Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Exploding Debt; Interview with Ralph Reed

Aired October 20, 2010 - 20:00   ET

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


KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN NEWS ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN NEWS ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program. It's time for "Opening Arguments." Tonight, I want to tell you a story about political cowardice involves nearly everyone in Washington and their refusal to solve the biggest crisis we face, our exploding debt. A disgraceful act. Our leadership has created a gaping hole. And so enter the Tea Party to try to fill it. They say they're going to solve the problem, they vow to cut spending. Yeah, I don't believe it. It's all smoke and mirrors. We heard the same thing from the Republicans a couple years back.

PARKER: Well now, Eliot, I will agree that for decades Democrats and Republicans have been equally guilty in promising cuts and never actually cutting, but there is an exception. A recent example of courage from the Republican minority leader John Boehner, he actually said let's raise the age of retirement for social security to 70. Now, that's bold and that was politically risky and would have really cut costs. He was of course blasted by liberal groups for this proposal. I wish Democrats would have shown some of that resolve.

SPITZER: You know, Kathleen, what happened immediately after that was that Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, slapped them down, said don't talk about that any more. And of course, we haven't heard from Congressman Boehner about that. Interesting to see what happens if he becomes the speaker of the House. But much more importantly, the Tea Party numbers don't add up. We'll talk about that a little later in the show with somebody who will defend them.

But we, on this show, are going to try to do something with every politician who comes before us. We're going to say, name your cut. We're tired of flim-flam, tired of smoke and mirrors. We're going to pin people down and say, "show us the numbers, show us how you're going to do it."

PARKER: This should be interesting, a week and a half before the midterm election, we're going to force people to say, "OK, yeah, I'm going to cut entitlements."

SPITZER: They're going to have to name the cut. And the interesting thing is we started this a couple weeks ago with some people who are very smart, Dick Armey, who was the majority leader in the House, and Richard Viguerie, a Republican, who was really one of the leaders of the conservative movement. Let's look at what they said, because it seems to me it was a little slippery.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: I'm just trying to figure out where you're cutting.

DICK ARMEY (R), FMR HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Defense is stipulated in the Constitution as a legitimate necessary duty of the federal government.

SPITZER: Where are you cutting?

ARMEY: How about we cut out a lot of nonsense like the National Endowment for the Humanities and Arts? How about getting rid of AmeriCorps...

SPITZER: AmeriCorps? OK.

ARMEY: ...which is just obnoxious even intellectually it's an insult to the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: You got to cut over $1 trillion. There's over $500 billion in nondiscretionary money to start with. Where are you going to take huge pieces? Are you going to cut Medicare?

RICHARD VIGUERIE (R), CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT LEADER: Well, what you're going to do is change the entitlements. You have to.

SPITZER: So gives us -- are you going to really chop Medicare in half?

VIGUERIE: Tell you what, why don't you have Paul Ryan on here?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Oh yes, well, we love Paul Ryan. Well look, I mean, clearly Mr. Armey's answer was vague and Mr. Viguerie basically punted. So you're right Eliot, and so let's drill down and see what the numbers really are. You're good at this part.

SPITZER: Wait. Well, you know, I can throw some numbers around, but here's the thing, what Dick Armey said, lovely guy, when he mention the National Endowment for the Arts and the other one, that's 1/1,000 of one percent of the budget. Just not where the money is. Willie Sutton, remember the famous bank robber, he was asked why do you rob banks, he said, "That's where the money is." let's find out -- it's a dumb saying, but it's true. let's find out where is the money. First some basic facts. What's the size of the federal budget -- $3.8 trillion. The deficit about $1.3 trillion. Now, where is the money that gets spent, really? And we're going to put up something on the screen that shows you. It is in five areas: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, interest on our debt. And that totals $2.3 trillion. So, if you're not talking about those things, then you're not serious. And that is where the numbers explode over the next couple years. And so politicians who talk about efficiency, politicians say National Public Radio, it's not real money. These are the things we got to talk about. We're going to pin people down on those.

PARKER: Right, well it's a very tough thing to do in the political season, clearly.

SPITZER: And we're going to go off on this name your cut crusade with every person who comes here. And we want you to weigh in where you think we should cut the federal budget. Go to cnn.com/ParkerSpitzer name your cuts and we will share your ideas on our blog and on the show.

PARKER: Now let's continue this conversation and welcome one of the brightest conservative minds into "The Arena." Joining us now is Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

SPITZER: Welcome, Ralph. Guess what. This is your lucky night. We're starting a new challenge called "Name Your Cut." So Ralph, what would you cut from the federal budget?

RALPH REED, FAITH AND FREEDOM COALITION: Well actually, Eliot, Paul Ryan and the Republicans on the budget committee -- House Budget Committee have already identified about $1.3 trillion in cuts. Just real quickly, return the unused TARP money. That's about $250 billion. Return the unused stimulus money which has largely failed. About 35 to 40 percent of that hasn't even been spent. Freeze federal hiring and pay, that would save you about $20 billion a year, about $250 billion over 10 years. And in addition to that, I think we ought to look at increasing both Medicare and Social Security at a rate of increase of income rather than inflation. That would preserve both of those programs. And then finally cap and reduce discretionary spending which has gone up by 84 percent in two years under Obama. That would save you about $100 billion. So, I just gave you $2 trillion. I hope that's enough.

PARKER: Ralph, that reads like the Republican's pledge for America. I think those are some of the points...

REED: Yeah, right, well not entirely because some of that is Ryan's road map, which is not in the pledge, but I take your point.

