PBS NewsHour - 2008-10-20
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:03] [music]
[0:09] >> Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff. On the
[0:11] NewsHour tonight, the news of this
[0:12] Monday, then the latest on the financial
[0:15] crisis and the prospect for a new
[0:17] stimulus package. The campaign in three
[0:20] parts, McCain and Obama on the stump
[0:23] today, analysis from Amy Walter and Stu
[0:26] Rothenberg, and an interview with the
[0:28] Libertarian Party nominee for president,
[0:31] Bob Barr.
[0:32] Plus, the first in our Blueprint America
[0:35] series about infrastructure problems.
[0:38] Tonight, a look at the nation's
[0:39] crumbling roads and bridges.
[0:43] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim
[0:46] Lehrer is provided by
[0:51] >> [music]
[0:55] >> With hard work and careful planning,
[0:58] Pacific Life can help you retire the way
[1:00] you want to, with mutual funds and life
[1:03] insurance, and with annuities that can
[1:05] guarantee an income for the rest of your
[1:08] life.
[1:09] Your financial [music] professional at
[1:11] Pacific Life can help you reach your
[1:13] retirement goals.
[1:15] Pacific Life, the power to help you
[1:17] succeed. With soaring energy prices and
[1:21] global climate change, there are good
[1:23] reasons for believing in wind.
[1:25] Wind energy is clean and plentiful, and
[1:28] it answers the call for sustainable ways
[1:30] to create the electricity we need. We
[1:33] know because our sole focus is
[1:35] developing technology that uses the
[1:37] energy of the wind to generate
[1:39] electricity. America has some of the
[1:41] world's most abundant wind resources,
[1:44] and Vestas is here to help harness them.
[1:50] Grant Thornton.
[1:54] Chevron.
[1:58] And the National Science Foundation,
[2:01] supporting education and research across
[2:03] all fields of science and engineering.
[2:09] And with the ongoing support of these
[2:11] institutions and foundations.
[2:17] And
[2:18] This program was made possible by the
[2:20] Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
[2:23] And by contributions to your PBS station
[2:26] from viewers like you.
[2:28] Thank you.
[2:31] >> [music]
[2:33] >> Wall Street rang up healthy gains today.
[2:35] Stocks surged higher on talks of a new
[2:38] economic stimulus package and easier
[2:40] credit. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
[2:43] rallied 413 points to close at 9265.
[2:48] The Nasdaq added more than 58 points to
[2:50] close at 1770.
[2:53] Major indexes across Europe were also up
[2:55] by as much as 5%. Asian markets finished
[2:59] higher as well.
[3:00] The chairman of the Federal Reserve
[3:02] fueled a hope for a new economic
[3:04] stimulus, and Bernanke told a House
[3:06] hearing it could help in several ways if
[3:09] it comes quickly.
[3:11] With the economy likely to be weak for
[3:13] several quarters and with some risk of a
[3:14] protracted slowdown,
[3:16] consideration of a fiscal package by the
[3:18] Congress at this juncture seems
[3:19] appropriate. If the Congress proceeds
[3:21] with a fiscal package, it should
[3:22] consider including measures to help
[3:24] improve access to credit by consumers,
[3:27] home buyers, businesses, and other
[3:29] borrowers.
[3:30] Such actions might be particularly
[3:32] effective at promoting economic growth
[3:34] and job creation.
[3:35] Congressional Democrats have been
[3:37] pushing for a stimulus package for
[3:39] several weeks, and White House officials
[3:41] said today that President Bush is now
[3:43] open to the idea. The president himself
[3:45] talked with business leaders in
[3:47] Alexandria, Louisiana. He said the
[3:49] federal rescue of the financial industry
[3:52] is already helping.
[3:53] I I have heard that people's attitudes
[3:55] are beginning to change from a period of
[3:58] of, you know, intense concerns and I
[4:01] would call it near panic
[4:03] to
[4:04] being more relaxed and beginning to
[4:08] begin to see the effects of
[4:10] of changes [clears throat] in the
[4:11] liquidity that that have been pumped in
[4:13] the system. Now, we got a long way to
[4:14] go. As I said on Friday, you know, the
[4:16] thaw took a while to thaw. It's going to
[4:19] take a while to unthaw.
[4:21] Over the weekend, the president
[4:22] announced plans for a summit on the
[4:24] global financial system. No date or
[4:27] place was set.
[4:29] Those much-criticized credit default
[4:31] swaps are now under investigation. State
[4:34] and federal prosecutors in New York
[4:36] confirmed that today. They want to know
[4:38] if speculators illegally manipulated
[4:41] data on transactions. A credit default
[4:44] swap act as insurance for bond buyers
[4:47] against a default.
[4:49] There were signs today that the credit
[4:51] crunch may be easing. A key lending rate
[4:53] on loans between banks fell again by the
[4:56] most since January, and interest rates
[4:59] on short-term commercial debt came down
[5:02] at Sparkle in Paris and other key
[5:04] European trading centers.
[5:09] We have seen the market plunge despite
[5:11] the European plan last week on fears of
[5:13] recession. But finally, on Friday and
[5:16] continuing today, the banks are lending
[5:18] to one another again and the markets are
[5:20] gaining confidence. It's true that it is
[5:22] very important that the banks lend to
[5:24] another and that is what's happening.
[5:27] There were also new government moves
[5:28] today to stabilize world markets. South
[5:31] Korea announced a $130
[5:34] billion financial rescue package, and
[5:36] Germany's cabinet approved terms for its
[5:39] own plan worth $675
[5:41] billion.
[5:43] Speculation built today that General
[5:45] Motors may be closer to buying Chrysler.
[5:48] The Associated Press reported that a
[5:50] deal could be in place by the end of the
[5:52] month. It cited a source familiar with
[5:55] the negotiations. If the merger goes
[5:57] through, it could lead to more lost jobs
[6:00] as the two automakers consolidate
[6:02] operations.
[6:04] In the presidential campaign today,
[6:06] Democrat Barack Obama welcomed the
[6:08] endorsement of former Secretary of State
[6:10] Colin Powell. Obama said if he's
[6:13] elected, he wants Powell to advise him.
[6:15] Republican John McCain charged that
[6:18] Obama is jumping the gun by already,
[6:20] quote, choosing his cabinet. And on
[6:23] fundraising, Obama took in a record $150
[6:26] million
[6:27] in September. McCain has accepted public
[6:30] funding. He has $47 million left to
[6:33] spend. We'll have more on the campaign
[6:36] later in the program.
[6:38] In Afghanistan today, Taliban militants
[6:40] shot and killed a Christian aid worker
[6:43] in Kabul. Gayle Williams had dual
[6:46] British and South African citizenship.
[6:48] The Taliban said that she was trying to
[6:50] convert Muslims. Her organization denied
[6:53] it. To the south, international and
[6:56] Afghan troops in Helmand province said
[6:59] they killed 34 insurgents on Sunday. But
[7:02] today, NATO's supreme commander warned
[7:05] that members have not sent all the
[7:07] troops they promised. US Army General
[7:10] John Craddock said he has made an appeal
[7:13] at every meeting of allied defense
[7:15] ministers.
[7:16] I asked the the attendees, "Your heads
[7:20] of state at Bucharest said we're going
[7:22] to do this. We're going to get trained.
[7:25] We're going to fill up the troop list,
[7:26] but it has yet to happen. Now, why
[7:28] aren't you stepping forward?"
[7:30] Frankly, there is there is will among
[7:32] the military folks. But the political
[7:34] will to make that decision, whether it
[7:36] be because of fiscal constraints,
[7:39] political constraints, is just not
[7:40] there.
[7:42] General Craddock warned the situation in
[7:44] Helmand province is especially critical.
[7:47] A draft security pact between Iraq and
[7:50] the US faced uncertain prospects today.
[7:53] On Sunday, key Shiite lawmakers and
[7:56] others demanded changes, including a
[7:58] mandatory US pullout before 2012.
[8:02] Today, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar
[8:04] Zebari said that his government would
[8:06] like to approve the deal before the US
[8:09] presidential election. But he said,
[8:11] quote, "Given the political contentions,
[8:13] we don't think this is possible
[8:15] currently."
[8:17] The defense rested today in the federal
[8:19] corruption trial of Senator Ted Stevens.
