Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Repealing Health Care; Turmoil in Pakistan; Changing the Rules
Aired January 04, 2011 - 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. I'm Kathleen Parker.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
Tomorrow in Congress, the battle over health care will reach full tilt as the Republicans, Kathleen, begin at the effort to repeal Obamacare. But here's the amazing thing. Whenever we speak to leading Republicans, and I ask them what's your alternative to the individual mandate -- that notion that everybody has to be part of the system -- they mumble, they stumble, they say well, it's not a federal issue.
But they don't have an answer. And there's a reason. It's a very conservative idea that says if you get health care, you got to pay for something. You've got to have skin in the game. This is conservatism to the hilt and that's why I'm amazed that the Republicans don't support it.
PARKER: Got to have skin in the game. Boy, that's pretty hardcore.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: This is -- this is economics.
PARKER: Well, one of the guests tonight, Senator-elect Lee from Utah --
SPITZER: Yes.
PARKER: -- is going to talk about that. And he, of course, is one of the staunch Republicans who want to repeal. We'll see what he has to say.
SPITZER: It's going to be interesting.
PARKER: But, you know, the repeal movement itself is interesting to watch because the bottom line is they're not going to be able to repeal it most likely. The House is going to -- you know, try to defund it. The president can veto --
SPITZER: Right.
PARKER: -- and then the Senate is going to do nothing with it. So it's really more theatrical and symbolic, I think.
SPITZER: Well, look. That doesn't bother me. A lot of politics is theatrics, a lot of politics is symbolism. The Republicans are saying we're opposed it. The more interesting symbolism and theatrics is going to be on the budget, where having run on a balanced budget campaign, the Tea Party-driven Republicans are now going to have to go into Congress and pass a budget that puts their mouths where their rhetoric was.
And it's going to be interesting to see who they cut and when. Are they hypocrites or do they begin to take a pound of flesh out of people --
PARKER: You said that word --
SPITZER: -- who are really, really going to scream about it.
PARKER: You said that word hypocrite like you really felt it.
SPITZER: You know -- you know --
PARKER: Rubber meets the road. Skin in the game.
SPITZER: You know, this is governing. This is governing. It's time to govern. Make the tough decisions. It's going to be fun.
PARKER: All right. Well so let's get to our interview. As I mentioned, Senator-elect Mike Lee of Utah is leading the charge on this.
SPITZER: Called the darling of the Tea Party, Lee unseated three-term senator Bob Bennett in the party's primary. As for health care reform, the senator-elect said on FOX News yesterday, and I quote, "I'll fight to bury this thing and I'll dance on its grave."
Wow. Fighting words. He joins us now.
Welcome to Washington, Senator-elect Lee. Thanks for joining us.
MIKE LEE (R), UTAH SENATOR-ELECT: Thank you. It's good to be with you.
PARKER: All right, Senator-elect, we quoted you just a bit ago saying that you'll dance on the grave of health care but there are real problems with the health care system. I'm sure you agree and millions of people are not insured or denied coverage for preexisting conditions. So what do you do address these problems?
LEE: Well, you know, I think we need to leave it to the states to get this done.
PARKER: Well, I know your state has done remarkable work and it's kind of a model for how states can address their health issues, but there are certain things in that plan that are very much very similar to what the federal government has proposed such as the health insurance exchanges and keeping those in the private sector. Why not leave those in place?
LEE: Because there are some things that need to be done on the federal level like national defense, immigration and regulating interstate and foreign trade, but other things need to be left to state regulation.
You know, there's a great diversity among the states in terms of geography and demographics and other factors that affect the provision of health care. In my state of Utah, for example, it cost roughly half in an entire year to provide someone with complete health care from what it does to provide someone with health care in a year here in the District of Columbia.
And each state needs to be able to respond to its own conditions and it needs to be left with the authority to regulate its own health care system.
SPITZER: You know, Senator, I look forward to some day perhaps debating the commerce clause issues. I know you're a fan of a very narrow interpretation of the commerce clause. But we'll put that aside for the moment. I want to just discuss the health care policy for a moment.
In Utah, with all the work you've done, there's still about 350,000 uninsured folks which is about 12, 13 percent of the population. Is that correct?
LEE: I don't know that number to be correct but I'll take your word for it.
SPITZER: All right. That's the number -- I went online today. I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in that range is the right number. So when those folks show up at a hospital, federal law requires the hospital to give them the emergency care they need. I mean I think we'd all agree that's the humane thing to do. We agree on that, I hope.
LEE: Well, look, regardless of whether it's the humane thing to do, I think that's appropriate for state legislation, not federal legislation.
SPITZER: But you'll agree those 350,000 folks get care when they go to a hospital when they need it --
LEE: They do get care. Yes.
SPITZER: So the question I have, having been a governor, having confronted these issues, who should pay for that care when they don't have insurance, they don't have the capacity to pay, who ends up paying that bill right now?
LEE: Well, a lot of times the health care provider ends up eating the bill and having to write a lot of it off, but again the point is these are decisions that can be made and I believe should be made on a state-by-state basis. We don't need a one-size-fits-all rule that emanates out from Washington, D.C.