PARKER: Well, you had something to do with that pledge, I understand, you were at least a consultant to the leader, to John Boehner's office in developing that. So what was the goal of the pledge and why now?

REED: Well, I think the Pledge to America was a seminal document in the sense that the Republicans led by John Boehner and Eric Cantor could have just said what they were against rather than what they were for. They could have just ran as the anti-Obama, the anti-Pelosi. And I think that might have been enough to get them the House. We'll never know. But to their credit, they understood that if you want to govern, you can't just say what you're against, you got to say what you're for. And so they put forward proposals on spending, on taxes, on education, on social and cultural policy, and on foreign policy and I think it's a good blueprint for the future.

SPITZER: Ralph, let's come back to the numbers for a minute because even if I were to agree, which I don't that your cuts came to $2 trillion a year, what you also do is extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich which then reduces revenue by $4 trillion over the next 10 years which is why all the analysts who have looked at your document say that it increases, increases, the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade which is why David Frum, a very respected conservative voice, you know, he's an icon in the conservative world. He said the document is "a repudiation of the central foundational idea behind the Tea Party. The Pledge to America declares 'sorry, we don't believe this.'"

I hate to say it, the numbers don't add up because you haven't specified a single cut. I'm not talking about slowing the rate of increase. A single cut in Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare, and as we all know, and we've been saying this to the public, that's where the money is. So, what will you do to slow the rate of increase in Medicare, the single largest piece in the entitlement system? Medicare specifically, what are you going to do?

REED: Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, Eliot, that's not going to be done exempt on a bipartisan basis.

SPITZER: Happy to do it on a bipartisan basis.

REED: Sure, but having said that I think we have to move to a model where, as at some state levels with regard to Medicaid extension or Medicaid spending, the program is allowed to take place in the form of Medicare recipients buying insurance policies on the private market as has taken place in Medicare Advantage, and private companies competing for that dollar.

Medicare part D, Eliot, which is the prescription drug benefit that monthly premium came in 40 percent below what the congressional budget office originally projected. Why? Because companies competed for that dollar, they wanted that business and that's the problem with traditional one size fits all Medicare.

I'm the son of an M.D., who's an ophthalmologist in rural north Georgia where half of his practice was Medicare and Medicaid and they set his rate. If the patients were empowered so that they were chasing the docs and the nurses and the hospitals instead of the government, we could greatly balance that program.

SPITZER: I just want to understand, because we're trying to get answers. What you're saying is privatize Medicare?

REED: I didn't say that.

SPITZER: No, but that's really what you're saying. You're saying, let people opt out and let people opt, the same way you wanted to privatize Social Security. I'm just trying to explain it so people can understand this. REED: Yeah, what I suggested was you can do a model for Medicare as a whole, similar to Medicare part D or Medicare Advantage, where people pay premiums and they can choose what kind of policy they want.

SPITZER: Which is...

REED: ...give the recipients a choice. And instead of offering everybody a Cadillac, you give them different things they can choose from and they decide whether or not they want to pay additional premiums.

SPITZER: Do you agree though with what I said before, that since I totaled and accepted your number for the cuts you said you were suggesting over the next 10 years and then netted out against that the impact of the tax cuts that you're also extending into the next decade, the impact on the budget of the Pledge to America increases the deficit by about $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion over the next decade. That's simple arithmetic based on the numbers you gave me.

REED: No, I don't agree with that. And that's the same kind of static, green eyeshade accounting that has led to every evaluation of every tax cut over the last 50 years going back, by the way, to the John F. Kennedy tax cuts in the '60s saying that they were going to lead to less revenue rather than more revenue.

Ronald Reagan had the deepest and broadest tax cuts in the post World War II period. The amount of revenue that came in off those lower rates was double what it was eight years earlier. In the case of George W. Bush, we were told the same thing would happen. His last budget, before the slowdown of 2008, was about $175 billion, which is a rounding error in a $14 trillion economy. So, I don't agree. And even when Jimmy Carter, by the way, cut the capital gains tax rate in 1978, more revenue came in on capital gains on the lower rate than came in under the high rate.

SPITZER: That's because there was growth which is already built into these models. I'm just doing the arithmetic. You say you're cutting spending by two, but then you're reducing tax revenue by four. Four minus two means we're going to be less -- have less revenue in the amount of negative to in addition to the deficits we've already got. This is simple arithmetic. You mean -- what's wrong with those numbers?

REED: Well, what's wrong with those numbers is, as I understand your proposal and as I understand the Obama administration's proposal, it is on January 1, they want to increase taxes on everybody making over $250,000 a year.

SPITZER: No, no, no. Let's keep the subject your proposal, which is you're cutting spending by two. I'll accept that number. But you're reducing revenue by four.

(CROSSTALK)

REED: Eliot, it's a very simple -- it's a very simple choice. We either allow tax rates to go up January 1 or we don't. You're for them going up...

SPITZER: No, I'm not. Ralph, I'm taking your numbers...

REED: I'm for keeping them where they are in the deepest and longest recession since World War II.

SPITZER: But the impact of extending the tax cuts as you want to do it is a loss of revenue of $4 trillion, but you're only cutting $2 trillion on the spending side. Four minus two is two. That's all I'm saying.

REED: Well, that's your math. I haven't subscribed to it.

SPITZER: Ralph, that is my math and I'll stick with those numbers any day. If you want to teach me a new math, I'm game.