[8:22] The Alaska Republican spent three days
[8:24] on the witness stand in Washington. He
[8:26] insisted he did not hide gifts that
[8:29] included $250,000
[8:31] in home renovations. Closing arguments
[8:34] are set for tomorrow.
[8:36] That's it for the news summary tonight.
[8:38] Now, stimulating the economy, the
[8:41] campaign with two weeks to go,
[8:43] Libertarian candidate Barr, and trouble
[8:46] on roads and bridges.
[8:57] Now, prospects for a second stimulus
[8:59] package to soften the impact of the
[9:01] financial crisis and likely recession.
[9:04] Jeffrey Brown has the story.
[9:07] Just three months ago, Fed Chairman Ben
[9:09] Bernanke said he thought it was
[9:10] premature to serve up a new round of
[9:12] measures to stimulate the economy. But
[9:14] times have clearly changed, and today he
[9:17] weighed in positively on a notion that
[9:19] is now very much in play in Congress and
[9:21] being discussed as well at the White
[9:22] House. Is another stimulus plan needed,
[9:25] and if so, what should be in it? We
[9:27] asked that of two who testified at a
[9:28] congressional hearing today after
[9:30] Bernanke spoke. Martin Bailey served as
[9:33] chairman of the Council of Economic
[9:34] Advisers during the Clinton
[9:35] administration. He's now a senior fellow
[9:37] at the Brookings Institution. William
[9:39] Beach is the director of the Center for
[9:41] Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation
[9:43] in Washington. Welcome to both of you.
[9:45] Thank you. Martin Bailey, what's the
[9:46] argument for a new stimulus package and
[9:49] what should what would it be aimed at
[9:50] achieving? Well, I was very pleased that
[9:52] Bernanke supported that. The economy is
[9:54] looking pretty ugly at the moment. I
[9:56] would expect that we're going to report
[9:58] a negative third quarter. The fourth
[10:00] quarter looks like it could be a
[10:02] substantially down and then probably a
[10:04] continuing recession into the first half
[10:07] of 2009.
[10:09] So, we need to try to sort of reverse
[10:10] that. Initially, the financial crisis
[10:13] didn't seem to be having that much ill
[10:15] effect on the overall economy, jobs, and
[10:17] production, but now it is.
[10:19] And we need to do something to reverse
[10:21] that. And I think a stimulus package is
[10:23] is definitely needed. Do you agree with
[10:25] that as a starting point?
[10:26] >> I think the problems of the financial
[10:28] sector are beginning to spread
[10:29] throughout the economy. We've had such a
[10:32] long period of time when credit was
[10:33] tightening every day. We would get more
[10:36] news of tighter credit and ultimately
[10:38] that affects people where they work,
[10:40] their payrolls, vendors in businesses,
[10:43] and then it goes out into the consuming
[10:45] public because they can't get the credit
[10:46] necessary. Now, the stimulus package is
[10:49] actually premised on the notion that
[10:51] that contagion, that disease has already
[10:54] gone out into the general economy and
[10:57] that the general economy cannot absorb
[10:58] that and recover on its own. I think
[11:00] that's an open question, but Congress is
[11:03] ready to act and when Congress is ready
[11:05] to act, I think they'll they'll act. So,
[11:07] yes, I I testified this morning that
[11:09] something needs to be done. I testified
[11:11] on the tax side or there's on the
[11:13] spending side, but and my guess is that
[11:15] Congress will do something.
[11:16] >> And now, Ben Bernanke was not specific
[11:19] about measures mostly today, but one
[11:21] thing he said and we ran it in our news
[11:22] summary, he said if Congress proceeds
[11:24] with a fiscal package, it should it
[11:26] should consider including measures to
[11:27] help improve access to credit by
[11:30] consumers, home buyers, businesses, and
[11:32] other borrowers.
[11:34] What might that entail? What kind of
[11:35] measures do that? Well, I think he was
[11:37] probably he was talking about loan
[11:38] guarantees, probably stuff to work out
[11:41] mortgages. As you know, it's it's been
[11:43] very difficult to settle some of these
[11:45] mortgages and
[11:47] keep people in the houses where it's
[11:48] possible
[11:49] or deal with the foreclosure where
[11:51] that's not possible. He also talked, I
[11:53] think, about the Fannie Mae and Freddie
[11:56] Mac
[11:57] and the need there to make mortgages
[11:59] more available to to homeowners, which I
[12:02] I support. So, he's looking again to
[12:05] support the measures that he's done to
[12:07] increase liquidity in the economy, to
[12:09] lower interest rates, and make credit
[12:11] more available.
[12:11] >> There there were signs today that the
[12:14] that the credit crunch was easing a bit.
[12:16] So, his notion though is that there's
[12:18] still much more to be done and that
[12:20] government can help do it. Well, it it
[12:23] concerns me a little bit. I don't
[12:24] dispute the notion that something needs
[12:26] to be done on the credit side as it
[12:28] deals with the mortgage borrower him or
[12:30] herself.
[12:31] Uh because Congress has already passed
[12:32] legislation to that end. Uh I worry a
[12:35] little bit about putting Congress back
[12:37] in the driver's seat on this whole
[12:38] mortgage issue. You know, I I have a I
[12:42] have a
[12:43] My narrative is that Congress was in in
[12:45] some respects powerfully responsible for
[12:47] the situation that we find ourselves in.
[12:49] But I think what the chairman was
[12:51] actually saying is this, uh be very
[12:53] prudent in what you do, but make sure
[12:55] you do nothing that tightens credit. But
[12:58] when you act, that the the objective be
[13:00] to ease credit a bit. Ask Fannie Mae to
[13:02] be a little more liberal. Ask
[13:04] when you're dealing with consumer
[13:06] credit,
[13:07] err on the side of looseness at least
[13:09] for a while. But but again, my worry is
[13:12] that they'll err and
[13:15] produce other problems. We have to watch
[13:17] that very closely. I think the members
[13:18] understand that, too. Well, the first
[13:20] stimulus package back in February
[13:23] involved tax rebates. Now, is that a
[13:26] good idea still and and and what other
[13:28] measures would you like to see now?
[13:30] Well, I would like to see tax rebates
[13:32] again and I think you could get them out
[13:34] there quickly and I think that's part of
[13:36] the essence that we have to do this
[13:38] fairly quickly because the economy is
[13:39] deteriorating right now. So, when you
[13:42] say quickly, how what is how quickly?
[13:44] >> Well, I think if they passed it when
[13:46] they come back off the election, if they
[13:47] passed that legislation,
[13:50] the IRS could use the same list that it
[13:53] used for the previous tax rebates and we
[13:54] could probably get them out in time for
[13:56] Christmas or soon after that. So, I
[13:58] think that would that would be very
[14:00] helpful.
[14:01] Now, in in Congress, the members of
[14:03] Congress want to do something a little
[14:05] bit different this time and they're
[14:06] talking about maybe
[14:08] increasing benefits or not the level of
[14:11] benefits, the duration of benefits for
[14:13] unemployment insurance
[14:14] and giving some money to states
[14:17] to spend on infrastructure. Now, the
[14:20] drawback of spending on infrastructure
[14:21] is that it will come too slowly. So,
[14:23] you'll you'll uh spend the money, but it
[14:25] won't it won't actually reach the
[14:27] economy and so we'll have already
[14:28] recovered or else it's, you know, 2010
[14:31] or something. But there is some stuff
[14:32] that's sort of ready to go, some
[14:34] projects that are ready to go. And I
[14:36] think there's some maintenance
[14:37] expenditure that could also be made, um
[14:39] filling in some potholes, improving uh
[14:42] the maintenance of bridges, and that
[14:43] kind of thing. So, I support that. I
[14:45] think we should have that as part of the
[14:47] package. These are the kind of proposals
[14:49] that uh Democrats in Congress put
[14:51] forward. What do you What do you think
[14:53] of them? Well, we're a little skeptical
[14:55] about rebates. We saw the rebates go out
[14:57] the last time and we got about one
[14:59] quarter of a bump up and then the
[15:01] economy went back into its downward
[15:03] downward track. I'm much more interested
[15:06] in doing something that's highly
[15:08] effective and quick.