(CROSSTALK)
LEE: I don't think Congress in its infinite wisdom telling every American where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it.
SPITZER: Well, look, I don't think the bill told -- the federal bill told anybody where to go to the doctor but I'm discussing just now the issue --
LEE: Well, the federal bill told everyone that they have to buy a specific type of health insurance that Congress in its infinite wisdom deems acceptable.
SPITZER: No. What it said, and this is the point I'm coming to, as you just acknowledged a moment or so, the provider ends up eating the bill and the taxpayers cover it. We call it charity care. Taxpayers pay back the hospitals and those who provided the care to cover the cost of that health care, right?
And it seems that everybody from Governor Romney, a very conservative Republican on down, said the only way to cover that cost and to mitigate it is to get people to cover their own cost of the health care they get which is why getting them to buy into the system makes sense from the very conservative perspective in terms of their responsibility to pay for themselves.
Does that concept appeal to you?
LEE: And Governor Romney did that at the state level. The concept itself can be appealing but again it matters. It's not just a question of what is the role of government. It's also a question of which government, and a question we've got to start asking ourselves in this country again, and especially at a time when we've got a debt that's approaching $15 trillion, is which government?
It's not always a federal solution.
SPITZER: I'm just trying to figure out as a matter of policy whether the individual mandate, which is the obligation that everybody buy into the system and pay something into it, since we all get health care, whether is a policy matter that makes sense to you. Because I think then the subsidiary question is whether the states do it or the federal government. But you seem almost to be saying, yes, you understand the logic for that.
LEE: Yes, I understand the logic of it and I understand why some states might want to do it. I'm saying, it needs to be decided on a state-by-state basis. As a federal legislator, I'm agnostic as to the underlying policy question of whether it's a good idea because it's a state question. Not a federal one.
PARKER: Since you are now almost a senator, tomorrow we can call you senator rather than senator-elect. As you well know there's some discussions about reforming the filibuster. Where do you stand on that? LEE: Well, you know, I think the current filibuster rules served us well and I'm content with leaving them as they are. The Senate was meant to be a deliberative body and I want it to continue as such.
SPITZER: Senator, can we switch gears just for a moment here? In your campaign literature, on your blog, you did use -- and I alluded to the phrase earlier. You used -- you said that there were too many people without skin in the game. And I want to just quote if I might from something I pulled off your blog.
You said, "With 50 percent of wage earners paying little or no taxes, many -- too many voters have no skin in the game." And you continue, "No reason to question new government programs, et cetera, et cetera." And therefore you're saying because these folks don't pay taxes, in fact, they don't care about an expanding government.
What I want to do is put up a chart that I apologize, I don't think you'll be able to see and -- but we're going to put it up on our Web site so everybody can go look at it, you included, of course.
At the top it's called "Taxes versus Income" and what it does is it compares groups of individuals by the amount of income they receive versus the taxes they pay. And from the left, what it says is the people who receive the lowest 20 percent of -- have the lowest 20 percent of income which is in aggregate about 4 percent of all income, pay about 3 percent of all taxes.
Then next 20 percent has about 6 percent of all income and pays about 5 percent of all taxes. And so, really, what you're showing is that people pay taxes almost directly proportionate to the income they get.
So isn't your claim that about 50 percent of the public don't pay taxes just flat-out dead wrong?
LEE: Well, look. The point I'm trying to make is that our federal income tax system does not result in a lot of people paying taxes. About half of Americans don't really pay federal income taxes because their income threshold goes below that.
Now of course they do end up paying into it. They do pay a price for it. It's just that it's a hidden price. They pay for it in terms of increased prices for goods and services, sometimes they pay for it in terms of job losses. But we have a complex federal income tax system that I think needs to be reformed so that everyone understands the true frank cost of the federal government.
SPITZER: Senator --
LEE: That's the point I'm trying to make.
SPITZER: I'm with you in terms of reforming our federal income tax system, but the folks who you're talking do pay payroll taxes, don't they?
LEE: I'm -- you lost me there. (CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: They pay payroll taxes?
LEE: I'm sure they pay taxes of one form or another.
SPITZER: And they pay --
LEE: My point is simply this. When we have a complex tax system like what we do and it results in a lot of people not paying federal income taxes to a significant degree or to a far less significant degree than many Americans, it becomes lost on them that there are costs to them. Not just to society in general.
SPITZER: But wait --
LEE: But to them personally.
SPITZER: Wait -- but wait, they're paying --
LEE: And if they don't --
SPITZER: They're paying payroll taxes. They're paying Social Security taxes, they're paying excise taxes, they're paying sales taxes, property taxes, every other tax. And so when you say 50 percent of the public isn't paying taxes and that's why they want the bigger government as though they're free riders that's simply -- as the chart showed you, they are paying taxes almost directly proportional to their share of income.
LEE: Yes. Look, I haven't seen your graph. I'm sure it's lovely. But I'd love to study it when I get a chance. My point is simply --
SPITZER: It is lovely, I agree.