REED: All I know is this. Under the kind of policies that you advocate, we've had the two largest back-to-back deficits in American history. I rest my case.

SPITZER: OK.

PARKER: All right...

SPITZER: And that's because George Bush gave us an economy...

REED: If we want more than that, than we want a Democratic Congress and Obama for another four years.

SPITZER: Four minus two. We'll leave the answer to Ralph when he comes back. We'll figure it out.

PARKER: OK, Ralph, I'm going to just try to reel things back in a little bit here to just politics. Can you talk a little bit about the midterm elections? How do you think the Tea Party candidates are going to do?

REED: I think they're going to do extremely well.

PARKER: I think you just heard why.

REED: Yes, I think we did just hear why. And by the way, the Democratic candidates, Pelosi and Obama, made them all walk the plank on the stimulus, on taxpayer funded bailouts, on higher taxes, on Obamacare. And frankly, it's killing them from coast to coast. And I think not only is Marco Rubio going to win in Florida going away, I think Joe Miller's going to win in Alaska, Ken Buck in Colorado, Rand Paul in Kentucky, I think Sharron Angle's going to win in Nevada and I think a whole lot of other...

PARKER: But how many Senate seats is this, Ralph?

REED: Well, you know, I'm not really in the prediction business. I think if you look at the handicappers right now in Washington, they would say seven to eight, but I don't really -- I think midterm turnout is so hard to call that I think it's -- let me put it to you this way, I think both chambers are in play. And I think it's entirely possible that you're going to have a Republican House and a Republican Senate.

PARKER: All right, Ralph Reed, thank you so much for being here. It's wonderful to see you again.

REED: Thank you good to be with you both.

SPITZER: Ralph, thanks. And we have to take a quick break and then we're talking to Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell, and Kathleen, guess what we're going to ask him.

PARKER: Wait a minute.

SPITZER: Think hard.

PARKER: What would you cut, what do you think?

SPITZER: There it is. and we're going to keep asking until we get answers that add up. Because you know what -- we need answers and we need them now.

PARKER: All right, here's a number, we'll be back in 60 second, don't touch that remote.

SPITZER: And don't cut that time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Where does the Democratic story that's an affirmative story that explains how we're going to solve the problem?

GOV ED RENDELL (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, you're absolutely right. And I have said consistently during this campaign season, we're a bunch of wusses. We're running from the things that we've done, running from the things we believe instead of saying, "Here's what we stand for." If we're going to lose, let's go down fighting for the things we believe in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: Now it's time for our headliner. Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell is one of the few Democrats who has spoken out against the Tea Party. Rendell says the movement has no infrastructure and that he could get more people to a rally to protect puppies than show up for a Tea Party rally.

SPITZER: And he's someone who knows what it takes to balance a budget. Governor of Pennsylvania, former mayor of Philadelphia, D.A. of Philadelphia and a rabid Eagles and Phillies fan.

RENDELL: Absolutely.

SPITZER: My condolences on the Phillies, right now. RENDELL: That's all right.

SPITZER: But you know what, we'll see how it all turns out. And I'm a Yankee's fan, of course. Anyway, we are beginning something today and we're going to make you our first victim of this.

PARKER: Victim.

SPITZER: In terms of the federal budget and this is easier for a governor than perhaps somebody in the federal government. We are saying to folks who come here, name the specific cut you would put in place to balance the federal budget. Where would you go?

RENDELL: It's a great thing. It's a great thing. So many people say, "cut the budget, cut the budget" and they never...

SPITZER: It's all smoke and mirrors.

RENDELL: The first thing I would do is dramatically reduce administrative costs in the Defense Department. If you look at that, it's literally hundreds of millions of dollars. No. 2, get the heck out of Afghanistan. We're spending $150 billion a year in Afghanistan. And I guarantee you, if we're there for 10 years and we leave it won't be one wit better than if we left tomorrow. That's No. 2. No. 3, let's do something about entitlements because we all know it has to be done. And No. 4, let's give the middle class tax cut for two more years while the economy's recovering. Let's take it away from people who earn 250,000 and after two years, let's take it away from everybody. We go back to Ronald Reagan era tax rates and we save ourselves $3.5 trillion.

PARKER: All right, what about the economy...

RENDELL: How did I do?

PARKER: That's pretty darn good.

SPITZER: You not only pass, I want to give you a third term as governor and actually send you to Washington to put this in place.

PARKER: But you can't have a third term so does that liberate you and are you thinking...

RENDELL: No, I would say the same thing. Look, it's time, right after this election, regardless of how it falls, we're going to have a six-month, maybe four-month window, to do tough things before the presidential kicks in. If we care about this country, we've got to get together and tell the American people the truth. The benefit package for our entitlement programs cannot stay the same. It has to be trimmed down. Everybody knows that.

SPITZER: You are saying some things that are dramatic. We'll come back in one sec. What you said about Afghanistan, I don't want that to disappear. That is quite a remarkable statement. You're saying get out, get out now.

RENDELL: Get out as soon as we can...

SPITZER: The military.

RENDELL: I would have adopted Vice President Biden's proposal, leave a security force there to do counterintelligence, get everyone else out.

SPITZER: And has the White House spoken to you about this? You speak to the president, you tell him your views on these?

RENDELL: The White House shakes their head when I speak.

SPITZER: They shake it in a different direction, is my view.

PARKER: All right, you talked about entitlements. What specifically would you cut? How do we tweak those?

RENDELL: For example, look, I know it's hard to say, but we need to raise the age limit for eligibility for Medicare. Everyone knows that. but that's an idea that, you know...