[15:10] And the the quickest thing is to signal
[15:13] that tax rates on capital will will come
[15:15] down, that investment capital will be
[15:16] more affordable, and that you'll be able
[15:18] to undertake an expansion or any kind of
[15:21] a a move in your business where tax
[15:23] rates are important, especially marginal
[15:24] tax rates. Uh
[15:26] rate rate rate reduction for
[15:28] business expensing, a rate reduction for
[15:31] corporation income taxes. Why is that
[15:34] quick to do? The moment it's announced
[15:36] with conviction by the leadership of
[15:38] Congress, then those people in the
[15:40] business community who make the
[15:41] decisions about expanding and increasing
[15:44] activity will begin to act. You don't
[15:46] even have to wait for Congress to pass
[15:47] the legislation. When they do pass it,
[15:49] of course, it'll be it'll be priced in
[15:51] and action will will take place. That's
[15:53] what we need to do as with Democrats
[15:55] Republicans have always done when
[15:56] they've come together
[15:57] to look at a stimulus package, they've
[15:59] had a very powerful centerpiece in tax
[16:02] policy.
[16:03] What do you think about that as an
[16:04] approach? Well, I think this is an
[16:06] important piece of thing of legislation
[16:08] that has to go through. We have to have
[16:10] a stimulus package in my view and if we
[16:12] need to do this or we do need to do it
[16:15] on a bipartisan basis. So, I'd be
[16:16] willing
[16:17] to support tax cuts on that basis for
[16:20] business. I don't agree with Bill on
[16:22] what the evidence shows in terms of the
[16:24] effectiveness of those tax cuts and you
[16:27] talk about capital gains tax cuts. Well,
[16:29] I think most people have capital losses
[16:30] right now, not not capital gains. So, I
[16:32] don't think that would go quickly
[16:34] into spending, but I know we we disagree
[16:36] a little on the on the evidence there.
[16:38] One one other thing that we've been
[16:39] talking about is a
[16:41] a very maybe even a a zero capital gains
[16:44] tax on new stock issues for financial
[16:47] institutions. It's very targeted. Mhm.
[16:49] The idea would be that if you did that,
[16:52] then banks could go to the equity
[16:53] markets to raise that capital which
[16:55] they're now going to the Treasury to
[16:56] raise and it would be easier for them to
[16:58] do that for private sources.
[16:59] >> about the other things he mentioned and
[17:01] and and the congressional Democrats have
[17:03] mentioned, the extension of unemployment
[17:05] benefits,
[17:06] more Medicaid spending, that that kind
[17:08] of
[17:09] new spending as a way to stimulate the
[17:11] thing?
[17:11] >> Well, when the economy is really slow as
[17:12] it is right now, a lot of people are
[17:14] going to be hurting and more are going
[17:15] to be hurting in the future for the next
[17:16] several months. I don't disagree with
[17:18] what Martin's saying about the near-term
[17:20] economic prospects, but you do those
[17:22] things because people are in need. You
[17:24] don't do them to stimulate the economy.
[17:27] Medicaid expansion will will occur.
[17:29] Food stamps will need to be boosted up
[17:31] and will need probably to have some
[17:33] addition to the unemployment because
[17:35] people are hurting. Now, if you want to
[17:37] stimulate the economy, you don't fill
[17:39] family budgets with with with dollars so
[17:42] that they can pay just the overhead.
[17:43] That doesn't create new jobs or create
[17:45] new factories. You have to do effective
[17:47] things on the capital side.
[17:49] And spending
[17:51] for bridges and for maintenance, again,
[17:53] it it doesn't create jobs. It it maybe
[17:56] fills in some of the holes there to use
[17:58] an analogy of the highway business, but
[18:00] I don't think that those are the things
[18:01] that are well calculated to get the
[18:03] economy moving at a higher level. Do you
[18:04] think that some of those things can have
[18:06] a quick impact?
[18:07] >> think so, yes. And I think it'd be good
[18:09] to get money into the hands of low- and
[18:11] middle-income people. I think they will
[18:13] spend it and there are some projects uh
[18:16] in the at the state level that are being
[18:18] held up because of lack of funding.
[18:20] >> Let me just ask you both quickly before
[18:21] we go here. I mean, all this is
[18:23] happening against the backdrop of rising
[18:25] budget deficits.
[18:27] Do we
[18:28] not worry about that at a moment like
[18:29] this?
[18:30] Now, we do. We're like the drunken
[18:32] sailor that says, "Give me another
[18:33] couple of shots and I'll that'll fix
[18:35] it." This is something that we have to
[18:37] grapple with over the long run is this
[18:39] rising debt and rising deficits, but
[18:42] don't do it right now. We have to
[18:44] >> Don't worry about it right now.
[18:45] >> Well, don't worry too much about it
[18:46] right now. We need to fix this this
[18:48] short-term recession, but then we really
[18:50] do have to get to to work on the
[18:52] long-run deficit problem.
[18:55] That's That's something that Martin and
[18:56] I do agree on and that's the deficit
[18:58] problem is a very big situation that's
[19:00] facing us. Just think of the $700
[19:03] billion rescue as a as a bucket. I know
[19:06] we're not supposed to call it the
[19:07] bailout, but let's suppose that.
[19:09] The bucket of debt that's coming at us
[19:11] over the next 5 6 7 8 10 years from just
[19:14] funding the unfunded liabilities of
[19:16] Social Security and Medicare would be
[19:18] like having adding another 56 buckets to
[19:20] what we're going to have to raise in the
[19:22] debt markets. If we have mounting
[19:23] deficits now, the holders of our bonds
[19:26] are going to be looking at us and
[19:27] saying, "Are you really able to repay
[19:30] that debt?" And we don't want them to
[19:31] have to ask us that question because
[19:33] that means they'll downgrade the debt
[19:35] and that's bad for our economy. All
[19:36] right, William Beach, Martin Bailey.
[19:38] Thank you both very much. Thank you.
[19:39] Thank you.
[19:41] And more can be found at the online
[19:43] NewsHour including a reporter's notebook
[19:45] with Jeff Brown discussing our coverage
[19:47] of the economy. And this week we are
[19:49] partnering with the website NewsTrust to
[19:52] ask viewers to help us find reporting on
[19:55] the financial crisis. To learn more, go
[19:57] to pbs.org and scroll down to NewsHour
[20:00] reports.
[20:04] >> [music]
[20:08] >> The latest developments in the
[20:09] presidential campaign, NewsHour
[20:11] correspondent Kwame Holman reports.
[20:15] I appreciate it and we're going to just
[20:16] keep on working. The weekend campaign
[20:18] headlines belong to Barack Obama.
[20:21] First, his campaign announced early
[20:23] yesterday that it raised $150 million in
[20:26] September, shattering the previous
[20:28] one-month record of $66 million, which
[20:31] Obama set in August. Then, a few hours
[20:33] later, Obama received perhaps the
[20:36] highest profile endorsement left in the
[20:38] campaign, Colin Powell.
[20:41] From NBC News in Washington, this is
[20:44] Meet the Press. The Republican who
[20:46] served as President Bush's Secretary of
[20:48] State made the announcement on NBC's
[20:50] Meet the Press.
[20:52] >> style and substance. He has met the
[20:54] standard
[20:55] of being a successful president, being
[20:57] an exceptional president. I think he is
[21:00] a transformational figure. He is a new
[21:02] generation coming into the world onto
[21:05] the world stage, onto the American
[21:06] stage, and for that reason, I'll be
[21:08] voting for Senator Barack Obama. Powell
[21:11] said he admired John McCain but
[21:13] expressed concerns about the
[21:14] Republicans' approach to the economic
[21:16] crisis, the selection of Sarah Palin as
[21:19] a running mate, and the party's
[21:21] rightward shift in recent years. Powell
[21:23] also lamented attempts by some
[21:25] Republicans to raise doubts about
[21:27] Obama's religious faith.
[21:30] I'm also troubled by not what Senator
[21:32] McCain says, but what members of the
[21:34] party say, and it is permitted to be
[21:36] said such things as, "Well, you know
[21:39] that Mr. Obama is a Muslim."
[21:41] Well, the correct answer is he's not a
[21:43] Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always
[21:44] been a Christian. But, the really right
[21:46] answer is, "What if he is?"
[21:49] Is there something wrong with being a
[21:50] Muslim in this country? The answer is
[21:51] no, that's not America. Is there
[21:53] something wrong with some 7-year-old
[21:55] Muslim American kid
[21:57] believing that he or she could be
[21:58] president? Yet, I have heard senior
[22:00] members of my own party
[22:02] drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he
[22:04] might be associated with terrorists.
