Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Power of the Black Vote; Undoing Obama's Agenda

Aired December 21, 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 ANCHOR: Good evening and welcome to the program. I'm Kathleen Parker.

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer.

We'll be talking about the chaotic lame duck Congress and everything that has happened in it throughout the program. But first tonight, as Congress struggles towards the finish line, some see President Obama as a hostage who's outmaneuvered by wily Republicans who now control even the budget. Others say his support for tax cuts will actually help him in 2012.

PARKER: But one prominent African-American voice said hold on. Wait a minute, Barack Obama. The president he claims may be in real trouble with his most loyal supporters, the African-American community.

African-Americans don't want to be taken for granted -- goes the argument -- and will drive a tougher bargain come presidential election time.

Joining us now is Stephen A. Smith, registered independent, by the way, and an outspoken radio host.

Welcome, Stephen, here.

STEPHEN A. SMITH, SYNDICATED RADIO HOST: Thank you for having me. Happy holidays.

PARKER: Are you -- same to you, too.

SPITZER: You too. You too.

PARKER: Are you getting ready to say something blasphemous here?

SMITH: I don't know. I'm just going to answer truthfully like I always do. Nobody's scared.

(CROSSTALK)

PARKER: Are blacks not supposed to vote Democratic?

(LAUGHTER)

SMITH: Well, I just think -- you know when it comes to the Democratic Party I think that they've taken the black vote for granted for quite some time. You know I'm not in a position to where you guys are, you know, in terms of really dissecting policy the way do that you do on a daily basis.

But at the end of date, when I see what transpires in our community I think the biggest impediment to the growth of our community is the fact that, you know what? We don't force people to flatter us. We don't sit back and say you know what? I'm not going to just give my vote to the Democratic Party. I want to stand by as an individual with individual opinions, I want to see what you're offering if you're the Republican Party.

I want to see what you're offering if you're the Democratic Party. And I want to gauge what's in my best interests. The black community has not done that for decades since the days of Barry Goldwater, for crying out loud, or Lyndon B. Johnson. We haven't done it.

Theoretically speaking, what I'm saying is, when we look at the Democrats and some of the things that they propose --

SPITZER: Sure.

SMITH: -- it absolutely sounds marvelous.

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: Their heart is in the right place.

SPITZER: Good. All right. We got a deal here.

SMITH: But there is such thing as execution.

SPITZER: Right.

SMITH: And when you see an F in executing something, then that is problem.

SPITZER: Yes.

SMITH: When you look at education, yes, you've contributed money to the education, but I'm from Harlem Queens, New York City, it's about 20 miles from here. Let me tell you something right now.

SPITZER: I know where it is.

SMITH: I went to Thomas Edison High School. It was a very good high school, but there's a lot of high schools that weren't nearly as good. It's right for African-Americans who suffered in the education realm.

You look at the job market right now. It's not an accident that the unemployment rate in the African-American community is practically double that of the white community, because, why? There are things that haven't been addressed. People need jobs. People need opportunity, but more importantly, you can't always be about, well, we're giving and giving and giving. Really? Are you sure that you're doing that? Because when you're throwing money into an empty well. What good is it doing us as community?

SPITZER: Stephen, I agree with you on almost everything you've said.

SMITH: Well, that's beautiful.

SPITZER: The results have not been there but I can tell you the agenda from President Clinton, from President Obama, is the agenda to create that opportunity. The agenda from President Reagan, from President Bush, and then President Bush, has been to destroy the creation of that opportunity.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: And see that's why I agree with you. Negotiate harder.

SMITH: Listen, listen, I'm saying to you is this. I'm certainly not going to sit up here and defend a bunch of conservatives. Obviously, you know, you sit there and you look at some of the things that you propose. You obviously got to be sensitive to that as an African-America.

SPITZER: Right.

SMITH: But at the same time, who in God's name told us all that the Republicans are evil and the Democrats are angels? Excuse me. Last time I checked they're all on Capitol Hill. They're all in a mucky mud (ph) and selling us a bag of worms, and it ain't working.

The reality is simply this. We have to reach a point in the African-American community. I'm looking at you. When you in office, I said -- and I looked at this guy, and I said you know what? He knows what the hell he's taking about, period.

SPITZER: I try.

SMITH: I didn't say, well, he's a Democrat. Let me give him --

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: That's the whole point. The fact is, the African- Americans -- you can look at Social Security. Look at something like Social Security. They talk about the average American -- the average African-American is dying by the age of 55. So that means we're not collecting Social Security, but they're taking money out of our paychecks every week.

I'm sorry, how are we benefiting from that?

PARKER: Stephen.

SMITH: These are legitimate questions.

PARKER: Stephen, do you have these conversations with your listeners?

SMITH: Oh my lord, I have them with my listeners as I have them with my family. And I'm the lone ranger inside my family and I could care less. I mean I just feel -- I really believe -- look, I'll give you -- we talk about Charlie Rangel last time I was on here. I'm not trying to bring up any negativity about Charlie Rangel but there is a problem when you blindly support a man and you don't take into account the things -- and I'm not saying that he hasn't done good -- but you have to take into account the totality of what people are doing.

PARKER: You know, I hear you completely.

SMITH: And not just blindly support folks.

PARKER: It's as if I only voted for women just because they're women.

SMITH: That's not good.

PARKER: And that's not good. I'm not choosing.

SMITH: That's not good.

SPITZER: I want to come back to one particular area that we all agree. Let's take education.

SMITH: Sure.

SPITZER: Because it seems to me that President Obama, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, "Race to the Top," embracing the things from Michelle Rhee's reform agenda, to Joel Klein's reform agenda, getting quality teachers into the schools. All those things --

SMITH: I love those ideas.

SPITZER: OK. And that's a Democratic agenda.