PARKER: Well, John Boehner even said that.

RENDELL: Well, he's right. He's absolutely right.

PARKER: Raise it to 70?

RENDELL: Because he backed away from it.

PARKER: Well, he got clobbered.

RENDELL: We shouldn't get clobbered.

SPITZER: You're not going to back away?

RENDELL: No. And Republicans and Democrats should stand together. If they stand together and say that, then voters can't take it out on either party. But at the same time we're doing that, guys like Eliot and I and -- I don't know your situation, Kathleen, but we should...

PARKER: It's not the same, I can assure you.

RENDELL: Well, we shouldn't have our Social Security tax capped. It should just go throughout the whole year.

SPITZER: Oh, you're hurting me, now. Wait a minute, this doesn't sound so good.

PARKER: Everybody has to hurt a little bit, right?

RENDELL: That's the key, that's the key.

SPITZER: You are so right.

RENDELL: Absolutely. PARKER: Am I a Democrat now?

SPITZER: You're a compassionate conservative.

RENDELL: Well, you're a blue dog, you're a blue dog.

PARKER: Blue dog, I am.

SPITZER: This is hugely important. Let's switch to one other thing that you've become well known for, infrastructure which is, well tell us. You and Governor Schwarzenegger and Mike Bloomberg have gone out to lead a campaign to get us to invest in basically the backbone of our economy.

RENDELL: Right. And interestingly, I believe we've got to do all this deficit reduction, including tax cuts, but we also have to spend. And the reason we have to spend is every economist believes that we still have to put money into the economy. And where can we put it in and get the best return on our investment in infrastructure? Our nation needs it: Our levees, our dams, our bridges, our roads are in perilously bad condition. We need it to be economically competitive. Rail freight, you name it. We need to keep growing this country's infrastructure.

And it's the best job producer because it produces well-paying jobs at the construction site and back in factories, steel factories, aggregate factories, asphalt factories, concrete factories. These are good jobs, they can't be outsourced and if we dedicate ourselves to a 10-year infrastructure revitalization program -- Germany did it, Japan did it.

SPITZER: How do you pay for it?

RENDELL: How do you pay for it? The Afghan war.

SPITZER: That's the trading...

RENDELL: That's 150 billion to $250 billion. You know how much money we've put into the Iraqi infrastructure? Almost 100 billion. Fifty billion into the Afghan infrastructure. Into the American infrastructure? Less.

PARKER: Well, who was it who said we should be doing nation building, here?

SPITZER: Tom Friedman.

PARKER: Yeah.

SPITZER: He said we're a nation building the wrong nation.

RENDELL: Yeah. We have a lot of work to be done, right here.

SPITZER: Predictions politically, November 2? First, in Pennsylvania. I don't want to put you on the spot, but...

PARKER: Six or seven seats in play, there.

RENDELL: Actually as many as 10. I think Democrats could go from even to losing four seats. It's in that area that we're coming, the momentum's on our side whether we get there fast enough.

SPITZER: How about the Senate and gubernatorial races?

RENDELL: Sestak actually went ahead in the poll, yesterday. Actually, I don't think it's a very good poll, but he's also...

SPITZER: (INAUDIBLE) I used to do those all the time, also.

RENDELL: That's right. But your poll numbers are always great. But at any rate, he's coming. Whether he catches Toomey, I don't know. Our gubernatorial candidate is a little closer to victory. And in the toss-up seats, like Patrick Murphy, and Sestak's old seat, I think we're going to wind up holding those. Nationwide, I think we're going to keep the Senate by three or four seats. The House is going to go either way. Ten seats either way.

SPITZER: And one last question. The Tea Party, which I know you think is disorganized, but none the less, will have some role to play in the House if Boehner is the speaker, what happens? Do they, does the Tea Party call the shots? Does their agenda become the Republican agenda?

RENDELL: It's a, as Kathleen said at the beginning, it's A double-edged sword for the Republicans. It's great to have them there, but they could tend to become dissidents very, very fast and cause a lot of trouble. The big issue is, let's assume for a moment the Republicans take the Senate. Do the Tea Party-ites gives DeMint leadership and boot out Mitch McConnell? Big question.

SPITZER: Stick around, we'll be right back for more with Governor Ed Rendell.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: And we're back with Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

SPITZER: The Tea Party may have been lacking in infrastructure when you described it back then a couple months ago, but now it's taken over politics. Where's the Democratic alternative?

RENDELL: Well, first of all, the Tea Party -- when you use the term Tea Party, there are a lot of people who identify with the Tea Party because they put their finger on legitimate grievances that people have the way government's performed, et cetera. But there is no Tea Part, there's no Tea Party movement. The few candidates who have been elected saying I'm a Tea Party representative are in trouble because they're so extreme and so way-out, and frankly, a little nuts. So, that's the problem with the Tea Party. But the people who identify, citizens who identify with the Tea Party have legitimate grievances, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

PARKER: But you really think there's no Tea Party movement despite the fact that they've backed these candidates and actually gotten them through primaries?

RENDELL: Well, the week before the health care bill was voted on, they had a rally in D.C., they had 900 people. If I had a rally to protect puppies in Washington, I would...

PARKER: Well, now that's not fair because of course everybody's going to show up for puppies.

(LAUGHTER)

SPITZER: ...brings a dog on the set every now and again.