[22:06] This is not the way we should be doing
[22:07] it in America.
[22:10] Obama reacted to Powell's endorsement at
[22:13] a rally yesterday in Fayetteville, North
[22:15] Carolina, near Fort Bragg. This is a
[22:17] city and a state that knows something
[22:19] about great soldiers.
[22:22] And this morning, a great soldier,
[22:25] a great statesman,
[22:27] a great American,
[22:28] has endorsed our campaign for change.
[22:41] I have been honored to have the benefit
[22:43] of his wisdom and his counsel
[22:46] from time to time over the last few
[22:48] years.
[22:49] Uh but today, I'm beyond honored.
[22:51] I am deeply humbled to have the support
[22:54] of General Colin Powell.
[22:58] McCain talked about Powell's decision to
[23:00] support his opponent during an
[23:02] appearance on Fox News Sunday.
[23:03] >> Well, I've always admired and respected
[23:05] General Powell. We're long-time friends.
[23:08] This doesn't come as a surprise, but I'm
[23:11] also very pleased to have the
[23:12] endorsement of four former Secretaries
[23:14] of State,
[23:16] Secretaries Kissinger, Baker,
[23:18] Eagleburger, and Haig, and I'm proud to
[23:20] have the endorsement of well over 200
[23:22] retired Army generals and admirals.
[23:25] Today in St. Charles, Missouri, McCain
[23:27] once again hammered at Obama's tax plan
[23:30] using the example of Joe the Plumber, an
[23:33] Ohio man who confronted Obama on the
[23:35] issue during a recent campaign stop.
[23:37] After months of campaign trail
[23:40] eloquence, and you certainly saw the
[23:42] eloquence,
[23:43] but the fact is we finally learned what
[23:45] Senator Obama's economic goal is. As he
[23:48] told Joe, he wants to
[23:50] spread the wealth around.
[23:56] He believes in redistributing wealth,
[23:58] not in policies that grow our economy
[24:01] and create jobs and opportunities for
[24:03] all Americans. Senator Obama is more
[24:06] interested in controlling who gets your
[24:09] piece of the pie than in growing the
[24:11] pie.
[24:13] Obama responded at a rally in Tampa,
[24:16] Florida, this afternoon. It is true
[24:19] that I want to roll back
[24:21] the Bush tax cuts
[24:23] on the very wealthiest Americans
[24:25] and go back to the rate that they paid
[24:27] under Bill Clinton.
[24:29] >> [cheering]
[24:35] >> John McCain
[24:37] called that socialist.
[24:41] What he forgets,
[24:43] conveniently, is that just a few years
[24:46] ago,
[24:47] he himself said those Bush tax
[24:50] were irresponsible.
[24:52] He said he couldn't, in good conscience,
[24:55] support a tax cut where the benefits
[24:57] went to the wealthy at the expense of
[24:59] middle-class Americans who most need tax
[25:02] relief. That's his quote.
[25:06] Well,
[25:07] he was right then.
[25:10] And I am right now.
[25:13] Obama will spend a second day in Florida
[25:16] tomorrow
[25:17] while McCain turns his attention to
[25:19] another battleground state,
[25:21] Pennsylvania.
[25:23] Gwen Ifill takes it from there.
[25:25] Now, for more on the latest campaign
[25:27] news and to tell us how they see the
[25:29] electoral map 2 weeks before election
[25:31] day, we're joined by Stuart Rothenberg,
[25:34] editor and publisher of the Rothenberg
[25:35] Political Report, and Amy Walter,
[25:38] editor-in-chief of The Hotline, National
[25:40] Journal's political daily. The big news
[25:42] of the weekend, Amy, was the Colin
[25:44] Powell Powell endorsement yesterday on
[25:45] Meet the Press. We know that
[25:47] endorsements have limited, sometimes,
[25:49] effects. But, this is Colin Powell,
[25:50] after all. How how big a deal? Well, it
[25:53] certainly is a big deal and one that
[25:54] both of them wanted to get, certainly.
[25:56] But, I think the point we're at in this
[25:57] campaign, it's more like the cherry on
[26:00] top of the sundae in that I think that
[26:02] for voters, the number of voters that
[26:04] Barack Obama needed to get uh to believe
[26:07] that he was up to the job, right? He
[26:08] passed the threshold for that number of
[26:10] voters already.
[26:12] Getting the Colin Powell endorsement
[26:13] didn't bring them there, but it may help
[26:15] secure them there. Did it hurt McCain
[26:17] more than it helped Obama?
[26:19] Well, I think the McCain folks would
[26:20] have loved to have that endorsement,
[26:22] would have helped turn things around,
[26:23] some momentum. But, I generally agree
[26:25] with with Amy. I I I think this
[26:27] endorsement would have been a bigger
[26:28] deal in September when McCain had the
[26:31] momentum, when the Democrats were
[26:32] looking to turn it around. Now, it's
[26:34] kind of the PS, the postscript on a
[26:36] letter that's already written. Hasn't
[26:38] just
[26:40] put an end to the discussion about
[26:41] whether Barack Obama passes muster on
[26:43] experience or passes muster on on
[26:46] comfort level questions, I guess. Well,
[26:48] I think it would have been a bigger deal
[26:49] if if we were talking about national
[26:51] security in these last 2 weeks of the
[26:53] election than talking about the economy.
[26:54] And so, I think for a lot of voters, the
[26:56] issue of experience and competence is
[27:00] still focused on the economy rather than
[27:01] foreign policy. One-two punch this
[27:03] weekend. The other big punch was the
[27:05] $150 million September fundraising
[27:07] numbers from Barack Obama. Now, let's
[27:10] break that down a little bit. What does
[27:11] that really mean other than that those
[27:13] big round numbers? If it gets spent a
[27:14] certain way, which changes the face of
[27:16] this election?
[27:17] Well, I think it means
[27:19] that the Obama campaign can spend in
[27:22] many, many states,
[27:24] decide where to target the money, but
[27:26] have so much money they don't have to
[27:27] make choices. They don't They can spend
[27:30] in the toss-ups, they can spend in the
[27:31] states that are leaning Republican. I
[27:33] mean, I think it's a it's a huge factor.
[27:35] We always thought that
[27:37] Senator Obama would have a significant
[27:38] advantage, but many people said, "Well,
[27:40] the Republican National Committee has
[27:41] tens of millions of dollars. That will
[27:43] come in, it will kind of offset his
[27:44] advantage." But, with this much
[27:46] fundraise in 1 month, uh the McCain
[27:49] people are are not only not matching
[27:51] Obama in ads, they're not matching in
[27:53] states. I read somewhere this weekend
[27:55] that there are If you spend the weekend
[27:56] in West Virginia, of all places, that
[27:58] there are a lot of Obama ads on the air
[28:00] there. Is that an example of what Stu is
[28:02] talking about?
[28:03] >> Exactly. I mean, you can afford to play
[28:04] anywhere you want. The map is just wide
[28:06] open to you. Most At this point in the
[28:08] campaign, most candidates are trying to
[28:10] figure out how they're going to get
[28:11] through the next couple weeks. He's
[28:12] trying to figure out how to spend all
[28:13] that money. And then, it becomes a law
[28:15] of diminishing returns at some point. I
[28:16] mean, there are just so many ads you can
[28:18] buy, even if with that much money. A
[28:20] month ago, none of us would have said
[28:21] that the Obama campaign would be paying
[28:23] would be running ads in West Virginia. I
[28:25] think that's noteworthy. Well, let's
[28:26] talk about the state of the race. When
[28:28] we look at the the toss-ups, the
[28:29] battlegrounds, the leanings, all your
[28:31] the words you guys use to describe the
[28:33] state of this map, what does it tell us
[28:36] about the the trends, not the outcome so
[28:38] much, but where are we trending? But,
[28:40] it's just trending toward Obama. I mean,
[28:42] states where we would say, "Okay, these
[28:44] are states that maybe John McCain can
[28:46] put into play." Remember, he was going
[28:47] to go on the offensive, Wisconsin,
[28:49] Michigan, Pennsylvania. Those are really
[28:51] getting taken off the table. For states
[28:53] that were looking like they may be
[28:55] leaning a little bit toward McCain,
[28:57] traditionally red states, North
[28:59] Carolina, we talked a little bit about
[29:00] West Virginia. Virginia now looking It's
[29:03] not solidly in the Obama camp, but
[29:05] looking better for Obama than ever.
