resident finishes and goes into practice, makes twice as much perhaps as I have ever made in my life after 50 years in medicine.
So the discrepancy in money is significant. But lifestyle is apparently the chief problem. Doctors don't want to lead the kind of life that an internist or family practitioner or a general pediatrician lives. They want a better lifestyle. They don't want to have such devotion to medicine. It just isn't there anymore. I think perhaps some of the ideal is gone.
HILL: But these are the doctors that really would be the very first line, the ones that the -- you know that the Medicare or that the health reform is really based on. You go and you see these doctors. And they would be the ones treating the vast majority of patients as the first stop.
Is there a problem because I understand a lot of doctors say you know what? I don't want to deal with the government insurance. They say private insurance or, you know, cash. That's it. Why is that?
SCHEINER: Well, first of all, Medicaid, which is a major problem now, the states are cutting Medicaid payments to providers now. The payments are bad enough as it is. In Illinois, there's three to six months before a physician is paid and he isn't paid anywhere as near what he paid -- is paid by other insurance programs.
That's part of the problem. The government insurance Medicare is fine. Medicare is not a great problem. And as long as somebody isn't acting purely out of greed, Medicare pays perfectly fine.
If we -- if everybody had Medicare, I think we would be in much better shape. Medicaid is a terrible problem. It's third class care. When a patient shows their Medicaid card -- I have talked to people. They are ashamed of it because they know they will be looked down upon.
Medicaid is a badge of shame. If everybody had a Medicare card, we could eliminate Medicaid.
HILL: So --
SCHEINER: Medicare for all is an obvious answer. Every major economist agrees to this. And we can't seem to get the message across.
HILL: But if you got that --
SCHEINER: We're the only western nation --
HILL: If you got that message across --
SCHEINER: I'm sorry? HILL: If you got the message across, if everybody is in the same program, still you've got that problem. How do you attract enough doctors with the pay being what it is compared to specialists, attract enough people into primary care?
SCHEINER: Well, one obvious way is that the subspecialists are going to have to give up some of their income. This is what's been done in other countries. There has to be some kind of control over the amount of -- the number of physicians that go into various specialties.
In other countries, 50 percent of the physicians are in primary care. I think in the United States it's going to be down to 16 to 17 percent.
HILL: But they come out of med school at --
SCHEINER: There has to be central control.
HILL: They have $200,000 in debt at least when they come out of med school. You're telling me you're going to cut the salary -- you know and they've got that kind of debt?
SCHEINER: Well, what they should be doing is -- to get more people into primary care, they could pay for their education if they made a life-long commitment, not just a five-year or three-year commitment. If they made a life-long commitment to primary care, I think they could pay for their medical education.
I think perhaps the kind of recruiting of students should change, too. Perhaps we're not getting the right kind of people to go into medicine if they don't have the right goals in mind. I am very discouraged by what I see.
HILL: Well, certainly the president and Congress continue to take a look at this because it is a very real problem that is only getting more exacerbated as the time goes on. Someone has to come up with a solution because we are in dire need of doctors.
Dr. David Scheiner, thank you very much for joining us.
SCHEINER: My pleasure. Thank you.
HILL: And on behalf of Eliot Spitzer, good night from New York. Piers Morgan's interview with Beyonce starts right now.