LEE: -- that when we talk about federal income tax, we need a system that is flat, that's simple, that's easy to understand so that everyone understands the true cost of the federal government.
PARKER: Senator Lee -- Mike Lee, thank you for coming on the show. We appreciate you coming on and I promise you if you ever come back, I will not show you a chart.
SPITZER: I will.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: But we appreciate it.
LEE: Well --
PARKER: Eliot's in charge of charts.
LEE: You can show me a chart but you have to actually show it to me. SPITZER: All right. We'll get it to you. All right.
LEE: Thank you.
SPITZER: Thank you for being with us. We appreciate it. And congratulations on being sworn in tomorrow.
LEE: Thank you both.
SPITZER: We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IMRAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE: Fighting terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of people. If you lose the hearts and minds' war, you've lost the war. If the terrorists are perceived as terrorists by the people from who they're operating from, then you're winning the war. If they're perceived as freedom fighters, you're losing the war.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: More turmoil in Pakistan tonight. Even as the government appears on the verge of collapse, today a top official was assassinated in broad daylight in an Islamabad market. And now one of the leading voices in Pakistan says U.S. policy in that country is dead wrong.
What's more, he says the war in Afghanistan is long since lost.
PARKER: Imran Khan is a national person in Pakistan. At one time he led its cricket team. He's also a prominent politician and he joins us now from Islamabad.
Welcome, Mr. Khan.
KHAN: Thank you.
PARKER: All right. This was the highest profile politician killed in Pakistan since the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto three years ago. Tell us what this assassination means.
KHAN: Well, it's spread a feeling of panic in Pakistan because if the governor of a province is not safe and the biggest province in Pakistan, then who is safe? And it seems as if the government is incapable of protecting the people if it can't protect its governor. So there is this sort of feeling of demoralization, a feeling of fear amongst a lot of politicians.
PARKER: Well, does this mean that extremists have become more mainstream, the fact that he was so vulnerable?
KHAN: No, what it has meant is that since 2004 when Pakistan started military operations in Pakistan's tribal areas, extremism has grown in Pakistan. The more military operations we have had, the more militants have grown, and unfortunately this war on terror has created more radicalization in our society.
So when people feel that this is a war against Islam, which is the general perception amongst the masses, then there are a lot of people willing to defend the religion.
SPITZER: Mister Khan, this is Eliot Spitzer. When you talk about the war on terror, are you talking about the war on terror that is being waged by the Pakistani government or by the U.S. government in conjunction with the Pakistani government?
KHAN: Well, Pakistan Army is considered as a proxy army of the U.S. It is on the behest of U.S. that Pakistan Army went into the Pakistan tribal areas. And we had no suicide bombings in Pakistan. We had sectarian militants in Pakistan but they were controlled by our establishment.
Right now, the army is being attacked. More Pakistani soldiers have been killed than the U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq put together. How many civilians we have killed? We have no accurate account but the feeling that Pakistan is fighting someone else's war, bombing its own people, and at the same time we have drone attacks and in the last year there've been record amount of drone attacks.
So all this has radicalized the young people, especially the Pashtun. Remember the people who have been killed on both sides of the border in Afghanistan and Pakistan are the Pashtuns. And so that where the major radicalization has taken pace.
SPITZER: So if I understand you properly, Mr. Khan, what you are suggesting is that the U.S. policy is certainly as they are having an impact within Pakistan are being counter productive because what you're saying is that the U.S. policies are actually generating the outbreak and we are strengthening the extremist forces within Pakistan.
KHAN: Absolutely. They're counterproductive. If they were productive, you should have seen a decline in terrorism. There should have been less terrorists, there should have been less groups.
At the moment, 140,000 Pakistani soldiers are stuck in our tribal areas and there's a military operation, the moment they come back, the militants come back. There is -- if anything, things are getting worse.
PARKER: What would you have the U.S. do? What would be an appropriate policy from your point of view?
KHAN: Well, for a start, when has aerial bombardment been a good way of fighting terrorists? And remember, the militants are living in villages with civilians. This is not an army being fought. It's guerrillas who are hiding with the civilians.
Now the more collateral damage done, all that -- it does is benefit the militants. U.S. and Afghanistan each year the military actions have gone up, the more U.S. operations have increased, forces have increased, but is this producing results?
Are the people of Afghanistan or in Pakistan's tribal area, are they with the U.S. or are they with the militants?
Fighting terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of people. If you lose the hearts and minds war, you've lost the war. If the terrorists are perceived as terrorists by the people from who they're operating from, then you're winning the war. If they are perceived as freedom fighters, you're losing the war.
And I'm afraid this policy of one dimensional policy of bombardment, drone attacks, military operations, they are being counterproductive. What should be done is that military operations should be part of a political settlement. There should be dialogue at the same time military operation should only aid the political settlement.
At the moment we are just seeing a one dimensional military policy and it's not succeeding. In fact, Pakistan is imploding. This country is going down. I mean, we -- this country has taken more casualties, we have had over 500 bomb blasts the previous year. Last year, almost the same amount. Record amount of suicide attacks.