[29:07] Colorado, all these red states now are
[29:10] places where Obama is looking to have at
[29:13] least a slight advantage, and there's
[29:14] not one blue state where you see McCain
[29:17] having an advantage. So, where is McCain
[29:19] now devoting his attention? Well, just
[29:21] like Obama, he's he's playing defense,
[29:24] or he's trying to hold states that
[29:26] George Bush won twice. So, he's he's
[29:28] he's focused on North Carolina and
[29:30] Missouri and Indiana, Florida. I think
[29:33] he may have to focus on Montana and
[29:35] North Dakota, shockingly.
[29:36] >> North Dakota and North Carolina.
[29:39] The polls suggest that those places are
[29:41] close. So, yeah, Amy's exactly right.
[29:43] Places like Colorado and Virginia that
[29:45] we thought were kind of on the cusp of
[29:47] this election now have moved into
[29:49] Obama's column.
[29:50] >> Is there any evidence that any of those
[29:52] the tactics, the strategy that we've
[29:54] seen in the last few weeks, particularly
[29:57] talking about the William Ayers
[29:58] connections and that sort of thing has
[30:00] slowed any of this momentum? No. I mean
[30:02] I think we're going to start to see the
[30:03] national polls tighten simply because
[30:05] folks are now starting to come home, so
[30:07] to speak. So we're starting to see that
[30:09] where McCain has been underperforming
[30:11] with some traditional groups like white
[30:12] men. I think he's going to start to pick
[30:14] up among that. So to see a 10-point
[30:16] advantage going into the election, I
[30:17] don't think we're going to see anything
[30:18] like that. Probably be four or five
[30:19] points. But if you were looking at some
[30:21] of these specific states where you do
[30:22] have a large concentration of Hispanic,
[30:24] where you have new voters, where you
[30:25] have African-American voters, those gaps
[30:28] aren't going to get any more smaller.
[30:29] >> Yeah, the McCain folks would say that
[30:31] there is some movement. They are talking
[30:32] about the national polls closing
[30:34] closing.
[30:35] I don't see anything dramatic and I I
[30:37] still think McCain has got a a lot to do
[30:39] to turn the race around. So we're
[30:41] watching this race on several different
[30:42] levels. Let's go down ballot to some of
[30:44] the key Senate races. Particularly one
[30:46] by one, let's go through a couple of the
[30:48] big ones. In Kentucky, where Mitch
[30:50] McConnell was Senate Minority Leader, is
[30:52] defending his seat. He's not He's having
[30:54] a tougher road to hoe than you'd have
[30:56] thought.
[30:56] >> Well, it's a bad year to be a Republican
[30:58] anywhere, even for a candidate like
[31:00] Mitch McConnell who's known as a tough
[31:01] campaigner. He has gone up and and
[31:03] fought in tough races before. So he's
[31:05] really battling the environment more
[31:07] than anything else. Um and Democrats
[31:10] likely to be taking it
[31:10] >> on in the Senate? He's running against
[31:12] Bruce Lunsford who has run for office
[31:14] before. He's a business executive. Um
[31:17] this is um one of the situations too
[31:19] where this is a a place where Democrats
[31:21] would love to see a win for the
[31:23] psychological advantage to take a leader
[31:25] down on the Republican side in the same
[31:27] way that Republicans took out Tom
[31:30] Daschle, the Democratic leader a few
[31:32] years ago. In Georgia, another big state
[31:34] everybody's watching. That wasn't
[31:36] supposed to be competitive either. No,
[31:37] at least with the McConnell race, we we
[31:39] figured that Mitch McConnell was going
[31:41] to draw a tough Democratic opponent. We
[31:43] knew he had somebody who could raise and
[31:44] spend money. In Georgia, the Democrats
[31:46] had a primary with a bunch of what most
[31:48] people say is second-tier candidates.
[31:50] They nominated a former state rep named
[31:52] Jim Martin who had really no money, no
[31:55] statewide name ID in a Republican state.
[31:58] This is the best example to me to me of
[32:00] the Democratic wave that's crashing even
[32:02] more strongly down ballot than at the
[32:04] presidential level.
[32:06] Saxby Chambliss, just because he's an
[32:08] incumbent in a state with a significant
[32:10] African-American population and
[32:12] a substantial number of white voters who
[32:15] will vote and have voted Democratic in
[32:17] the past, suddenly Saxby Chambliss is in
[32:19] major major trouble against the
[32:21] candidate nobody knows.
[32:22] >> So even if the presidential Democrat
[32:24] does not win, this can still turn on at
[32:27] the Senate level. Absolutely.
[32:29] Absolutely. That's why you're hearing
[32:30] about Obama going into some of these
[32:32] states. If he goes into Kentucky, if he
[32:33] goes into Georgia, it may not ultimately
[32:35] put him over the top, but it could be
[32:37] enough to help the candidates down
[32:38] ballot. Minnesota, we've been here
[32:40] before with this third-party issue. We
[32:42] now see that the what we had thought was
[32:44] a nice simple race between incumbent
[32:46] Norm Coleman and the comedian Al
[32:47] Franken, the Democrat, is now turned
[32:50] into something more. We do have the
[32:52] third-party candidate Dean Barkley who
[32:53] did serve in the Senate for a very short
[32:55] period of time uh replacing the the late
[32:58] Paul Wellstone.
[32:59] Um but he's getting about 18% of the
[33:01] ballot. I don't think we're going to see
[33:03] Dean Barkley pulling a Jesse Ventura
[33:04] here and winning the race. But what But
[33:06] what we are seeing
[33:07] >> a Ross Perot is what you're Yeah, and is
[33:09] he pulling This is really the
[33:11] fascinating thing for me, which was
[33:12] you'd think a third-party candidate uh
[33:14] who's running against the incumbent with
[33:16] Al Franken running against the
[33:17] incumbent, any anti-incumbent vote would
[33:20] go then and split between the two of
[33:22] them. But what seems to be happening is
[33:24] that's not enough to help Norm Coleman,
[33:26] but Norm Coleman is being weighed down
[33:28] by everything that's going on in this
[33:30] political environment and he's even
[33:32] losing more vote share
[33:35] uh between two candidates. He's still
[33:37] It's still not enough for him to win
[33:38] with a plurality. There were There was a
[33:40] time when Republicans laughed this race
[33:42] and said there's no way that Al Franken
[33:44] could get get 50% of the vote. Just no
[33:46] way. Well, now he doesn't have to with
[33:48] Dean Barkley getting anywhere from 15 to
[33:50] 18%. The winner in this race could end
[33:52] up with 40, 42, 45% of the vote and I
[33:55] don't think anybody doubts that Al
[33:56] Franken could get there. And all of a
[33:58] sudden there are these other
[33:59] tipping-point states, Mississippi and
[34:02] and Maine and Oregon, where the
[34:04] Republican incumbent is running ads
[34:06] linking himself to Ted Kennedy and
[34:08] Barack Obama. Yeah, Gordon Smith in
[34:10] Oregon has been I don't know if there's
[34:11] a Democrat he hasn't linked himself to
[34:13] yet. I mean he has been trying as much
[34:15] as possible to show himself to be this
[34:17] moderate
[34:19] uh bipartisan kind of senator. Again, in
[34:21] a year like this, I mean I think Oregon
[34:23] we've we've agreed from the very
[34:24] beginning this was one of those
[34:25] bellwether districts where states where
[34:26] it's not about the Democratic candidate
[34:29] as much as it is about the environment.
[34:31] And none You see this in Senate race
[34:33] after Senate race where these incumbents
[34:36] are throwing basically anything that
[34:37] they can in case something's going to
[34:39] stick. And we've seen it in the Coleman
[34:41] race, we've seen it in Oregon
[34:44] uh and it's you know, not really taking
[34:46] off. Well, that's what it's not about
[34:47] who's going to win, who's going to
[34:48] control the Senate after November. We
[34:51] know the answer to that question. The
[34:52] question now is whether the Democrats
[34:54] are going to win only six Senate seats
[34:56] to get up to 57 or whether they could
[34:58] win nine or 10. And the problem for
[35:00] Republicans is this environment looks
[35:02] very much like
[35:04] two years ago when the Republicans
[35:06] suffered significant losses. The
[35:07] environment's actually worse, the
[35:09] president's less popular, people want
[35:11] more change.