RENDELL: No, it's true. Look, even when Sarah Palin shows up, the attendance is not so great. I was the keynote speaker at the Iowa Democratic dinner, and we drew more than Sarah Palin did at the Republican Iowa dinner. So, and it wasn't because of me, Democrats were just out to...

PARKER: Well, I agree with you, there's no infrastructure and there are actually different groups who are now competitive with one another and they're now...

RENDELL: Are the Libertarians part of the Tea Party? Yes or no? Is Ron Paul a Tea Party-ite? Probably not.

PARKER: Well, but they're now being whatever that movement is that's now being brought into the GOP and so -- and they are going to...

RENDELL: At their peril, because when you bring them in, it allows people like me on the campaign trail to say, "Look, if you vote the Republicans in power of Congress, they're going to get a party that's dominated more and more by people who are out there who are wacko."

SPITZER: But Ed, here's the problem, and you're our current Democratic governor. I was a Democratic governor. We are not giving them an alternative. Notice the way you phrased that. You have to do it in the context, if you vote for them, something bad will happy. Where is the Democratic story that's an affirmative story that explains how we're going to solve the problem?

RENDELL: Well, you're right. And I have said consistently during this campaign season, we're a bunch of wusses. We're running from the things that we've done, running from the things we believe, instead of saying, "Here's what we stand for." If we're going to lose, let's go down fighting for the things we believe in.

Let's talk about the health care bill. All our guys shy away from the health care bill. But as you guys know, there are six things that have come online with the health care bill, all wildly popular with people. Just one example, children 25 years or younger cannot be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. So, if you've got a 5- year-old daughter suffering from leukemia in the past no insurance company would take her, now they have to take her. Ninety-one percent of the people think that's a good thing. And that's true with all of the health care bill stuff that's online. Let's talk about that stuff. We should be proud of the things we've done.

SPITZER: You're so right. We've gotten defensive. In the stimulus as well, there is all sorts of money being spent on energy, on infrastructure. It is critical for our future. But then get into the brains of the Democratic Party, right now. Why is everybody so defensive? What are they afraid of? You don't win playing defense.

RENDELL: Well, and that's true, but people think they do. They figure that they can be Republican-light, they can fool vote voters. You know, this idea of don't bring Barack Obama into a certain place because you'll remind people that the president's a Democrat.

(LAUGHTER)

SPITZER: I know that.

RENDELL: I think people know that. I think people know that. So, there's a debate going on right in Pennsylvania, now. The president, we're trying to get him back into Philadelphia the last weekend. Well, some people say, well that will go out all over Pennsylvania and it will hurt us because they'll see President Obama campaigning for Democrats. And I thought, that's as stupid an idea as the Gore campaign saying let's not use Bill Clinton to campaign. Maybe people will forget that Al Gore was Bill Clinton's vice president.

PARKER: Yeah.

RENDELL: Yeah, darn.

PARKER: Well, you say, you know, the thing about the pre- existing conditions for children and leukemia, that's a very -- that's an image that everyone can wrap their hearts around and say yeah, that's great, but is it not possible that some of the other aspects of the health care bill are partly the reason that people are not embracing this...

RENDELL: We don't have enough time. Let me give you another one. Seniors have started, since June, are getting a $250 check to help pay for the doughnut hole in prescription coverage. That's a good thing. Seniors love it. Why aren't we talking about that? That's a terrific thing. If you're a small business and you have less than 25 employees, instead of your rates going up, like the Republicans say, you're going to get a 35 percent tax credit this year.

PARKER: I'll tell you something I liked about it, 26-year-old, your kids can stay on your insurance policy until they're 26.

RENDELL: Absolutely, those things are all online now, Kathleen, and they're all online now Why aren't we talking about it?

PARKER: I give up.

SPITZER: All right. We should be -- let's pivot it, for a second. As a governor, you balanced a budget. It was painful, it was difficult, but you did it. You still have a pension problem looking into the future.

RENDELL: Huge.

SPITZER: How do states begin to deal with this? Because this is the $1 trillion problem facing states across this nation.

RENDELL: Yeah, states have to do two things. One, they've got to immediately -- and I'm frustrated because the House in Pennsylvania passed a great pension reform bill, the Senate has sat on it. You change...

SPITZER: Is there different control in the two Houses of the...

RENDELL: You know, Senate's Republican, House is Democrat, but it's not actually a partisan issue. You change benefit package going forward. No question about it. Now, that doesn't affect your...

SPITZER: From defined benefits to defined contribution?

RENDELL: Or raising the age limit that you qualify for pension, reducing the dollars that you get on a certain basis. That's number one. But you know, the law is you can't take away pension benefits from people retroactively.

SPITZER: Right. Retroactively.

RENDELL: So for that, you have to smooth it out actuarially, smooth it out over a course of years. Now that doesn't eliminate the eventual problem but it gives you time to deal with it. And eventually the government and the school districts are going to have to pay more. And it's a sad fact of life.

PARKER: Well, one thing we want to ask you before we go is what are your future plans?

RENDELL: Well, I have no clue how I'm going to make money. I'm going to stay on as chair of Building America's Future because I think infrastructure is such a key to the nation's long-term viability. I'm going to write a book which I'm having fun with. I have no clue if anybody's going to buy it.

PARKER: What's the title?

RENDELL: "My Life in Politics." You can't make this blank blank up.

(LAUGHTER)

I'll have to deal with the publisher. And then I'm going to continue teaching. I teach one course now. Continue doing my sports show, but all at no dollars. I have to figure out how to make a living.

PARKER: How to make a living. Well, join the club.