There are about $40, $50 billion the economy has suffered and the increased radicalization of a society as you saw this assassination today of the governor. So I mean things are just getting worse for this country. And I think that there needs to be a change of strategy. This is not -- this is not a successful strategy.
PARKER: Well, Mr. Khan, what would a successful strategy look like?
KHAN: For me, it should be talking to all the stakeholders. There should be an immediate cease fire. You can't have dialogue and at the same time military action. Unfortunately, this policy is dictated by the security personnel, by the generals. It's not a civilian-backed or political backed policy in Afghanistan.
The key issue is Afghanistan. If you have peace in Afghanistan, if you can have a cease fire, get people around the table, talk about, you know, when there's an exit strategy, maybe have Muslim forces, peacekeeping forces to have a government of consensus.
It is the only way to go about in Afghanistan. The way -- the current policy could just go on and on.
SPITZER: If the United States wants to have that discussion, those negotiations with the Taliban, General Petraeus himself has said that that is the right thing to do, and I think there's almost universal agreement on that point, can you begin those negotiations if you are at the same time withdrawing militarily?
If you showed out weakness, what is the incentive then for the negotiation? KHAN: But first of all, what is General Petraeus doing? What he's trying to do is to kill as many Taliban as possible. What he calls degrading the Taliban means basically defeating them.
I don't know what degrading means. Means defeating them and then he hopes that they will come on to the negotiating table. But what -- look at the other side. What if he doesn't succeed? What if the Taliban don't lose and for lose -- for them to win is not to lose.
All they have to do is not confront the U.S. forces in some open battle which they're not going to do, so what happens? If this goes on for two, three years eventually there will be enough pressure for the U.S. to leave.
My worry is that the longer this goes on, the more killing done, we will end up having a far more radical set-up in Afghanistan than the one the U.S. replaced in 2001. Because this more killing is creating more radicalization and it's clearly not working because Taliban are not -- the support for Taliban is increasing.
And the majority of Afghan population today wants talks with Taliban. So in my opinion, the best way to go about it is to have a cease fire. Have negotiations and if the Taliban say, look, if the U.S. leaves and then only we will talk, you could have a peacekeeping force from Muslim countries.
But there has to be an alternative. This is not going to work. Anyone who knows the history of Afghanistan knows that there's going to be a lot of killing and in the end the result will not be any different. You will still have talked to the Taliban in the end.
PARKER: All right. Imran Khan, thank you so much for being with us.
Up ahead, the new Congress hasn't even been sworn in yet and the new Republicans are already vowing to repeal the health care bill. We'll go into "The Arena" to ask if the GOP can pull it off and if they do, are they ready to face the consequences?
Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILL CAIN, HOST, NATIONAL REVIEW'S "OFF THE PAGE": For the last two years Democrats and liberal ideology has saddled up to the table of government and gorged on lawmaking. This has been the most successful legislative body in 50 years as far as passing law. So to sit back now with your bellies full and say, you know, it was just too hard, really, it kind of offends me.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Congress isn't even back in session yet and already battles are under way in a number of fronts. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate.
PARKER: And House Republicans are planning a vote to repeal the president's health care law next week.
Joining us to talk about all of the above are liberal editor and publisher of "The Nation", Katrina Vanden Heuvel, and libertarian -- actually we like to call conservative -- host of "The National Review's" "Off the Page," Will Cain..
Thank you both for being here.
CAIN: Thank you, guys.
PARKER: Katrina, you've made a strong case for reforming filibuster. Tell us what you want to do.
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR & PUBLISHER, "THE NATION": Well, it's not just me. I mean you have a great coalition called FixtheSenate.org. You have Senator Specter, Republican then Democrat, leaving the Senate and in his farewell address really blasting the world's greatest deliberative body as becoming one of dysfunctional value in this country.
And I think we need a functioning Senate, not one where good bills go to die. So I am for using the Senate rules first day of the Senate to reform a filibuster that has let too many bills die.
I think it's a pro-democracy move. I don't think it's a partisan move and I think it would allow the will of the people to be better expressed. It would also end the kind of backroom dealings.
You know, Frank Capra, Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
PARKER: Yes.
VANDEN HEUVEL: That is the great symbol of a filibuster but the filibuster today doesn't call on a senator to come to the floor.
PARKER: Why not reform it --
VANDEN HEUVEL: And continuously debate.
PARKER: to do just that?
VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, that's part of the reform package.
PARKER: Make them actually stand up?
VANDEN HEUVEL: That is part of the reform package. And not to allow holds on nominations. A whole set of reforms. And you know what? We are entering a cycle of reaction versus reform. I am for reform.
PARKER: Will, the Republicans are saying this is a naked power grab by Harry Reid. Is it? CAIN: Yes. I think it is. Katrina is right in one respect that she's not the only one calling for filibuster reform. Eliot here has been beating that drum very vigorously on this show. And I've been on this show a lot. And Eliot and I are damn near buddies at this point. But I --
SPITZER: That's funny.