SMITH: I love those agenda but I also watched the Democratic -- the Democrats just excoriate George W. Bush for "No Child Left Behind". And basically --

SPITZER: No.

SMITH: Wait a minute. Yes, they did. And you know they did. The fact is that what he was proposing was alternatives. Now the progressives, the liberals, are supposed to be a party of choices, but how many choices were they willing to give you?

What they were saying is if you support the charter school what that's going to do is take funding and it's going to veer away from the public sector into the chartered sector. That may not necessarily be good.

SPITZER: Let me tell you something.

SMITH: But they didn't give the African-American community an opportunity to make that decision.

SPITZER: When I was -- when I was --

SMITH: They tried to make it for us. That's a problem.

SPITZER: When I --

PARKER: When I was governor -- no, I'm just teasing.

SPITZER: Yes, we doubled the number of charter schools. New York City, which is a Democratic city. We have an independent mayor.

SMITH: I'm not talking about you.

SPITZER: We -- no, no, no. But I'm saying something -- President Obama has done everything to push the agenda for choice in schools. For improving the quality of our teachers.

SMITH: But you -- but you're misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not here to lambaste the intentions of our president.

SPITZER: Right.

SMITH: What I'm talking about is when they asked me to question before I came on to the show about blacks and the African-American community and the Democratic Party, it wasn't about Obama because I truly believe his heart is in the right place. I don't think he always knows the best decisions economically. And God knows unemployment shows that.

PARKER: Whew. Well, you fellas have used up more words in this little segment than I use in about a week.

SMITH: The man asked me a question. I gave an answer.

PARKER: Let me just ask you a simple question.

SMITH: Yes.

PARKER: Why do you think Republicans have such a hard time attracting African-Americans?

SMITH: Because their messengers have been god awful. Their messengers have improved somewhat, and dare I say, talk radio, as bad as that it to say, it's actually true. You can't find a Republican that looks either remotely comfortable to walk into the black communities throughout the United States of America and make sure their message resonates --

PARKER: Why aren't there any think African-Americans in the Tea Party?

SMITH: Well, I do believe there are some African-Americans in the Tea Party and I'm not here to disrespect on itself the Tea Party in any way. They're for lower taxes and less government intervention. And I respect that. And even though we may disagree on some things I do think that their message resonated.

There's a reason Democrats lost 63 seats in the House, six in the Senate. It's because there's a group of people out there that look at the fabric of America and they're saying to themselves, why in god's name should we trust you? That's the thing. That's the message that get lost in all this.

SPITZER: OK.

SMITH: The more you give to the government the more you are asking -- the more they are asking you to trust them with your money. Why in god's name would I trust a government that's got $13.8 trillion in debt? Are you kidding me?

SPITZER: Stephen --

SMITH: You can't manage your own books. Why should you manage mine?

SPITZER: I'm with you in all your critique but --

SMITH: These are common sense things.

SPITZER: Here's a question for you. OK. Answer this question.

SMITH: Sure.

SPITZER: Name one Republican presidential candidate you would vote for over Barack Obama.

SMITH: I don't want to say --

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: He's speechless. He's speechless.

SMITH: I will say this, though. I would strongly, strongly consider Mitt Romney for one reason and one reason only. The man knows how to make money. And guess what? I don't care, and let me -- let me just put it right down here.

SPITZER: OK.

SMITH: Right out here just so you know. I don't care what you do. I don't care how you -- it doesn't matter to me. As long as you govern our country, and you make sure that we are a prospering nation. And I got a job. I don't have a handout. I'm not looking for some.

Remember, my family, I know what government cheese is. I've tasted it before. I know what it's like to starve. I grew up poor.

PARKER: So you're saying you don't care that he's a Mormon.

SMITH: I'm not trying to go back.

PARKER: That's what you're saying. SMITH: It means nothing to me. That's his personal business with his god.

PARKER: And it worked for him, right?

SMITH: Got nothing to do with me. Nothing to do with me.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: Stephen, I'm with you on all that, but you know the interesting is?

PARKER: But?

SPITZER: The Republican Party is going to turn on him because his healthcare plan was the same as Barack Obama's.

SMITH: Look, look, look. They turned, they turned on John McCain, too, because he was 85 percent of a Republican as opposed to 100 percent. They were idiotic in doing so, it cost them an election basically. I think the same could possibly happen with Mitt Romney as well.

They do nitpick, they tend to want perfection, but the same exists on the liberal sides. At the end of the day, who needs to win out people like myself and others who have common sense? Not left, not right. Just common sense.

PARKER: Hear, hear.

SMITH: What works today? What works with this particular issue, this particular situation? That's what this country needs to be about and unfortunately --

PARKER: Hear, hear.

SMITH: -- we're not that way. And that's the doggone problem. Maybe I should run for office.

SPITZER: I think you already are.

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: I'll get about two votes. I'll get about two votes, but, hey, that's better than I thought I'd get last week.

PARKER: I'm going to vote for you.

SMITH: Hey.

PARKER: Steven A. Smith, fabulous. Thank you.

SMITH: Thank you.

PARKER: Thanks for being with us.

SMITH: All right.

SPITZER: Still to come, a real-life Cinderella story in London. Will a commoner's wear -- will a commoner wear the Queen's crown couldn't happen?

PARKER: Big concern for Eliot.

SPITZER: I for one are on the edge of my seat. Don't go away. We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republicans have to start acting like adults and realizing they've got to govern now. Many of us in the Democratic Party are going to take some pleasure watching them try to figure out who they want to be when they grow up because right now all we know is what they're against. We have no idea what they're in favor of.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: You want to know what's the most important achievement in the lame duck Congress was? Not the tax cut bill or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Not even the potential START treaty. It's the government's spending bill and it represents a major victory for Republicans, because they once again outmaneuvered the Democrats.

After threatening to filibuster the bill Democrats backed down, pulled it and submitted a continuation of the old budget.