SPITZER: All sounds great fun though. PARKER: All right. Thank you so much for joining us.

RENDELL: Thanks, Eliot.

SPITZER: Governor, thank you for being here.

RENDELL: Kathleen, good to see you.

SPITZER: And your wisdom is always useful. And thank you for the brilliant ideas.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: And now, it's time for "Constitution Avenue" where we go behind the scenes in politics. And politics in South Carolina where I have very deep family roots is bizarre. You've got a governor pretending to be on a hike when he's in a foreign country with his girlfriend. And the current Senate race is between Tea Party darling Jim DeMint and Alvin Greene, an unemployed Democrat who is facing criminal charges. And a Green Party candidate now into the fray comes a woman who is best known for policies like this --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NATHALIE DUPREEE, WRITE-IN SENATE CANDIDATE (SC): This is three eggs with a pinch of cream of tartar whipped up all by themselves, no yolk in there remember. Remember, very careful. And then I'm going to add just a little bit of sugar right now and whip it in. And I just do that by hand. It's much easier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: That is Chef Nathalie Dupree. And on September 30, with the election only weeks away, she made another video announcing her decision to take on Tea Party powerhouse Jim DeMint as a write-in candidate. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NATHALIE DUPREE, WRITE-In SENATE CANDIDATE (SC): Hello. I'm Nathalie Dupree. And want you to come inside and just see how easy it will be to vote for me, Nathalie Dupree, as a write-in for United States Senate.

Should you want to do a write-in vote, you touch write-in, and then you just touch the letters of the name of the person that you want to write-in, and then you touch accept.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: And Nathalie Dupree is here along with her husband, campaign adviser and historian Jack Bass. Thank you both for coming here. I'm so excited as a fellow South Carolinian. Now you guys tell me, how did this idea come to you, Nathalie?

DUPREE: All right. So, I get up every morning and I go outside and I look at my lemon trees and I look at my olive tree and I look at my lemon lime tree and my (INAUDIBLE) tree and I get two newspapers, "The Times," and the "Charleston Post and Courier," which is the best little small-city newspaper maybe in the United States, and I get them and I take them back to bed and I read them and drink my Diet Coke. And I was -- I read this article about Jim DeMint refusing an earmark.

PARKER: For the port.

DUPREE: For the port, a 400-some-thousand dollar earmark. Now, this port is like -- generates 260,000 something jobs.

PARKER: Yes.

DUPREE: And it's terribly important to South Carolina.

PARKER: Sure it is.

DUPREE: And I just got mad. And so I was standing at the foot of the bed. First, I was in bed and I said to Jack reading the paper, I said I'm going to run for the United States Senate against Jim DeMint.

SPITZER: I want to know exactly what was your reaction?

DUPREE: And Jack said, well, OK, darling.

JACK BASS, STROM THURMOND BIOGRAPHER: I said what?

PARKER: He said what all smart southern husbands did, yes, dear.

BASS: No, on this one I said what.

SPITZER: Look, I got one problem with your platform, though, because I was just watching your video. You say no yolks.

DUPREE: No yolks, no yolks.

SPITZER: You know, see, I'm not into this sort of light egg stuff. You got to put the yolk in to make it taste good.

DUPREE: Well, you do, but you know what we're saying is that I wanted to cook Jim DeMint's goose but now I realize he's a turkey. Is that enough of a yolk for you?

SPITZER: That's pretty good --

(LAUGHTER)

PARKER: Jack, you, the most famous write-in candidate was Strom Thurmond and you wrote a biography of him. What do you think your wife's chances are here?

BASS: Well, I think they're not as good as Strom's. But all in all, I think the reception she's getting has really been surprising.

SPITZER: Can we talk real politics for a second. Are you running TV ads? Are you going to do a real campaign? You have a week and a half.

DUPREE: Yes, we just turned in a big newspaper ad.

SPITZER: Right.

DUPREE: And as soon as you make a donation and Kathleen makes a donation, Pat Conroy matches his donation --

PARKER: And Pat Conroy is a good friend of yours.

DUPREE: Yes.

PARKER: He has a chapter about you in his cookbook.

SPITZER: We began today actually new process every time somebody's running for office, is on the show we say name your cut. We're trying to say, OK, we know we have a budget deficit. We know we have to do something about it. So where would you as a United States senator --

PARKER: As a pro-earmark candidate --

DUPREE: I know. Yes.

SPITZER: -- say where would you cut the budget in a way that would be meaningful and significant to the long-range fiscal situation we face?

DUPREE: I'd look at how much money was going to Mr. Cheney's former corporation in terms of preparing meals for the military. Now, those are little cuts. They're not going to make a big dent.

SPITZER: Good idea.

DUPREE: But I do know where I'd start.

SPITZER: Do you have -- last serious question, do you have a view on social security? How do we deal with the social security or Medicare or Medicaid prices?

DUPREE: I have asked everyone I know if they would give up their social security or their Medicare. And they have said no. So the idea that anyone thinks that they're going to cut social security or Medicare is ridiculous. I'm a negotiator. Let's massage all that --

SPITZER: Can I ask you one other hard question?

DUPREE: Yes.

SPITZER: Of all the things you cooked, what's your favorite dish?

DUPREE: Oh, I hate that.

SPITZER: Oh, you do. I take the question back.

DUPREE: OK.

SPITZER: But you know, for people like me --

DUPREE: I love a perfectly roasted chicken.

PARKER: You can't beat it, can you?

DUPREE: No, no.