(CROSSTALK)
PARKER: Thanks a lot, Will.
CAIN: But I'm offended by this -- by this move. Look, for the last two years Democrats and liberal ideology has saddled up to the table of government and gorged on lawmaking. This has been the most successful legislative body in 50 years as far as passing law. So to sit back now with your bellies full and say, you know, it was just too hard, really, it kind of offends me.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: Wait, wait, wait.
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: But Will --
SPITZER: I have to --
VANDEN HEUVEL: The chutzpah.
SPITZER: And the imagery you're using here. But let's go back to facts and reality here for a moment. This isn't partisan. In fact a lot of people are saying Democrats are likely to be in the minority after the 2012 elections.
CAIN: Right.
SPITZER: And so there's some partisan Democrats saying don't do it, we're going to use the filibuster.
I'm with Katrina. This is about democracy. This is about letting people vote. The constitution defines when you need a supermajority. Treaties, overriding a veto. Other supermajorities which is what you need to end debate now are imposed by the rules of the Senate and stifled --
CAIN: It's not just about democracy. It's about limited government. You're right. The Senate is less Democratic than the House and for that matter the Supreme Court is less Democratic than the Senate.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But it doesn't even allow -- the filibuster has not allowed the world's greatest deliberative body to deliberate in real ways. Now, Will, history. The filibuster has been abused. You know that the filibuster was used more in 2009 than in the 1950s and '60s combined. There is something wrong with that. And 400 bills that came out of the House died in the Senate. Not that all should have been passed, but the deliberation that this country and people deserve is not happening.
PARKER: Katrina, I agree with you on that. I have to say it. Would you favor getting rid of the filibuster altogether when it comes to judicial appointments?
VANDEN HEUVEL: No. No, but I do think there should be I think a supermajority on executive appointments and on judicial appointments. I think on pieces of legislation, there should be a shifting number but time for the minority --
SPITZER: Supermajority so people understand.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Fifty-one.
SPITZER: Right.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Fifty-one for executive appointments.
SPITZER: Should not be a supermajority then?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I'm sorry. It should be a majority.
SPITZER: That's what I thought. OK.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Executive appointments and judicial nominations. But you know, the other part of the abuse of what's going on is the hold. You know, Senator Shelby of Alabama put a hold on 70 pieces of legislation before -- it wouldn't take it off until he got money for a military corporation in his home state. I think that's anonymous and secretive.
PARKER: Hold. Please explain. Hold meaning one person can hold up an entire piece of legislation.
VANDEN HEUVEL: One person -- with one person there should be at least a coalition formed as in the Supreme Court where you form a coalition to dissent, to approve.
CAIN: Look, you're right that the filibuster is being used so many times in the past Congress but the government has also extended itself into more areas of our life in the last two years.
VANDEN HEUVEL: That's a different matter.
SPITZER: But, Will, it seems to me that you can repeal legislation with the majority that Katrina and I were talking about just as easily as you can pass it. Again, this is a validly neutral process.
CAIN: You know how often that happens.
SPITZER: But this is a process objective to make democracy work. I'm also confused by something you said. Why is the Supreme Court less Democratic than the Senate? Supreme Court is a perfect majority. Five is the magic number.
CAIN: They're appointed and not elected directly. The point I'm making that you guys have to answer is this. What is the role of the Senate then? If the Senate should act just like the House and if a simple majority rules on everything, why --
VANDEN HEUVEL: I'm not saying it showed on everything. I'm saying on executive appointments and judicial nominations on others, you can have a sliding scale where it might be 55 but, you know, again, history. Walter Mondale reformed the process in 1975. Originally, it was 67 to close debate. Then it moved to 60. I think you have a period of debate and after a week or two, if nothing is moving for the people's business, shift it to 55, 54.
SPITZER: We want to go to the budget, but I just got to say --
VANDEN HEUVEL: But you know, it's so wonky but what moves me is that a coalition of citizens and freshmen Democrats understand the dysfunctionality. The dysfunctionality, this is not common sense and if a lot of people in this country seek solutions --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Will is ignoring the constitution. You are the originalist. Constitution tells us when we need a supermajority and now you're saying you want a supermajority. Anyway, let's get to the budget.
CAIN: Throw that out on me and then move on.
PARKER: Yes, exactly. You're an anti-constitutionalist.
CAIN: Absolutely right.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Isn't that part of the -- We'll all going to read the constitution on the first day.
PARKER: You are in your little cubicle.
CAIN: The budget you said?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I'm for reading the constitution, by the way.
PARKER: We'll be happy then.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I don't think they should read it like the book of Genesis or Leviticus. It is an -- you know, it's a constitution.
SPITZER: We have the same interpretive issues.
Will, I want to ask you the question. Are the Republicans now that they have the House, they're going to have to put together a budget, are they really going to cut two, three, $400 billion as they pledged to come close to balancing the budget?
CAIN: But the pledge is $100 billion. SPITZER: They're talking about balanced budget, too. A hundred is nothing in the context of the real deficit.
CAIN: Right, right.