PARKER: So why is this such a triumph for the GOP? Because this budget won't fund President Obama's signature pieces of legislation -- health care and Wall Street reform. A crippling development for the president, really, and come March when the bill expires, Republicans will be in a much stronger negotiating position to further undermine Obama's top priorities.

SPITZER: Joining us tonight for more on the battle over the budget and what it means is our headliner, Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York.

Congressman, welcome.

REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: Thank you.

SPITZER: So here's the first question, Congressman. How did the Democrats let Republicans seize control of the budget once again? This continuing resolution does not include funding for the health care reforms or the financial re-regulation that's in Dodd-Frank.

Isn't this another huge loss for Democratic agenda?

WEINER: Basically what happened is the Senate was held hostage to one or two members who could say to every single appropriation bill, I'm not going to let it go. So what happens? What happens is you're left with a question of basic responsibility for government. Do you let the lights go out? Do you let bills not get paid? And you're left with essentially another one of what President Obama called hostage situations, where the Republicans said we're not letting anything go forward except existing funding moving forward.

That means all the new bills that were passed this year, not just health care and financial regulation, have to get -- won't be funded until next year sometime.

PARKER: Right.

SPITZER: Congressman, I'm more than happy to agree about your critique of how the Republican Party completely bottled up everything on the Senate side. However, I also feel this is a failure of negotiating strategy on the part of the White House, because the White House, when it signed the tax agreement with the Republicans in the Senate, should at that moment have said to Senator McConnell, the minority leader, we are obligating you as a part of this agreement to approve the omnibus bill, the $1.2 trillion spending package to permit the spending to go through for the next 12 months.

The White House failed to understand the game that was being played by the Republican Party, and now is being held hostage, because it let itself be taken hostage again, and so here we are where we are.

WEINER: Well, look, it's easily said. And I frankly think the 9/11 health bill should have been part of that deal as well.

SPITZER: That's right. I agree with you on that.

WEINER: The Dream Act should have been. I think "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which eventually thankfully passed should have been. But all of that being said, you know, inherent in all of our rules around here is the presumption that all of us want the government to run as smoothly as possible.

We don't all agree on everything. Sometimes there are things in budgets I don't like. Sometimes there are things exclude that I would have liked. But what the Republican was rewarded for in this year's election were stopping things from functioning at all.

They were rewarded for being the party of no. So, Eliot, it's not so clear that they're not choosing the correct strategy. But I want to tell you something, when we come back the first week in January it's going to be their responsibility to get budgets. And we'll see how well they do.

SPITZER: Right. But I want to -- I want to look at what the dynamic will be in January. Because what I'm worried now going forward is what will the agenda be and I'm looking at both the health care legislation and the wondering whether that will get the requisite funding to create the offices and the procedures that are necessary, and also on the Wall Street side. There's already a list of regulatory stats that should be taken and aren't being taken because there's no funding. How will this play out?

WEINER: It isn't clear to me. It's certain that the Republican strategy now is the things that they're against are going to come to the floor -- the floor very quickly. They're against financial regulation, they're against health care. You're exactly right about that.

What they're able to do practically to stop it? Look, the government still has to run, these agencies still are going to have rule making. There's not an enormous amount of federal expense at the front end of any of these. And frankly, a lot of the expense of the overall program is -- it's a net saver to the American people.

So I'm not sure how much they can do, but they can make mischief. But remember something. The American people are entitled to some level of understanding. If you believe that the -- the bill, the health care bill should be rolled back and repealed, then your party won.

They're going to do it every day and every day if that's going to be the fight. I think the American people are going to grow pretty weary of it pretty quickly I think, having last year's fight again and again like Ground Hog Day.

PARKER: Congressman, you say that the government does have to run. But do you anticipate -- do you foresee that the government could be shut down in opposition to the Republicans?

WEINER: Well, look, there's a conversation that's going on now about what happens when the -- every so often we hit the statutory debt ceiling. Now it's the Republicans' job to raise that ceiling so that the full faith in American government is still behind our currency and other -- and all of the debts that we've issued.

This is Republicans have to start acting like adults and realizing they've got to govern now. Many of us in the Democratic Party are going to take some pleasure watching them try to figure out who they want to be when they grow up. Because right now all we know is what they're against. We have no idea what they're in favor of.

PARKER: Well, if they refuse to fund health care would you -- would you vote to shut down the government?

WEINER: Well, I'm not negotiating on your show here. But I can tell you, there's not a great deal of willingness on the part of my Democratic colleagues to bail out the Boehner Congress.

SPITZER: But I think the problem, Congressman, is as I see this going forward, what I see is the Republicans using a scalpel not a meat ax. I think I -- because I totally agree with you. The public will not stand sill while they shut down the government but they will use a scalpel, they will say there will be no funding for Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Protection Agency, for instance, within Dodd-Frank. There will be no funding, for instance, for the office that are supposed to get involved in the rating agencies which were the core of the financial crisis, and so I see that there will be a scalpel used to carve away the most important pieces of reform packages that were passed. That is what worries me. And how do you respond to that?

WEINER: Well, I mean, let's wait and see. Remember, now that these things are in statute, there's a law, there's a legal requirement for these steps to go forward. So someone if they wanted to go into court and say, listen, you've got to provide this service or that's require under this law, they'll be able to do it.

But I'm going to wait and see. What we don't know about the Republican agenda could fill a book. They campaign on a platform basically of what they're against, not what they're in favor of. Now we're going to find out what they do. But I can tell you something. As a member of the Energy Commerce Committee where all these fights are going to be fought out, every step of the way, they're going to have a fight on their hand.

And it provides us an opportunity, Eliot. We lost the rhetorical battle on a lot of the elements of health care. I don't think anyone would disagree with that the first time around. This gives us another bite at the apple. And when people are asked the question, do you want to implement this bill and improve it as we go or do you want to repeal it and replace it, I think most people want to implement it and improve it. And that's where Democrats are.