[35:12] Uh for Republicans, the the the the
[35:15] worst-case scenario is like last time,
[35:18] all the close races go to the Democrats.
[35:20] That's what happens in a wave and that's
[35:21] what Republicans are swimming against.
[35:23] And next time we'll talk about the House
[35:25] races. How's that? Yeah, you Amy. Thank
[35:27] you both very much. Thank you.
[35:38] And to our interview with Libertarian
[35:40] Party presidential nominee Bob Barr. He
[35:43] served as a Republican congressman from
[35:45] Georgia from 1995 to 2003.
[35:49] He joined the Libertarian Party in 2006.
[35:52] Congressman Barr, good to see you. Thank
[35:54] you for being with us. Judy, thank you
[35:55] for having me. Remind us first of all,
[35:57] what's the philosophy of the Libertarian
[35:59] Party? It's very mainstream. Maximize
[36:02] individual liberty, minimize government
[36:04] power.
[36:05] And why do you want to be president?
[36:08] Because neither of the other two
[36:09] candidates or none of the other
[36:11] third-party candidates really are and
[36:14] would move us in that direction. Both
[36:16] Senator McCain and Senator Obama, very
[36:19] clearly as we've seen from this latest
[36:21] bailout nonsense, want to move us
[36:24] dramatically down the road of more
[36:26] government spending, more government
[36:28] power. And that necessarily means less
[36:30] decision-making for the individuals,
[36:32] parents, small businesses and their
[36:34] communities. We've watched the federal
[36:36] government, as you're suggest as you're
[36:38] reminding us, take this unprecedented
[36:40] series of steps over the last few weeks
[36:43] to help out these financial
[36:45] institutions,
[36:46] Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. What would you
[36:48] do differently? First of all, bailout
[36:51] would not be a word that we would be
[36:53] mentioned positively in a in a Barr
[36:55] administration. The first person, Judy,
[36:57] that I would have called into my office
[36:59] would have been somebody we haven't
[37:00] heard from at all, and that is the
[37:01] Attorney General.
[37:03] And as president, I would ask the
[37:04] Attorney General, "Where in heck have
[37:06] you been? We have massive fraud being
[37:08] perpetrated here among financial
[37:10] institutions, investment houses, Fannie
[37:13] Mae and Freddie Mac very likely. Why
[37:15] haven't there been any prosecutions that
[37:17] would reassure the markets, reassure the
[37:20] American people that their investments,
[37:22] their hard-earned dollars are in fact
[37:24] being protected?" The second thing in a
[37:26] Barr administration, we would not see
[37:28] the government competing with private
[37:30] industry and private investment houses.
[37:33] Barely had that process of private
[37:36] investment houses and investors started
[37:38] coming into the marketplace and buying
[37:40] up some of these troubled assets, such
[37:43] as Wells Fargo coming in and buying up
[37:45] Wachovia, then the federal government
[37:47] came in and put a stop to all of that by
[37:49] competing with uh private industry. So
[37:53] what are you saying? Are you saying the
[37:54] federal government should have stayed
[37:55] completely out of this process? What the
[37:57] federal government should be doing is
[38:00] enforcing the laws and the regulations
[38:02] that are already on the books to assure
[38:05] the American people, to assure the
[38:06] marketplace, to assure the credit houses
[38:09] that the government will stand behind
[38:12] its efforts to assure transparency and
[38:14] integrity in these processes. So how
[38:17] would that have helped
[38:18] uh in the these banks that are some of
[38:20] whom we're told are in very weak
[38:23] condition? The federal government has
[38:25] just put money injected money into them
[38:27] last week. What What would that have
[38:28] done? Would you Or would you have just
[38:29] let these institutions fail? Well,
[38:33] there are a number of things that could
[38:34] have happened, that should have
[38:35] happened, that didn't happen because of
[38:37] the government intervention. There
[38:39] certainly are, as in the case for
[38:41] example of Washington Mutual,
[38:42] institutions that needed to go into
[38:45] receivership. Perhaps some of them
[38:46] should go into bankruptcy. That doesn't
[38:49] mean that all of those assets disappear.
[38:51] It simply means that there's a
[38:52] reorganization
[38:54] and their assets and their debts
[38:56] certainly would be bought up by other
[38:58] institutions and see an opportunity like
[39:00] Wells Fargo, like Warren Buffett did.
[39:03] But there were institutions that took a
[39:05] look at the financial institutions and
[39:07] in many cases, we were told they weren't
[39:09] going to do anything. That either the
[39:10] federal government stepped in or these
[39:13] institutions were going to fail.
[39:15] Part of Part of the problem is with all
[39:16] of the government folks running around
[39:18] saying the sky is falling, the sky is
[39:20] falling and the only way outside only
[39:22] way out out of this crisis is this
[39:24] massive government bailout, that caused
[39:27] everybody else to back away. Credit
[39:29] markets froze simply because the
[39:32] government said, "We are going to come
[39:34] in and bail you out." So those private
[39:36] institutions that could have started
[39:38] freeing up credit backed away and didn't
[39:41] move in.
[39:42] To be honest you, I think what the
[39:43] American people are going to see down
[39:45] the road is significant inflationary
[39:48] pressure as a result of all this
[39:49] government printed, you know, this new
[39:51] money that the government is putting in.
[39:53] And they're always they're going to be
[39:55] squeezed because housing prices, because
[39:57] of the government buying up these
[39:59] mortgages, are going to remain
[40:00] depressed. I think the American people
[40:02] are going to start realizing that a
[40:04] heavy price is going to be had to be
[40:06] paid because of this government
[40:07] intervention.
[40:08] >> you have done about the housing market
[40:09] and all these uh mortgages?
[40:12] Uh here again,
[40:14] uh part of it uh would have been handled
[40:16] by the federal government doing what
[40:17] it's supposed to do, and that is to be
[40:20] prosecuting fraud. Fannie Mae and
[40:23] Freddie Mac, although there might have
[40:24] >> asking in the immediate term, you know,
[40:27] when
[40:28] with when we were looking at a crisis
[40:30] and something had to be done
[40:31] immediately. Well, a lot of this is a
[40:33] government definition of a crisis. Uh
[40:36] the government defines the situation as
[40:37] a crisis and then it comes in and says,
[40:39] "We're the only way that you can solve
[40:41] it."
[40:42] Uh if in fact there was, and there may
[40:44] have been a case that could be made for
[40:46] an immediate
[40:47] uh uh
[40:48] loan, for example, to Fannie Mae and
[40:50] Freddie Mac, it should have been coupled
[40:52] with a long-term solution. That is
[40:54] privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
[40:57] All of these short-term steps without
[40:59] any long-term resolution is simply
[41:01] putting off, saving off for a later
[41:04] date, the real problem, which is way too
[41:06] much government spending. Let's talk
[41:09] about a few other things uh from a
[41:10] libertarian standpoint that you'd like
[41:12] to see done. You've talked about which
[41:14] departments of the government you would
[41:16] like to see done away with. What are
[41:18] a couple of those or more? Well, we'd
[41:20] have to do first, again, is get a handle
[41:22] on federal spending. Then if you look,
[41:24] for example, at the array of government
[41:26] agencies, departments, and offices,
[41:29] there are some that just cry out uh
[41:32] uh for the government to start backing
[41:33] away.
[41:34] The departments like the Department of
[41:36] Education, which has failed since its
[41:38] inception, Judy, to
[41:40] uh have uh fulfilled its mandate of
[41:42] improving government uh improving
[41:44] educational standards. The Department of
[41:47] Energy, which has not not only failed to
[41:50] meet its mandate of reducing uh our
[41:52] dependence on foreign oil, but has
[41:54] presided over 30-year increase. These
[41:57] are departments that somebody ought to
[41:59] be asking, and Senators McCain and Obama
[42:01] are not, "Why do we keep spending tens
[42:04] of billions of dollars on these agencies
[42:06] that year after year after year fail to
[42:08] do what they're supposed to do?" Let me
[42:10] turn your attention abroad for a moment.