SPITZER: So you talked about being serious in terms of balanced budget. Are they going to do it?
CAIN: Are they going to? They're going to try. And the only critique I would have of Republicans at this point is not that the number is too aggressive but the areas in which they want to focus the cuts are too narrow. You simply can't balance the budget focusing on the narrow areas they are then exempt defense entitlements. If we're going to do this, you can get to $100 billion, you can get to much more by looking at social security, Medicare and, yes, defense.
SPITZER: So some agreement here.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, I'm for cutting a bloated defense budget but I think first of all, social security is a myth that it's part of a deficit problem. I think --
CAIN: Yet.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I think the -- it is not part. I mean, we'll stay solvent until 2029. I think you lift the payroll tax. But I do think the mandate that the Republicans think they have to slash really brutally is one that will mean overreach for this party, and I think it's going to expose the Republicans because it will be a lot of pain around this country. Twenty percent of domestic spending cuts is something I don't think we fully wrapped our mind around and there's --
CAIN: Can I ask you, you don't think that was the message sent three months ago in November?
VANDEN HEUVEL: No, I don't. I don't because the polls --
CAIN: We got to look at the budget.
VANDEN HEUVEL: No, the polls show --
CAIN: And get this deficit under control?
VANDEN HEUVEL: The polls show there is very little stomach for cutting Medicare, for cutting social security. These are the social compact with American citizens, so I think the Republicans are misjudging what the American people are seeking. I do think there is a fear of the debt which has been hyped by establishment media. I think jobs and the economy are on the minds of most Americans right now, not a debt or the deficit. I think the investment deficit is the one that people would care about if it was presented in a way, but the Republicans don't have a mandate for what they see.
PARKER: The people do not want an expanding, ever-expanding government that spends incessantly but they also don't want to give up anything that comes to them directly.
CAIN: Absolutely true.
PARKER: Yes. So how do you reconcile those two opposing needs?
VANDEN HEUVEL: But you know, there's a growth budget that needs to -- you know, most industrialized countries have an operating and an investment budget. And I think we are at a point if we want to have a strong recovery, we still need demand in the system. That's not left/right. That's common sense.
CAIN: You know, you make an excellent point. The answer is that you can only be honest with the American people. You have to be able to give up some social security. You have to be able to give up some Medicare. You can't take on new entitlements if you care about the deficit.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But social security is not an entitlement. It's a contract between the government and employees who worked for it.
SPITZER: Guys, we must move on. Katrina and Will, it is great to have you here. This conversation will continue. This will not be resolved in the next 24 hours.
VANDEN HEUVEL: No.
PARKER: Forever more.
SPITZER: You will come back and we will continue as we know and see what Congress actually does.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Thank you.
PARKER: Coming up, as the federal budget edges closer to the debt ceiling, it's hard to separate the numbers from the politics. We'll ask Ben Stein to help us do the math. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN STEIN, AUTHOR, "THE LITTLE BOOK OF BULLETPROOF INVESTING": Almost all of the promises coming out of the Congress are not going to happen. They're not going to be able to cut $100 billion. They're not going to be able to drastically slow the growth of federal spending, at least not within our lifetimes or my lifetime. I'm 66. So, I mean, it's all a lot of political blarney at this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: As soon as they're sworn in tomorrow, the clock starts ticking for the new Congress to do something about a rapidly-growing debt. At issue, will Congress vote to raise the debt ceiling that limits our federal government's capacity to borrow so it can pay its bills? PARKER: From the heated rhetoric coming out of Washington, it's pretty clear this question is going to dominate much of the new session. So to make sense of it all, we turn to Ben Stein, author of "The Little Book of Bulletproof Investing." He's joining us from L.A.
Ben, welcome.
BEN STEIN, AUTHOR, "THE LITTLE BOOK OF BULLETPROOF INVESTING": My pleasure.
PARKER: Ben, our debt. It's almost at $14 trillion and inching mighty close to that ceiling which is nearly $14.3 trillion. So the big picture, what does all this mean?
STEIN: Well, they're not going to be able to keep the debt from rising. Congress often threatens that they're not going to approve it, increase in the debt ceiling. They always approve it. Otherwise, the government comes screeching to a halt. So that's not going to happen.
Almost all the promises coming out of the Congress are not going to happen. They're not going to be able to cut $100 billion. They're not going to be able to drastically slow the growth of federal spending at least not within our lifetimes or my lifetime. I'm 66. So, I mean, it's all a lot of political blarney at this point.
SPITZER: Ben, let me ask you because, you know, I actually think that there are some Republicans and I'll give them credit for this who want to follow through on some of their pledges. I disagree with it fundamentally but they are saying, look, we are going to rapidly ratchet back some of the spending. Would that be a good idea in your view just as a matter of pure economics? Where our economy is right now, do you think they should do that?