PARKER: All right, one last question. In this crazy political season, is it a plus or minus to be a chef? Does it help you?

DUPREE: Of course, it helps me. I've had three kitchens. I can supervise 36 people running around crazy like with their head cut off like I did in a cooking school. I know how to budget. I know how to cost account down to 00.3 for vanilla. You know?

SPITZER: So you're way ahead of anybody in Washington.

DUPREE: I think I probably am. I'm a very good manager.

PARKER: Thank you so much for coming to see us. It's delightful.

DUPREE: And he's working on a book on the constitution.

PARKER: Oh, excellent.

SPITZER: Fourteenth amendment, I hear.

DUPREE: Fourteenth amendment, which makes --

SPITZER: Publish it before they repeal it.

BASS: I'll talk to my editor after I leave.

SPITZER: All right. Thank you both so much for being here.

PARKER: The French are on strike, Eliot.

SPITZER: They always are.

PARKER: Let's go say it's not exactly news because the French are always on strike.

SPITZER: Indeed.

PARKER: This time apparently they're serious.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Time for "Fun with Politics." And what's more fun than looking across the Atlantic at our great friends, the French.

PARKER: (INAUDIBLE) The French are on strike. While that's not exactly news, the French are always on strike, but this time apparently they mean business because the Sarkozy government wants to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62. (Speaking in a foreign language).

SPITZER: What an accent, I love it. All right. And to show their outrage, the French are driving slowly and clogging the roadways just like we do in New York every day. Anyway, what do they call this snail-like pace in France? What else, escargot.

PARKER: Oh, dear, well, got to love them. Only the French could name their protest after a gourmet delicacy. But it does seem to be working. The trains aren't running. Flights are canceled. Long lines at the gas station. Mon Dieu, France is at a standstill.

SPITZER: They take August off anyway, so why is this time any different than the rest of the year now? You know, take the whole year off. We're French.

PARKER: Why not? Why not? Viva la France.

SPITZER: We'll be right back.

Take a look at this. That's the kind of picture we like. On the beach, on strike.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Welcome to "Our Political Party," a chance for our guests to speak their minds in a whole range of topics. Let's meet our guests. Simon Doonan is the creative director of Barneys New York and would like to be columnist at Slate.com. And as I told him beforehand, I went to Barneys when I was 10. They sent me to the husky boys department. (INAUDIBLE). I don't hold you accountable. That's all right. We made up. All right. Then Keli Goff, contributor to TheLoop21.com and author of "Party Crashing" How the Hip-Hop Generation Declared Political Independence."

All right, not even sure I know what that means but it's all right.

PARKER: And over here we have Stephen Kornacki, who is the news editor at Salon.com and a good friend of our political party. And Nathalie Dupree is back. She is a James beard award-winning chef and write-in candidate for the U.S. Senate in my home state South Carolina, and she brought these beautiful biscuits and cream.

Thank you, everybody.

DUPREE: And don't forget DeMint.

PARKER: And DeMint, against him she's running for the Senate. I should have mentioned that.

(LAUGHTER)

No, but I write this column, bemoaning the lack of spontaneity in our culture, that we're just so worried about people picking up something on our mics, right? So we're going to pretend our mics are not on and say what we really think. Simon?

SIMON DOONAN, CREATIVE DIRECTOR, BARNEYS: At this time during the caucuses, I get barraged with calls from journalists who want me to opine about what the candidates are wearing. And it's completely counterintuitive because in order to be a politician, to be successful, you have to be totally unremarkable. You have to be -- you have to be like great dull, unremarkable. It's almost like your colonoscopy doctor. Nobody wants their colonoscopy done by somebody in a leopard jump suit. And you also don't want the country run by somebody in a leopard jump suit.

PARKER: There is no contradiction here at all.

DOONAN: And you, madam, might I suggest, you are so glamorous and fabulous looking, you might need to pull it back a bit because people are going to think, oh, yes, she's so glamorous and done up, she's maybe vain, maybe too into -- you know what I mean? If you're a politician, you have to be self-denying.

(CROSSTALK)

DUPREE: I've done everything. I looked everywhere for something so I wouldn't have to wear red like one of those other women.

PARKER: Oh, perfect. I get you. I get you.

DUPREE: I mean, I don't want to be on the cover of "Newsweek" in red.

KELI GOFF, POLITICAL ANALYST: Can I just say I actually I absolutely love it if the president or a Supreme Court justice wore something like that. I think it would kind of be fun to, you know, shake things up a bit.

SPITZER: Remember Justice Rehnquist, he put racing stripes on his sleeves during the impeachment trial?

(CROSSTALK)

DOONAN: You are all crazy.

STEPHEN KORNACKI, NEWS EDITOR, SALON: You know, one of my favorite politicians was always, you know, Paul Simon, the senator from Illinois who figured out, you know, a long time ago, started his political career, the best way to stand out is to wear the bow tie.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bow tie.

KORNACKI: And he gave out, instead of a normal campaign button, it was a bow tie-shaped button that they would give out. So Simon, everybody knew Paul Simon, you know, was the bow tie.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love bow ties.

GOFF: Because he was my mom's first president -- the first presidential candidate I remember my mother supporting, so the bow tie.

DOONAN: At the end of the day, I'm 100 percent right. Style and politics do not mix. If you have a stylish leader, hello, you might be hearing Jack booing in the background. Style and vanity do not belong. It's about self-denial and public service.

PARKER: Is that why Eliot looks like this?