PARKER: All right, Anthony Weiner, great to have you back with us. Thanks for being with us again.

WEINER: Thanks. Have a good holiday.

SPITZER: Thanks, Congressman. You too.

PARKER: You too.

SPITZER: We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If this START treaty, and it's the centerpiece of Obama's reset, disintegrates or collapses, I think for a generation, a full generation, we will lose the possibility of a relationship with Russia.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: In a lame duck session that has had more than its share of drama, a Senate vote on the START treaty is in the final act. START is of course the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia to reduce the size of each country's nuclear arsenal. The treaty was signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev in April of 2010, and it's now waiting approval both by the U.S. Senate and the Russian parliament.

SPITZER: Republicans have made their objections clear, focusing primarily on their claim that the treaty limits U.S. capacity to develop and deploy missile defense systems. Support for the treaty is growing, it appears that it will pass the Senate tomorrow, but it may still face big problems.

Joining us to talk about all this is Professor Stephen Cohen, professor of Russians studies at NYU and a professor-emeritus at Princeton University.

Welcome, Stephen.

STEPHEN COHEN, PROF. RUSSIAN STUDIES AT NYU: Thank you.

PARKER: Welcome, professor.

COHEN: Both. Stephen and professor.

PARKER: Professor Stephen.

COHEN: Yes.

PARKER: You say something important. You probably say many things important, but in this case you say that it's not so much whether we will pass or sign this treaty, or that it will get through the process in the Senate, but whether Russia will pass it.

Is there a chance they will not?

COHEN: There is a chance because they entered into this treaty on the understanding that Obama would respect their security anxieties about missile defense. And in particular, not put missile defense sites in Eastern Europe.

However, Obama has now sent a letter to the Senate saying that he will max out on missile defense. He calls it four stages. That's the maximum thing. If they give him the votes he needs.

Meanwhile, Senator McCain is trying to turn Obama's promise into an actual amendment to the treaty. If the Kremlin thinks that they've been duped -- that's the word they use, duped -- and that they're not getting what they were promised, they won't ratify it.

SPITZER: Explain -- so folks understand -- how this treaty and the reduction in the number of both deployed warheads to 1,550 and launchers to 700 is effected by missile defense in that interplay that you can explain, I hope, between missile defense treaties, first strike capabilities, and how the Soviets view that interplay?

COHEN: Well, it's just two versions of whatever the truth might be. We say, the United States government says, missile defense has nothing to do with Russia. Nothing. Russia says nonsense. Missile defense can be adapted, adopted, developed in a way that could eliminate our possibility of retaliating to a nuclear strike on us.

Therefore, if you create missile defense in our security zone, our nuclear arsenal is worthless. Now remember that the nuclear peace for 40 year has been based on this understanding that if you strike us, we can strike you. You destroy us, we destroy you.

SPITZER: Mutually assured destruction, the term that he --

COHEN: Yes. It's an awful premise but it kept the peace. And the Russians think that missile defense will eliminate their retaliatory capability. And a lot of American scientist, including some at MIT, agree with.

PARKER: But how do the Russians view this debate here and how do they view the president beyond being not a good faith actor? I mean are they concerned about whether we are to be trusted?

COHEN: Well, the first thing we understand is that, all forgiveness, President Obama is a weak president. And this confirms their view. He wasn't able to get the treaty through as they wanted. But more importantly, when President Obama came to power, came to office in January 2009, the American-Russian relationship, 20 years after the end of the Soviet Union, after communism was gone, was in a virtual Cold War state.

Obama says we need a partnership with Russia. He was right. The Russians said to him in effect, look, we have been -- and this is their words, literally. We have been deceived and betrayed repeatedly since 1991 by the United States. We're worried. He said I will not deceive and betray you. You can trust me.

Now they're wondering, as they look at this debate in the United States, what's going on?

PARKER: One of the big concerns, of course, is whether Russia will help us keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And you feel that this, you know, treaty already is damaged. It's already damaged goods. But have they been helpful to us and how?

COHEN: Well, they voted for the stronger sanctions against Iran which in effect is a partner of Russia so that was big political step. It was very unpopular in Moscow. When Medvedev agreed to it he was accused of treason in Moscow for doing it.

But don't forget Afghanistan. Personally, I don't think we can win this war. But any theoretical chance we have of prevailing in any regard in Afghanistan requires full Russian cooperation.

Now the understanding was that Obama struck is that in return for not threatening you with missile defense, you will help us with Afghanistan and Iran. They have. They did. They are. But will they the day after tomorrow?

PARKER: But wasn't the language in here vague enough to allow us some wiggle room and -- on the defense missile system?

COHEN: Yes. They are. Yes.

PARKER: And why would John McCain push to codify that and thus create this --

COHEN: Why study Russia, not the United States? You tell me. I guess they want to destroy Obama's presidency or maybe sincerely he does like the treaty. He's always supported these treaties.

PARKER: Do you like the treaty?

COHEN: It's better than nothing. It's good to cut nuclear weapons. This will cut it about a third, and it's good to have this trust building concept of on-site inspection. The country is enormous. You can't expect in every closet, but it builds a kind of confidence.

But I'll tell you something. This is about much more than this treaty. This is about whether or not there's going to be a strategic partnership between the United States and Russia 20 years after the Soviet Union, and the bottom line is, or it's forgotten in this country, American national security runs through Moscow, period. Without it --

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: Explain why you say that. Explain why you say that.

COHEN: Why our national security runs through from Moscow?

SPITZER: Yes. As opposed to through either Beijing or any of the countries where we actually are in combat right now.

COHEN: You can't spell it all out, but briefly, the headline.

SPITZER: Right.