[42:12] What about the growing crisis in
[42:14] Afghanistan? This is a country that both
[42:16] Senator Obama and Senator McCain have
[42:19] said the US needs to send more troops uh
[42:22] to to to beef up the US presence there.
[42:26] We in the Libertarian Party believe in
[42:27] quality, not quantity.
[42:29] Uh you can ferret out the terrorists if
[42:31] we're serious about ferreting out the
[42:33] terrorists, whether they're in
[42:34] Afghanistan or those uh mountainous
[42:36] regions uh of Pakistan that border
[42:39] Afghanistan, without sending tens of
[42:41] thousands more US troops in. Primarily,
[42:44] those troops are going to be used uh for
[42:47] the same purpose that they were in Iraq,
[42:49] and that is to prop up a civilian
[42:50] government uh in Afghanistan. That's not
[42:53] what our troops should be used for. Our
[42:55] troops should be used based on good
[42:56] intelligence to go after the terrorists
[42:59] that did us harm or are about to do us
[43:01] harm. What's the goal in Afghanistan?
[43:03] The goal in Afghanistan is to find the
[43:05] terrorists and take them out. And the
[43:07] goal in Iraq, and how much longer would
[43:09] you keep troops there? Uh there's no
[43:11] need for a significant number of US
[43:12] troops. Uh uh Saddam Hussein is gone.
[43:15] That was the purpose for us going into
[43:17] Iraq in the first place back in 2003.
[43:20] If the Iraqi government cannot, from
[43:22] this point forward, after
[43:24] hundreds of thousands of US troops being
[43:26] over there,
[43:27] hundreds of billions of US dollars,
[43:30] 4,500 US lives, stand on its own, then
[43:33] something is dramatically wrong with why
[43:35] we're over there in the first place. And
[43:37] wouldn't Senator McCain call that
[43:38] leaving uh
[43:40] while losing? Wouldn't he say that the
[43:42] US should stay until there's been a
[43:44] victory? Well, according to Senator
[43:46] McCain, uh there has been.
[43:48] Uh the Iraqi government has basically uh
[43:51] solved a lot of its own problems. The
[43:52] so-called surge has worked. If we can't
[43:55] leave uh after the surge works, and we
[43:57] couldn't leave before because the surge
[43:59] hadn't been tried yet, then we're left
[44:02] with the question with Senator McCain,
[44:03] when in heaven's name could we leave
[44:05] then? If we couldn't leave when things
[44:06] were going badly, we can't leave now
[44:08] that things have gone accordingly, uh
[44:10] according to him.
[44:12] One presumes that he was serious when he
[44:14] said we ought to stay over there for 100
[44:15] years. What do you think the main
[44:17] international problem facing this
[44:20] country is? The main international
[44:21] problem facing America is our lack of
[44:24] our loss of influence in the world, and
[44:27] our lack of an ability to define what US
[44:30] interests really are.
[44:31] We're floundering around over in Europe
[44:33] saying, "Well, we need to expand NATO,
[44:35] but we don't know what the uh real
[44:37] mission of NATO is. We need to to oppose
[44:40] uh Russia, but we don't really know how
[44:42] to do that. Uh we have problems in our
[44:44] own hemisphere. We don't know what we're
[44:46] doing down there. We we lack vision and
[44:49] leadership, Judy, and that's what we've
[44:51] had in years past, but we don't with
[44:52] this administration, and it's
[44:54] dramatically reducing our ability
[44:57] to project our interests and to protect
[44:59] our interests abroad.
[45:01] Bring it back home. Two weeks ago, so
[45:04] much focus, as we've just been hearing
[45:05] in the rest of the program, on the two
[45:07] major party candidates, Barack Obama and
[45:09] John McCain. What's Bob Barr's goal over
[45:12] the next 2 weeks? What do you want to
[45:13] accomplish? Our goal over the next 2
[45:15] weeks is to acquaint as many American
[45:18] voters as we can with the fact that
[45:19] there is a real choice out there, that
[45:21] they do not need to feel themselves
[45:23] bound, as they have cycle after cycle,
[45:26] to vote for the lesser of two evils, to
[45:28] vote for a big government or really big
[45:30] government. Uh the Libertarian Party is
[45:33] a very mainstream party. It's a
[45:34] mainstream philosophy is of returning
[45:37] power from Washington to parents, to
[45:39] schools, to businesses in their
[45:41] communities. We want to acquaint as many
[45:43] Americans with that philosophy. Do you
[45:45] believe you can win?
[45:47] Winning is is very difficult given the
[45:49] the degree to which the deck is stacked
[45:51] against us by the two major parties. But
[45:54] we hope to accomplish uh in essence,
[45:56] perhaps, Judy, what uh Ross Perot did uh
[45:58] 16 years ago, to have a major impact,
[46:01] positive impact, on public policy. Bob
[46:04] Barr, candidate of the Libertarian
[46:05] Party, thank you very much. My pleasure.
[46:07] Appreciate it.
[46:17] Finally tonight, part one of a new
[46:19] series called Blueprint America,
[46:21] produced in collaboration with WNET in
[46:24] New York. As the country grapples with
[46:27] the latest financial crisis, it also
[46:29] confronts some critical choices. What to
[46:31] do about our aging infrastructure? Ray
[46:34] Suarez starts us off with a look at
[46:36] crumbling roads and bridges.
[46:40] It was just a little over a year ago
[46:43] that a bridge carrying Interstate 35
[46:45] over the Mississippi in Minneapolis,
[46:47] Minnesota, came crashing down during the
[46:50] evening rush hour, killing 13 people and
[46:53] injuring over 140 others.
[46:56] The bridge recently reopened, but the
[46:58] disaster in Minnesota woke the nation up
[47:01] to a disturbing fact.
[47:03] Structurally deficient bridges and
[47:05] overpasses exist in every state.
[47:07] According to the Federal Highway
[47:09] Administration, more than 72,000 bridges
[47:12] across the country are in some sort of
[47:14] trouble.
[47:15] This summer, I went to Pennsylvania,
[47:17] which holds the dubious distinction of
[47:19] having more structurally deficient
[47:21] bridges than any other state.
[47:25] This is a raised section of Interstate
[47:27] 95, right outside Philadelphia. On
[47:30] average, 180,000 trucks and cars pass
[47:33] over this 8-mile stretch each day.
[47:38] And it's a safe bet most of those
[47:41] drivers have no idea what's going on
[47:43] right beneath their wheels. On this day,
[47:45] an inspector is monitoring a key part of
[47:48] the structure. He's face-to-face with
[47:50] areas of cracked concrete, rusting
[47:52] steel, and holes in girders you could
[47:55] put your fist through.
[47:57] Engineer Charles Davis, from the
[47:59] Pennsylvania Department of
[48:00] Transportation, PennDOT, reviews most
[48:03] major bridge repairs in the area. And
[48:05] it's pretty the uh the uh
[48:08] drainage system
[48:10] that is almost completely nonfunctional
[48:12] now.
[48:13] But when you're here in a uh
[48:16] during a thunderstorm, it can really be
[48:17] a dramatic one, with like Niagara Falls
[48:19] coming off these off these piers.
[48:25] Last March, a state inspector, passing
[48:28] by here after a lunch break, noticed
[48:30] potentially disastrous cracks in a
[48:32] previously examined column.
[48:34] No one could say exactly when the pillar
[48:36] and the portion of I-95 it was
[48:38] supporting would have collapsed,
[48:40] but there was talk of weeks, not years.
[48:43] The system would not have been
[48:45] functional without this column.
[48:47] And
[48:49] it could have led to a catastrophic
[48:51] failure.
[48:52] Emergency repairs on the damaged column
[48:54] shut this busy section of highway down
[48:57] for 2 and 1/2 days and created a traffic
[49:00] nightmare on this major East Coast
[49:02] artery.
[49:03] The close call is what has inspectors
[49:05] busy 7 months later.
[49:08] It told us
[49:09] uh how difficult it sometimes is to
[49:12] predict the behavior of components that
[49:15] are seriously deteriorated.