STEIN: No, I don't think they should be doing it right now until the recovery is a lot stronger than it is. But, you know, Eliot, I've been following this for a long time now. I've been following it, man and boy for a long time. Congress always promises it's going to cut spending. They never do. Except when there is the build down or a big war, they don't do it. And we're not having a build down or a big war anytime soon. So I just don't see where these giant cuts would come from and the sad fact is even if they did cut 100 billion, it would still leave us with an enormous deficit. It would still leave us with a budget deficit growing like mad. We've gotten to the realm where we're in such stratospheric debt levels that even if they cut 100 billion, it wouldn't affect it that much and they're not going to cut 100 billion.
I mean, we're so far up a certain kind of creek without a paddle that drastic surgery is going to be necessary. And I don't think this Congress or this president has the guts to do it and I don't think the American people have the guts to face up to it.
PARKER: Well, gosh, if nobody has the guts to do any of the things that need to be done, are we just going to go belly up? STEIN: Well, no. I mean, my father, a very smart guy, used to say if a thing cannot go on forever, it will stop. So it will stop. There'll be some kind of drastic cuts in social security for upper and middle class and upper class people. There will be a rise in taxes once the recovery rebounds. But we will -- we will probably keep adding to the debt for a very, very long time and at some point I would think in the far distant future we will default on the debt or else we will inflate our way out of the debt. We'll create so much inflation that it's easy to pay down the debt.
We were bequeathed by Mr. Clinton a very sound fiscal situation. We wrecked it totally, and this is not Mr. Obama's fault. He has not been helpful, but he inherited a terrible situation. Mr. Bush inherited a very good situation and wrecked it. Mr. Obama inherited a bad situation and made it worse.
SPITZER: I want to see, we have a limited time left. I want to -- there seems to be a schizophrenia right now, because the Dow closed up today, up another 20 points, a two-year high. It's rebounded powerfully since the depths of the recession. And yet if you look at some other numbers, what we call the crimp (ph) grim data numbers, got unemployment at 9.8 percent. You got 1.5 million people declaring bankruptcy last year. Home sales are down. How do you explain this dichotomy between the Dow and what seems to be the reality of the core economy?
STEIN: We're having a recovery. There's almost no doubt about that. The market is responding to the fact we're having a recovery. The market is responding to the fact that despite all the grim news you just mentioned, corporate profits are extremely strong and getting stronger. So, the market -- the market doesn't really care that much. The market is a heartless beast. It doesn't care that much about an unemployed family in Flint, Michigan. They don't care about those people. The market cares about stocks and the earnings on stocks and those are doing very well. It would be nice if the market were more kindhearted but it's not. In terms of what the market cares about, the news is good.
SPITZER: And there's also the element that the market cares as you say about the earnings that are reflected on the corporate profit sheets and a lot of those earnings these days come from overseas which doesn't help domestic workers or domestic families but it's profits into the coffers of the companies.
STEIN: Well, it is not a huge amount, first of all, Eliot. But also, those profits go into the pension plans for automobile workers, the pension plans for teachers, pension plans for police and fire. So those pension plans are not going into the hands, the dead hands of monopoly capital. They go into the hands mostly of people's retirement plans.
PARKER: Professor Stein, on the -- even though, you know, debt or no debt, isn't it a good thing? Isn't it overall a good thing when the market is doing well? Doesn't that work well for us ultimately?
STEIN: It's a great -- it's a great thing unless it gets so high then it crashes. But sure, we want people to feel wealthy. We want them to go out and spend. We want them to feel optimistic. There is a thing called the wealth effect in which some small amount of the markets increase as translated into an increase in consumption and people feel just generally happier. And I think that's happening. There is a lot of psychological data to be sure, most of it probably made up, that says when the market is up, people spend more money and the whole economy improves. And I think that's happening right now. I think people are in a better mood because the market is up. I mean, I know I am. So we'll assume that everyone is.
PARKER: I'm in a better mood just talking to you.
STEIN: I'm in a better mood talking to you.
PARKER: OK. Ben Stein, as always, great to have you with us.
STEIN: A great pleasure.
SPITZER: We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: You must have known and seen a lot of stuff. Does that make you wonder whether there wasn't somebody, we all read too many novels and we read too many conspiracy theories, somebody that said, this guy knows something?
RICHARD RADEZ, FRIEND OF MURDERED OFFICIAL JOHN WHEELER: Of course, it makes you wonder. And I in an e-mail to the Delaware detective that's handling the case, I said, look, be very careful in looking at how this, you know, the beating was administered to make sure that there's nothing sinister here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: On December 31st, a garbage truck dumped its contents into a Delaware landfill and out fell a dead body. It would have been a shocking story under any circumstances but the identity of the victim made it national news. John Wheeler III may not have been famous, but his career devoted to public service was of that kind that sustains our country. A graduate of West Point, Yale Law and Harvard business schools, Wheeler chose a life of public service. He worked in the Pentagon for three Republican presidents. He was the driving force behind the creation of Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. and served as the chairman of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
PARKER: Wheeler is 66. He was last seen alive a day earlier in his hometown of Wilmington. His death has been ruled a homicide. Little is known beyond the fact that he had been involved in a dispute with a neighbor over house construction. The police investigation is ongoing and the FBI has gotten involved.