COHEN: Russia has -- the only one who has the nuclear weapons to destroy us. What Russia has is a Wal-Mart (ph) of proliferation.

SPITZER: Wal-Mart?

COHEN: Wal-Mart (ph) of proliferation. Russia has the energy. Largest energy supplier in the world now. Russia remains the largest territorial country in the world. It sits in the east. It sits in the west. It's the crossroad between western and Islamic civilizations. The stability of the world depends on the stability of Russia. Our security depends on stability.

PARKER: The scariest thing you just said is the Wal-Mart of proliferation? What do you mean?

COHEN: Well, they don't tell us everything. They don't want to scare us too much. But of the -- maybe dozen cases where international security forces have arrested people who wanted to sell radioactive material I believe that in all dozen cases the material came from the former Soviet Union. SPITZER: Of course, the -- the deployment of delivery systems gets easier. You've witnessed North Korea's launching -- launch of missiles that now have a larger and larger circumference.

COHEN: You know, I don't want to lose sight, because I think we do lose sight in terms of Washington politics of what's at stake here. Let me repeat. Next year, 2011, the 20 years since the end the Soviet Union, most of us thought good. That problem is over. Now the other big country in the world, we'll be partner, we'll solve a lot of problems.

We've been in a virtual cold war relationship 20 years later. If this START treaty, and it's the centerpiece of Obama's reset disintegrates or collapses, I think for a generation, a full generation, we will lose a possibility of a relationship with Russia that's positive.

Why I say a full generation? Because Obama and Medvedev are very young leaders. They're in their mid-40s. We sometimes say, well, wait for the next generation. They are the next generation.

SPITZER: Right.

COHEN: This is a historic moment. It's a turning point.

PARKER: So if Russia doesn't trust us and if Obama is viewed as weak, you still think they will pass their own treaty, they'll ratify this treaty?

COHEN: They'll get their lawyers. Their arms control negotiators, as they're called. They'll look at whatever comes out of the Senate today, tomorrow, over the weekend, or during the week.

And if it hasn't revised their understanding the treaty they will ratify it. And by the way, when I say when they will ratify it, the Kremlin controls the parliament. It's not like Obama and the Congress. They will simply ring up and say ratify this tomorrow.

You know you've got to -- you have to -- our viewers have to ask themselves, what happened in the last 20 years and we're still sitting around talking about our problems with Russia and nuclear weapons? This wasn't supposed to happen. Was it?

PARKER: Good question.

COHEN: Was it? Wasn't supposed to happen.

SPITZER: We have done in 20 years to figure it out.

PARKER: All right. Stephen Cohen, thank you so much for being with us.

COHEN: Thanks. Nice seeing you.

SPITZER: Still to come, a real life Cinderella story in London. Will a commoner wear the queen's crown? I for one am on the edge of my seat. Don't go away. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: I thought we fought a revolution to get rid of the king, but all these years later America still loves the monarchy. November 16th, the royal family announced that Prince William would be marrying Kate Middleton next April, kicked off a 24/7 reality series we just can't seem to get enough of.

PARKER: And now, of course, there's a brand new book, "William and Kate: A Royal Love Story" written by Christopher Andersen who joins us now.

Welcome, Christopher.

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSEN, AUTHOR, "WILLIAM AND KATE: A ROYAL LOVE STORY": Thank you. Thanks very much.

PARKER: Can we just get something out of the way? We talk about poor Kate Middleton as this commoner. That just sounds so mean.

ANDERSEN: It does, you know.

PARKER: What does it mean to be a commoner?

ANDERSEN: I think it's great for them. Because suddenly we have, you know, look, the royal family is this train wreck, right? I mean, they just have all of these problems and then the queen is having to put up with divorces of three of her four children. And all of a sudden we have this kind of normal person who people can identify with. And she is really going to be the first commoner queen.

SPITZER: But can I just ask this question, commoner, normal? She ended up going to the same school as the prince.

ANDERSEN: Yes.

SPITZER: I mean, clearly, this is not just somebody who's grown up in a random street somewhere?

ANDERSEN: Usually that's kind -- it's normal to set your sights on the king of England? Don't you think?

PARKER: Well, let me ask you --

SPITZER: I have two daughters. They haven't as far as they know it.

PARKER: Let me ask you about that. Didn't her mother sort of arrange for Kate to go to the same schools?

ANDERSEN: Exactly.

Look, there is some thought that went behind this. Kate Middleton, and we have to say her mother was a stewardess, you know, who kind of built this family fortune on making children's goody bags, party bags, getting it on the web and now they're worth millions of dollars. They're self-made --

SPITZER: That's a real success story.

ANDERSEN: It is a success story and I think that's not what the British --

PARKER: She's Martha Stewart.

ANDERSEN: Exactly. Exactly. That's the way to phrase it. And I think though people who look at the royals don't look at things quite the same way. The word commoner doesn't have the negative kind. This means you're not a royal. You're not an aristocrat. So it's not as bad.

PARKER: So we're like, we're all commoners, right?

ANDERSEN: You know, we even call the queen mother commoner, and that's a joke because she was the daughter, a granddaughter of a Spanish earl.

SPITZER: Is she going to be the queen some day?

ANDERSEN: She is definitely going to be the queen?

SPITZER: So a commoner can become the queen?

ANDERSEN: Oh, absolutely.

PARKER: Back to the mother. I just want to know, was this a design? Did she have designs on the prince?

ANDERSEN: Absolutely. Because look, you know, she said originally Kate was going to the University of Edinburgh and study art history. And when it was announced that William would attend, say, St. Andrews University, Carol said, you know, they haven't got such a bad art program at St. Andrews. A lot of kids did that. The enrollment among women at St. Andrews went up 40 percent overnight.

PARKER: You're kidding?

ANDERSEN: Yes. And a lot of those were Americans. A lot of those were American girls.