SPITZER: You know, I thought this was pretty classy to me but, you know -- parties and I have never mixed so I don't know what to tell you.

PARKER: When I was actually mad at Tucker Carlson when he got rid of his tie, about that in his bow tie. Don't you think it's adorable?

DUPREE: I love it.

PARKER: And by the way, as to her fashion, you don't know South Carolina, honey. You can wear anything you want and get elected. You can say anything. You can do anything.

SPITZER: Switch the topic for one second. We have been asking every politician on this show to name their budget cuts because we got to balance the budget. That's much too boring for this. So we're going to ask if you had to cut one thing out of your personal budget, what would it be?

KORNACKI: Well, would it be or what would it be? Because I'm sort of like the federal government, you look at our budget and one of the biggest things we spend money on is interest on the federal debt. One of the biggest things I spend money on is credit card bills. That's probably the biggest part of my budget. I would love to cut it out and I'm totally incapable of that.

SPITZER: And they rip you off in the rate.

GOFF: I just had a serious chat with my financial adviser also known as my mom, hi out there, and, you know, we were talking about which things to cut. And she was, you know, advocating that I cut such, you know, serious necessities like shoes. And I was saying -- I was advocating for cutting more luxury items like food. And so we decided to meet somewhere in the middle. And so I have to break this on national television. I'm very sad to say so. But to the staff and sales clerks at Loehmann's, you will be seeing me less this year.

SPITZER: But you're going to go to Barneys.

DOONAN: Barneys, hello.

(LAUGHTER)

PARKER: What are you cutting?

DOONAN: Well, European travel. Europeans are very smug. They're boring. It's not that interesting. It's tired. You're much better off to go to Niagara Falls, Vegas or some American destination. Cut the European travel. They're very smug and --

PARKER: I agree, travel local. Spend money in local economies. Put money back.

DOONAN: Europe's horribly overrated and it's depressing, all that history.

SPITZER: Have you been to Niagara Falls? Have you been to Niagara Falls?

DOONAN: (INAUDIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: It's spectacular.

DOONAN: It's fun.

SPITZER: We have to take a quick break. But we want to hear from you. Check out our blog at CNN.com/parker spitzer. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. We'll be right back with another quick question.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Tom Foreman with the latest news headlines.

The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is back in effect, at least for now. A federal appeals court today temporarily suspended the recent ruling that stopped the military from enforcing the controversial policy. Which means the military can once again bar openly gay and lesbian troops from serving while the appeals court decides whether to overturn the lower court's decision.

Tiffany Hartley says she will not give up the search for her husband's body even as she moves back to her native Colorado. Last month, she reported that David Hartley was shot by Mexican gunmen in a lake that straddles the U.S.-Mexico border.

And join us tonight on "360" for a rare interview. Yoko Ono talks about her vivid memories on the night John Lennon was murdered. That's on "360" tonight.

I'm Tom Foreman. "PARKER SPITZER" is back in a moment.

SPITZER: Welcome back to "Our Political Party." I would love to keep this going but we only have a few minutes left. Here's the question. There's been a lot of talk this week about what is and isn't in the constitution. If you can make your own personal amendment, what would it be?

PARKER: Nathalie, we'll start with you this time.

DUPREE: Well, I live with this constitutional scholar who's writing a book about the 14th Amendment. And I think what I would do is write an amendment to change the way that the 14th Amendment did away with the rights of African-Americans and made it instead that it was corporations that had the rights. And I would take the rights away from the corporations.

SPITZER: Interesting. Keli?

GOFF: I think through me it actually would to some degree be taking away a right as well. Which is that, I think that after two -- if you don't vote in two consecutive elections, you lose the right to vote.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I like that.

GOFF: You know, because, you know, from my frame of mind, first of all, there are a lot of people who looked like me who died so I could have the right to vote so I get really infuriated when people don't exercise it. And I look at it as you're required. It's not a choice to serve on juries because that's how our justice system will grind to a halt if we didn't, and I feel the same way about our democracy. I just wish --

SPITZER: So why not make it --

PARKER: If you don't participate in democracy, we're taking it away from you.

GOFF: And if you set it, I guarantee you, all the people who aren't voting would be outraged. That's the irony. If you threaten it, and then they would then say they would --

KORNACKI: But don't you make a statement by not voting?

PARKER: Protest voting. Not voting rather.

GOFF: You know what they do in Australia, though? Is that you can send it in blank but you have to send it in.

SPITZER: So why not require people to participate?

GOFF: That's another way to do it. I don't know if we want to do fines, if you want to do it. I think they do fines in Australia, right?

SPITZER: Right. But it's somehow required.

PARKER: I'm for voluntary nonparticipation on all fronts.

SPITZER: Apathy.

PARKER: No, I just think everybody has a right to be smart or stupid.

SPITZER: Apathetic.

PARKER: Or participatory or not, but that's just me.

DOONAN: Mine's very, very profound. I think everyone --

SPITZER: Everything you said has been so we expect that.

DOONAN: Everyone who's under 5'6" should pay less tax and get free beauty products.

PARKER: Sounds great.

I completely agree.

SPITZER: You're 5'8".

GOFF: Can you do anyone under 5'6" and over 5'10"?

DOONAN: It's actually just men who are under 5'6".

PARKER: All right. I hate to be the one who has to break up the party but that's all we have time for. Thanks to Simon, Keli, Stephen, Nathalie. Thanks for coming with us, and now we get to eat.

DUPREE: Cream DeMint (ph).

SPITZER: Good night from New York.

"LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.