Joining us now, someone who met John Wheeler at West Point, worked with him in Vietnam, at the Pentagon, and on the war memorial. Richard Radez, welcome.
RICHARD RADEZ, FRIEND OF MURDERED OFFICIAL JOHN WHEELER: Thank you.
PARKER: We, first, we're so sorry about your loss. It must have been quite a shock.
RADEZ: A horrible shock. I mean, you just don't expect something like this to happen to somebody who's an old and dear friend.
SPITZER: You knew him. You served with him in Vietnam. You worked with him over the years.
RADEZ: Right.
SPITZER: And his resume, you look at his resume and you just say my goodness, this is the epitome of what this nation wants somebody to be. West Point, Yale, Harvard, worked at the Pentagon, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, oversaw raising the money for the Vietnam memorial. He worked for the biggest defense contractors, worked for the SEC. He was everything you hope for. Who could have -- what explains this? Do you have a theory?
RADEZ: My hunch is that he may have gone into the wrong fast food outlet in Wilmington. Paid for whatever he bought with some money and somebody said, hey, you know, this guy looks like he might have more money in his wallet. It could be something as crazy as that. It could be he took the wrong car service home at night, you know, that's my suspicion.
PARKER: Not a man with enemies?
RADEZ: No. Not -- I don't think there's anything sinister about this. I think it's just --
SPITZER: You're describing a random act of violence, that is just the horror show of anybody who's had a friend or a loved one be the victim of a crime.
RADEZ: I think that's probably what it was.
SPITZER: Now, the other side, of course, is that he dealt with the most top secret situations in the world.
RADEZ: That's right.
SPITZER: At the Pentagon, Miter (ph), the defense contractor where he did a lot of work, very secretive entity. The SEC, he was involved in things that were at the center of potential conspiracy theories.
RADEZ: Forty years ago, I would have told you it was absolutely impossible. Now with the youthful age of 65, I can believe anything.
SPITZER: Right. RADEZ: So I wouldn't rule it out.
RADEZ: Right.
RADEZ: But my hunch is that it was something completely senseless rather than sinister.
PARKER: Tell us about Jack Wheeler. What was he like?
RADEZ: The country would not have the Vietnam memorial if Jack Wheeler had not decided that it had to happen. He was the conductor of that orchestra. We played different parts. West Pointers, lawyers in Washington, other people. But Jack Wheeler was the man who made it happen.
PARKER: It was his idea. I think there was some opposition to the wall itself, to that architectural display and some people wanted --
RADEZ: You're a lady, "some" is not the right word.
PARKER: Well, OK, there was a firestorm of opposition.
RADEZ: That's right.
PARKER: And he said, some people wanted to see soldiers rather than just a wall which looked like a headstone to them. And there was a compromise sculpture of three soldiers but it was Jack Wheeler who insisted I think that they represent different races.
RADEZ: We knew that we had been maneuvered into a corner and that we had to undertake a compromise that probably would have preferred not to have had. So our way of winning the war instead of that battle was to make sure that one soldier was African-American, one was Caucasian, and the third looks suspiciously Hispanic.
PARKER: Yes. Well --
RADEZ: Now, that's a first time soldiers of color were represented on the mall in Washington.
SPITZER: Yes.
PARKER: Well, great. Thank you so much.
SPITZER: A loss of the true silent American hero.
RADEZ: Thank you.
SPITZER: Thank you.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Before we go, an update on the story that began our program last night. We showed you those Navy videos filled with anti- gay slurs and simulated sex acts. They were made aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
Well, the officer responsible for those videos, Captain Owen Honors, has been relieved of duty. Here's what Admiral John Harvey, commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces said about the action. Quote, "Our leaders must be beyond reproach."
SPITZER: Admiral Harvey also said the investigation into the incident is ongoing. And one more thing, tomorrow night, an exclusive interview with actor activist and get this, possible candidate Alec Baldwin. Yes, that Alec Baldwin and, no, this is not a "Saturday Night Live" skit. Here's a glimpse of what's in store.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: You are passionate about this stuff. You are more multifaceted and so many people appreciate it. We think of you as Jack Ryan. We think of you at "30 Rock," "Saturday Night Live," hosting the Academy. But you are a deeply political person so you're going to get into this game? You have answers, you have thoughts? What do you run for and when?
ALEC BALDWIN, ACTOR: Well, I've had people approach me.
SPITZER: Where you do stand before (ph)?
BALDWIN: But I thought people approach me about running for jobs and moving to other locations and it's been a very difficult decision for me because I am a New Yorker and I do like living here and I would prefer to live here. And in New York there's a lot of planes on the runway ready to take off all the time. At any given time, there's a lot of ambitions, there's a lot of entitlement and some circles with people who believe that there are certain jobs that belong to them.
SPITZER: Right.
BALDWIN: The -- so the answer is yes, it's something that I'm very, very interested in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PARKER: I don't know, Eliot. It sure sounds like he's running for something and there's plenty more where that came from. It's a great interview. Be sure not to miss it.
Good night from New York. A special edition of "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now.