SPITZER: They knew an American couldn't marry him. Right?

ANDERSEN: Well, I don't think they did.

PARKER: The future queen of England entrapped her groom.

ANDERSEN: Well, I wouldn't put it that way. That's kind of --

SPITZER: You should not go to England. You could be executed for saying that.

PARKER: I don't think I'm invited to the wedding, no matter what I say. SPITZER: This thing -- they invite Sarkozy --

ANDERSEN: Right.

SPITZER: -- but not us? Not President Obama? I mean --

ANDERSEN: Of course --

SPITZER: Who saved them in World War II? Is this no -- I think no sense of gratitude?

ANDERSEN: There's no question that Obama would be invited. But there's almost no question that he wouldn't go. He's not going to go. The president of the United States does not go to a royal wedding. The first lady always goes to a royal wedding.

SPITZER: Did she invite Michelle?

ANDERSEN: She will be invited.

SPITZER: I feel better.

ANDERSEN: Absolutely.

SPITZER: OK.

PARKER: We heard a vicious rumor that they were not invited.

ANDERSEN: This is a certain newspaper in England that I think has gotten it wrong, and has gotten it wrong in the past a couple of times, too.

SPITZER: Another question. He's going to be king, right?

ANDERSEN: He definitely is.

SPITZER: King William, or whatever name.

ANDERSEN: William V.

SPITZER: William V.

ANDERSEN: Yes.

SPITZER: Is he going to redefine the job? I mean, is he going to be the king 2.0? What does it mean to be king these days? What do you do?

ANDERSEN: Well --

SPITZER: Is it a job worth applying for?

ANDERSEN: It's certainly worth applying for. You know, Charles has been waiting around for it. Prince Charles has been waiting around for longer than anyone else in history. He will be the older king. (CROSSTALK)

But no, I do not feel sorry for Charles, but he's going to -- see, some of the big news in the book is the fact that the queen is now really seriously thinking of about abdicating. She never would have thought about that before.

SPITZER: Is there another word for it? Abdicating sounds so bad. It's like she's running away somewhere.

ANDERSEN: Retiring.

PARKER: Retiring.

SPITZER: That's better.

ANDERSEN: Stepping aside. She's 84. If she lives as long as her mother, she'll be -- well, Charles, the most important thing is, she'd be 101. Charles would be 80 when he became king.

SPITZER: Not fair to him.

ANDERSEN: No.

SPITZER: How about Camilla? She'd be what?

ANDERSEN: Well --

SPITZER: Is she going to be queen?

ANDERSEN: Yes. That's another thing. He promised to the people of England when they were trying to convince them to let him marry Camilla, they didn't like Camilla, obviously, that he would never make her queen. But now he's saying, well, you know, I just might. The fact is she will be queen of England. There's nothing that can stop her, except an act of parliament from being queen of England. So Camilla will be the next queen, he'll be the next king. But if this plan goes according to schedule, everything will be set for William to become king in his maybe mid to late 40s, which is great, because then --

PARKER: Meaning if Charles dies at the right age?

ANDERSEN: No, no, he has to agree to a 10-year reign or something that's limited.

PARKER: Oh, I see.

SPITZER: Why would he do that?

ANDERSEN: In order to get on the throne before --

SPITZER: Negotiating this with his mom?

ANDERSEN: It's like this. You're not kidding.

SPITZER: I thought this was a happy family at Thanksgiving dinner where they had normal conversation?

PARKER: Oh, yes.

SPITZER: You can only be king for 10 years. This is not a normal thing.

ANDERSEN: No one has ever seen a happy family. No one has ever seen the queen express, hug her children or express -- there really isn't that kind of connection that you think.

PARKER: Important question.

ANDERSEN: Right.

PARKER: What do the Obamas give as a wedding present? Since they've already given the bust of Winston Churchill back, what can they do?

ANDEESEN: I can't imagine. We'll have to think about that. I haven't been asked that before.

SPITZER: You dug up stuff that was made two years ago because people thought this couple is going to get married a while back. Right? We have a picture of a plate.

Look at this. Can you put this on the screen?

ANDERSEN: Oh, this comes at a very good time.

SPITZER: My personal collection. Your take on this. Here we go.

ANDERSEN: Your China cabinet.

PARKER: Manufactured in 2007.

ANDERSEN: Woolworth's. That's Woolworth. They put this up. It was a souvenir plate. Then it was on 2007. OK. Now 2007, she thought on Valentine's Day he would ask her to marry her.

PARKER: And instead he broke up with her.

SPITZER: Broke up with her on Valentine's Day.

ANDERSEN: He broke up with her in April, but I mean, he wouldn't ask her to marry him on Valentine's Day, that could set up this kind of tension between them. He went to daddy and he said, well, I'm not ready to get married. I'm 25. What do I do? And he said, break it off, because it's just leading her down the primrose path.

SPITZER: Great advice.

PARKER: Then she went about getting him back, right?

ANDERSEN: Yes. Once the breakup took place -- the breakup took place on April 11th over the cell phone. He called her at work and did it over his cell phone.

SPITZER: We can see he didn't tell him to do it that way.

ANDERSEN: No.

SPITZER: Isn't that what marriage counseling is?

PARKER: An example of men are dumb, women are smart. I mean, this thing is like --

ANDERSEN: Well, what she did afterwards becomes --

SPITZER: Wait. Why would you -- and you know --

ANDERSEN: But she want him back.

PARKER: She got him back. Look, went to the college to get him. She got him. When they broke up, she went after him. She got him. She's going to be the queen of England for God's sake.

SPITZER: You can revisit this and see, you know, was I the better part of the bargain?

ANDERSEN: Well, I don't know.

SPITZER: Send her back to the states.

ANDERSEN: No, no, no. I think she's done -- no, she's very -- she's the real McCoy and I think he's getting the better part of the bargain.