[49:17] Uh it was a location that we had
[49:19] identified for repair. We thought we had
[49:21] more time than ultimately it turned out
[49:24] to be. So,
[49:25] uh these are difficult to predict,
[49:27] particularly when they reach the end of
[49:29] their service life, and when conditions
[49:31] uh get uh severely deteriorated. It's a
[49:34] challenge faced in most states as
[49:36] officials try to puzzle out which aging
[49:38] bridges need attention first. PennDOT
[49:41] has plans to rebuild this raised portion
[49:44] of I-95, but replacing just this 8-mile
[49:47] section will cost an estimated $2
[49:49] billion. The price tag for repairing all
[49:52] of Pennsylvania's bridges is an
[49:54] estimated $14 billion,
[49:56] and nobody can say for sure where that
[49:58] money would come from, including the
[50:00] state's governor, Ed Rendell. Rendell is
[50:03] prominent among the state officials
[50:04] pressing the federal government for
[50:06] help. States and local governments in
[50:08] this country pay 75% of the cost of
[50:11] maintaining our infrastructure. That's
[50:13] unlike almost any other developed
[50:14] nation, where the federal government
[50:16] pays the lion's share of the cost.
[50:18] Unless the federal government's willing
[50:20] to step up and develop a real
[50:21] infrastructure repair program, we're
[50:24] never going to be able to do the two
[50:25] things we need to do. One, maintain what
[50:28] we have, and two, build new things.
[50:31] Governor Ed Rendell took to the road
[50:33] last summer crossing his state in an
[50:35] effort to highlight, among other things,
[50:38] the region's crumbling transportation
[50:40] system and what he's trying to do about
[50:41] it. Rising repair bills coincide with
[50:45] severe strains on the nation's highway
[50:47] trust fund.
[50:48] Congress recently injected $8 billion
[50:50] into that fund, but most state
[50:53] officials, Rendell among them, see that
[50:55] as a short-term fix, not a long-term
[50:57] solution. We lead the nation in bridges
[51:00] 75 years or older.
[51:02] >> Rendell co-chairs a non-partisan
[51:03] coalition of elected officials called
[51:06] Building America's Future, along with
[51:08] California Governor Arnold
[51:09] Schwarzenegger and New York Mayor
[51:11] Michael Bloomberg. He's leading an
[51:13] effort to make the funding of
[51:15] infrastructure a top national priority.
[51:17] Rendell and his coalition allies argue
[51:20] that incidents like the Minneapolis
[51:22] bridge disaster are symptomatic of a
[51:24] system that's been allowed to
[51:25] deteriorate for too long.
[51:28] In the first half of the last century,
[51:30] Americans went on an infrastructure
[51:32] building spree, and we've made good use
[51:34] of the things that were built, but we've
[51:36] been reluctant to pay to replace and
[51:39] repair thousands of miles of bridges,
[51:41] tunnels, roads,
[51:43] instead choosing to cross our fingers
[51:46] and rely on the good work of our
[51:47] parents, grandparents, even
[51:50] great-grandparents.
[51:51] But by that delay, we're just making
[51:53] sure that the eventual bill is even
[51:56] bigger. Do we want to be a third-rate
[51:58] nation, or do we still want to be, you
[52:00] know, the greatest country in the world
[52:02] when it comes to economy and and moving
[52:04] around? I mean, the American
[52:06] infrastructure or transportation system
[52:09] was the envy of the world for decades
[52:11] and decades. Now, it's laughable. What
[52:14] was laughable when we spoke to the
[52:16] governor during the summer before the
[52:18] global financial meltdown may have
[52:20] become the new normal in America
[52:22] burdened in deficit-prone local budgets
[52:25] and a federal government hemmed in by
[52:27] the need to borrow new trillions to save
[52:29] the markets and the banks. Fixing roads,
[52:32] bridges, and rails may have to take a
[52:34] number and get in a long line of
[52:36] priorities in search of funding. But
[52:38] that's what makes this challenge so
[52:40] daunting. People who've been struggling
[52:42] to patch holes in the system say the
[52:44] need to spend can't wait for the ability
[52:47] to spend to catch up. That's the figure,
[52:49] I believe, is that we have had Tim
[52:51] Carson is a member of the Pennsylvania
[52:53] Turnpike Commission. The Interstate
[52:54] system is looking at the end of its
[52:57] useful life
[52:59] with literally trillions of dollars
[53:02] required to reconstruct that system.
[53:05] Carson opposed and Governor Rendell
[53:07] supported an offer from a European
[53:09] consortium to collect the tolls and take
[53:11] over maintenance and management of the
[53:13] turnpike in return for $13 billion for
[53:16] the state. The offer's been withdrawn,
[53:19] and the feds have turned down
[53:20] Pennsylvania's request to collect tolls
[53:23] on Interstate 80.
[53:25] Don't like the tolls you already pay?
[53:27] You won't like the future Carson sees of
[53:29] a country where drivers face many more
[53:32] fees. We're going to have to move toward
[53:35] these direct user charges, and
[53:37] specifically toward uh tolling the
[53:40] federal Interstate system.
[53:42] Here on the front lines of the battle,
[53:44] engineers will continue their triage
[53:46] beneath Pennsylvania's bridges,
[53:48] constantly worrying they might get it
[53:50] wrong. Like the problem that we had in
[53:52] March, we may make a judgment about how
[53:55] much time we have to repair that doesn't
[53:57] turn out to be accurate. That is
[53:59] something that we'll have to face with
[54:01] more frequency if the resources are not
[54:03] there.
[54:04] It amounts to a game of Russian roulette
[54:07] being played out not just here in
[54:08] Pennsylvania, but across the nation.
[54:12] Tomorrow night, Ray will look at
[54:14] America's aging ports and efforts to
[54:16] modernize the port of New Orleans.
[54:26] Again, the major developments of the
[54:27] day, Wall Street rang up healthy gains.
[54:30] The Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied
[54:32] more than 400 points. And Fed Chairman
[54:35] Ben Bernanke endorsed a new round of
[54:38] economic stimulus for the US economy.
[54:41] We'll see you online and again here
[54:43] tomorrow evening. I'm Judy Woodruff.
[54:45] Thank you, and good night.
[54:50] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim
[54:52] Lehrer is provided by
[54:56] The world is changing,
[54:58] and how we use energy today
[55:01] cannot be how we use it tomorrow.
[55:04] There is no one solution.
[55:06] It's not simply more oil, more
[55:08] renewables, or being more efficient.
[55:11] It's all of it.
[55:12] Our way of life depends on developing
[55:14] all forms of energy,
[55:17] and to use less of it.
[55:19] It's time to put our differences aside.
[55:21] Will you be part of the solution?
[55:23] Chevron. Human Energy.
[55:27] Pacific Life.
[55:32] Vestas.
[55:35] Losses.
[55:36] Recession.
[55:38] Jeff Merkley's record: keep taxes,
[55:40] spends, and borrows. 44 votes for higher
[55:43] taxes, 5 billion in additional spending,
[55:46] another [music] billion in additional
[55:47] debt. So, if it is about the economy, we
[55:50] just can't send Jeff [music] Merkley to
[55:52] the US Senate. The National Republican
[55:54] Senatorial Committee is responsible for
[55:55] the content of this advertising. Only
[55:57] Bi-Mart has Lucky Number Tuesdays. Come
[55:59] in this week and see if you won. Here's
[56:01] what you can win this Tuesday when you
[56:02] match your entire number, all valued at
[56:04] up to $250. [music]
[56:06] If it's Tuesday, head to Bi-Mart. Lucky
[56:08] Number Tuesdays, another reason
[56:09] Bi-Mart's just right for the Northwest.
[56:12] It's a middle-class story.
[56:14] Growing up in a mill town, and first in
[56:16] my family to attend college,
[56:19] it's no surprise to me why so many
[56:21] Oregon families feel Washington has left
[56:23] us behind. It's why Jeff Merkley has a
[56:25] plan to cut taxes for the middle class,
[56:28] bring back good-paying jobs, and finally
[56:30] reform health care so Oregon families
[56:32] and businesses can compete again. I'm
[56:34] Jeff Merkley, and I approve this message
[56:36] because it's time to deliver the change
[56:39] Washington politicians only talk about.
[56:42] Check out Rasmussen BMW's new and
[56:44] certified pre-owned BMW inventory at
[56:47] rasmussenbmw.com.
[56:48] Discover the values and the Rasmussen
[56:51] difference. Special lease and finance
[56:53] options are now available from BMW
[56:55] Financial Services.
[56:57] Spring Awakening at Keller Auditorium,
[56:59] October 21st through 26th.