PARKER: Well, fun book to read.

ANDERSEN: Thank you.

PARKER: Full of gossip and insider stuff.

ANDERSEN: No. Truth, not gossip.

PARKER: All right. Truth. It's fun to tell as gossip.

I don't know. It's just fun. OK? It's a great read. OK. Christopher Andersen, thank you so much for joining us.

ANDERSEN: Terrific. Thank you.

SPITZER: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: This time of year we count our blessings. But to buy their holiday dinner, more and more Americans need to rely on food stamps. In fact, according to the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Census, nearly 43 million Americans are now receiving food stamps. That's up a staggering 16 percent from last year. SPITZER: Let's stop and think about that. Forty-three million folks. Look at this chart in 2007 before the economy tanked. Just over eight percent of Americans were on food stamps. The number starts to climb and climb until 2010. And now, 14 percent of all Americans depend on food stamps to feed their families. That's one in every seven Americans. In some states, it's even worse.

These are the five states that have increased their food stamp used the most. Idaho used to have one of the lowest food stamp populations and Nevada was a boost not that long ago.

PARKER: We talk about unemployment figures and foreclosures, but here is a painful example of how the economy hits Americans where it hurts most, at the grocery store. Maybe we lose sight of that in part because we don't see the old coupons anymore. They've been replaced by government issued debit cards.

SPITZER: I used to be a governor. I know there are a lot of misconceptions about food stamps. You don't need to be below the poverty level to qualify. For a family of four, that means an income just under $29,000. And what does that translates into per month? $668 in food stamps.

PARKER: Of course, nobody buys groceries by the month. That's about $24 a day. And that's for a family of four. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: He's one of the most important figures on Wall Street over the last 50 years, but not because of his own profits. When other folks were trying to figure out how to make money out of your pocket, he was figuring out how to make money for you.

On Wall Street today, it isn't so easy for regular folks to profit. You think you're smart about your investments, "Don't Count on It." That's the title of the latest book from John Bogle, the founder of the Vanguard mutual funds, the largest mutual funds in the nation. So what is his view of Wall Street today? Joining us in the "Exchange" tonight, Jack Bogle.

Jack, thank you for being here. I just want to preface this by saying I am an enormous fan of yours.

JOHN BOGLE, FOUNDER AND FMR. CHMN., THE VANGUARD GROUP: Thank you.

SPITZER: You are one of the few, honest folks on Wall Street who always put the client first.

BOGLE: That's the way to build a good business.

SPITZER: And you succeeded. So explain where did your notion of the Vanguard's fund come from and why?

BOGLE: Well, it really begins with my senior thesis at Princeton, of all places.

SPITZER: Right.

BOGLE: That's why the cover of the new book is orange and black.

SPITZER: Right. Here it is right here.

BOGLE: And I wrote my senior thesis, I wanted to write an off topic that no one had ever written on before. And I stumbled on an article in "Fortune" magazine about the mutual fund industry. I've never even heard of it. Never knew anything about stocks or bonds.

SPITZER: I hate to do this, but what year was this?

BOGLE: That was 1951.

SPITZER: All right.

BOGLE: A long time ago. And --

SPITZER: Thirty years before I graduated from the same place.

BOGLE: Don't even mention it. And I sketched out, wrote about the mutual fund industry and I sketched out what the industry needed to do to be the kind of industry that lived up to its ideals. And that was put the shareholder first before the management.

SPITZER: By shareholder, you mean the investor?

BOGLE: The mutual fund investor first and run your funds in the most efficient, honest and economical way possible. And don't make any claim. Believe it or not, I said then thinking you can beat the market index.

SPITZER: All right. So the notion was keep fees and costs low?

BOGLE: And invest for the long term and put the shareholder -- you make a decision. Don't make it for the manager, make it for that shareholder --

SPITZER: Explain first why this issue of fees is so important.

BOGLE: The reason it's important is, in a very simplified way, if the market gives an eight percent annual return, we all, all investors groups divide up eight percent. OK. Not complicated. But Wall Street takes, and the mutual fund money managers and the traders and the marketers and the lawyers and that whole constellation --

SPITZER: The deciphers who feed out of this.

BOGLE: Yes, they're feeding away. The rent seekers, they call them. And they take about two percent out of that eight percent, leaving you with six. And if you compound that over a lifetime, it means that you put up 100 percent of the capital. You took 100 percent of the risk and you get about 25 percent of the return. And Wall Street puts up none of the capital. Takes none of the risk, and gets 75 percent of the return. If you think that's a good deal, Eliot, welcome to Wall Street.

SPITZER: And that exactly is the tension, the conflict of interests that has been adherent in so many of these mutual fund companies for decades.

BOGLE: Exactly. The mutual fund industry has become a big marketing industry whose objective is to raise the amount of assets under management. The bigger you are, the more your fees. There's a lot of leverage in those fees and huge economies at scale as you get bigger. And the mutual fund industry by and large has not shared those economies to scale with investors. They've shared it with themselves.

SPITZER: But your notion was keep the fees low to give a bigger return to the investor.

BOGLE: Exactly right and keep the transaction cost low and get rid of the sales lows (ph). And that's what the index fund does.

SPITZER: Right.

BOGLE: You own every stock in America. You charge -- well, right now, you can buy a Vanguard fund that owns the stock market for about seven basis points.

SPITZER: Right.

BOGLE: And no trading costs, high tax efficiency, no lows. It's a way to capture your fair share market returns, whatever they may be.

SPITZER: OK. Now I want to switch gears and talk about how you see our economy right now and what you think is the underlying problem with an unemployment rate at about 9.8 percent that seems to be stuck there. A lot of money sloshing around, but no real investment, no job creation?

BOGLE: No. There is no real investment and job creation. I think what we have to do, and you know, I think the Obama administration moved in the right direction with the stimulus, but there's not going to be anymore stimulus. The politicians down there in Washington will become, I think, their own parody, aren't going to give any more stimulus. So I think we have to work around making particularly for small businesses and medium-sized businesses, it's more attractive to hire. Whether that's credits for new hiring, whether it's investment credits, whether it's some limited reduction in regulations, make the world easier for the small and medium-sized businesses. The big guys can take care of themselves.

SPITZER: Why are banks not doing what banks should do, which is then to lend out into the business community to get things moving?

BOGLE: Well, the bankers are going to tell you there's not that much demand. People aren't really looking for more money because they're scared about the future. And there's -- the other side would say the banks' standards are too stringent. They don't want to take any risk. A funny comment from a banker who loaded us up with more risk than the global economy and many hundreds of trillions of dollars of financial instruments could do, and now they're saying, well, these little guys are not going to help.

SPITZER: For those of us who believe the issue is lack of aggregate demand, how do you stimulate that demand? You said that the president had a stimulus that was OK, but we need more of it. How would you craft another stimulus and where would it come from?

BOGLE: We talked about when all these came up, shovel-ready product, projects. They didn't seem to be many shovel-ready projects. So I think we ought to move the focus away from and we're doing it already, away from TARP and funding the bankers to the productive part of the economy. Because in the long run, the productive part of the economy is what America is all about. And the financial part of the economy creates no value and, in fact, subtracts value from the returns of business.

SPITZER: As you made clear in your book, we can focus on the finance system rather than productivity. The problem we have politically is that the newly ascended Republican Party seems to reject the notion of Keynesian economics, which is essentially what you're talking about, which is creating that demand by having government spend the money or buy the goods that create and creates the demand. Have we rejected Keynesian economics? Is that a bad thing to do?

BOGLE: I think -- first, I think it is a bad to do. But we will find out. We got a wonderful test going on in the United Kingdom. And they are really -- that's going to be a struggling economy with huge cutbacks in the government's role in the British economy. So I think this Keynesian is going to win out and there we, at least, have a good test of it. And there are a lot of arguments, yes it will work out. No, it won't. Worked in the depression, or did it? No one's ever going to be able to prove these things but I think you've got to try something with the best possible prospects in this really fragile, very fragile position in which our nation finds itself.

SPITZER: And what is your view of this whole notion of cutting taxes for the wealthy at this moment in time?

BOGLE: Well, please. I mean, the idea, honestly of holding the unemployment benefits to people who haven't been working some for a long time, they're probably 20 million of them for zero income. They want jobs for zero income, that's their earnings, to favor the top one percent and more likely the top one-tenth of one percent or the top one-hundredth of one percent of America's wealthiest people seems to me, first, abusive, counterproductive, economically incorrect, and even worse, Eliot, if I can fly a little higher flight, contrary to the spirit of America which does, don't forget, says something about promote the general welfare.

SPITZER: And you are a Wall Street guy saying all this?

BOGLE: Yes.

SPITZER: Isn't that amazing? All right. BOGLE: Well, I like to prove (ph) --

SPITZER: Jack, I just want to tell you it is always a pleasure to read your books, to hear you speak. Somebody from Wall Street finance who believes deeply in the ethics, the fiduciary obligations, banking as it should be conducted for the client and general public.

BOGLE: That's a great way to feel.

SPITZER: All right. Jack, thank you so much.

BOGLE: Thank you.

SPITZER: The name of the book is "Don't Count on It." Jack, as always, thank you for being here. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello. I'm Randi Kaye. More "PARKER SPITZER" in a moment. First, the latest.

Federal regulators today voted to adopt so-called net neutrality rules which broadly speaking means that all content on the Internet must be treated equally. The rules are designed to keep people who pay more from getting better web service than others. Congress could decide to amend or weaken those rules.

In southern California, another day of record-breaking snow, rain and flooding causing an epidemic of dead batteries, emergency tows and crashed vehicles. More than 25,000 distraught motorists called AAA for help, the most ever in a 24-hour period in the region.

In Europe, heavy snow has stranded thousands of passengers struggling to get away for the holiday season. Today brought more frustration and delays. Two days of flight cancellations have caused major backlogs across the continent. In Germany, all flights in and out of Frankfurt were stopped at one point today. The E.U.'s top travel official slammed the disruptions as unacceptable.

And tonight on "360," the senator who's blocking the 9/11 health bill is also a medical doctor, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. So why is he turning into Dr. No on this issue? What do he and his fellow critics object to? We are keeping them honest.

That is the very latest. Now back to "PARKER SPITZER."

PARKER: And now our postscript. Tomorrow, President Obama signs the historic repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. One of the legislators who led that fight for the repeal is Iraq war veteran Congressman Patrick Murphy, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.

SPITZER: Today at the Capitol, Congressman Murphy spoke movingly about a company commander in Kabul, Afghanistan. Let's call him "Commander X." He had counseled many soldiers who received a dear John letter while serving overseas. But now, "Commander X" needed counseling. He had no one to turn to except an Iraq war vet named Patrick Murphy. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PATRICK MURPHY (D), PENNSYLVANIA: This young company commander, this captain on his fourth deployment wrote an e-mail saying I never thought I'd see the day when I got one of those letters myself. And I'm sitting here at 3:00 in the morning in Kabul, Afghanistan, and I have nowhere to go because I happen to be gay, and I can't walk into the chaplain. I can't go to a battle buddy and I can't walk in my commander's office. So I'm sitting here cradling my 0.9 millimeter pistol thinking about blowing my brains out. But I read this article about this Iraq war veteran named Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania that's fighting for me, and it gives me hope.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: I don't know about you, Eliot, but I kind of feel like saluting.

SPITZER: Quite a story. Makes you feel proud what Congress did. Once again, hope all the soldiers out there, give them our best.

Good night from New York. "LARRY KING" starts right now.