The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (PBS) - 1992-03-09

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:05] Good evening. I'm Charlene Hunter G in

[0:07] New York.

[0:08] >> And I'm Jim Lair in Washington. After

[0:10] our summary of the news this Monday, we

[0:12] get four views of what Buchanan versus

[0:15] Bush is doing to the Republican party.

[0:17] Judy Woodruff previews the Democrat

[0:19] Super Tuesday race in Florida. And we

[0:22] begin a series of what's going on

[0:24] conversations with winners of the Nobel

[0:26] Prize in Economics. Robert Solo of MIT

[0:29] is first.

[0:32] >> Part of helping the world live and

[0:34] communicate better is keeping it well

[0:36] informed.

[0:39] That's why funding for the McNeel Lair

[0:41] NewsHour is provided by AT&T

[0:46] and by PepsiCo.

[0:53] Pepsi

[0:56] and by the Corporation for Public

[0:57] Broadcasting and viewers like you.

[1:01] >> Tom Harkin went away today. The senator

[1:03] from Iowa withdrew as a candidate for

[1:05] the Democratic presidential nomination.

[1:08] He had won no major primaries, only

[1:10] caucuses in his home state and in Idaho

[1:13] and Minnesota. Harkin made his

[1:15] withdrawal announcement this morning at

[1:17] Galedet University in Washington.

[1:20] >> Our campaign was based on the belief

[1:23] that America is not some at the expense

[1:27] of many, but many to the advantage of

[1:29] all. This is still our cause. Nothing

[1:33] that has happened in this campaign has

[1:35] or could ever change that.

[1:37] But in politics, one's destiny is in the

[1:39] hands of the voters, as it should be.

[1:42] And while thousands have rallied to our

[1:43] side, other candidates have done better.

[1:46] My adviserss told me not to peak too

[1:48] soon. I think I took him too seriously.

[1:53] So, with sincerity and with good humor,

[1:56] I congratulate my fellow candidates for

[1:58] a job well done.

[2:00] >> The remaining three Democratic

[2:02] presidential candidates campaign for

[2:03] votes in tomorrow's 11 Super Tuesday

[2:06] primaries and caucuses. Paul Sanis and

[2:09] Bill Clinton were in Florida, Jerry

[2:11] Brown in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

[2:13] There are Republican races in eight

[2:15] states tomorrow. Pat Buchanan spent the

[2:17] day in Mississippi and Tennessee.

[2:20] President Bush in Washington predicted

[2:22] he would have a good day tomorrow. We'll

[2:24] have more on all of this right after the

[2:26] news summary. Charlene

[2:28] >> Manahim Bean, the former prime minister

[2:30] of Israel, died today. He was 78 years

[2:33] old. The highlight of Bean's political

[2:36] career came in 1978 when he and Egypt's

[2:39] Anoir Sadat signed the historic Camp

[2:41] David Peace Accord. It led to his

[2:44] country's first and only peace treaty

[2:46] with an Arab nation. Thousands throng

[2:49] the streets of Jerusalem as Bean's body

[2:52] was carried to the city's Mount of Olive

[2:54] cemetery where Bean was buried in a

[2:56] simple ceremony. Bean also ordered

[3:00] Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon,

[3:03] beginning a war that killed 650

[3:06] Israelis. A close friend today said Bean

[3:09] resigned in 1983 because he was unable

[3:12] to stand the pace of Israel's Lebanese

[3:14] casualties. An official death toll from

[3:18] Lebanon's 15-year civil war was released

[3:20] today.

[3:22] 144,000 dead, 200,000 wounded. They were

[3:26] the first official casualty statistics

[3:28] given since the war ended in 1990. It

[3:32] began in 1975 with clashes between

[3:35] Christians and Muslims. The US Supreme

[3:38] Court ruled today it was all right for

[3:40] California to limit the terms of elected

[3:42] state officials. California adopted the

[3:45] measure in the 1990 voter initiative.

[3:48] The court rejected an appeal which

[3:50] claimed the law violated the

[3:51] constitutional right to run for office

[3:53] and to vote for the candidate of your

[3:55] choice. There was a shakeup in the

[3:57] leadership of the Christian Science

[3:59] Church today. The chairman of the board,

[4:00] Harvey Wood, resigned and was replaced

[4:03] by board member Virginia Harris. The

[4:06] move followed last week's admission. The

[4:08] church had borrowed $41.5 million from

[4:11] its employee pension fund and 20 million

[4:13] from its endowment to fund the Christian

[4:16] Science Monitor newspaper and the

[4:18] Monitor Channel Television Network. The

[4:20] TV operation was put up for sale today.

[4:22] The church plans to close it if no buyer

[4:25] is found by June 15th. There was more

[4:28] heavy fighting today inside the former

[4:30] Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. It was

[4:33] over control of Nagono Carabach, a

[4:36] mostly Christian Armenian region. Azeri

[4:39] forces shelled an Armenian town and

[4:42] staged raids on several villages in the

[4:44] region. Armenian militants reportedly

[4:47] retaliated by shelling an Azeri town

[4:50] outside the region. Tens of thousands of

[4:53] people rallied in the capital of the

[4:55] Yugoslav Republic of Serbia today to

[4:58] demand the resignation of the president.

[5:01] Protest leaders said President Slobaden

[5:03] Mallasovich was to blame for

[5:05] Yugoslavia's bloody civil war and its

[5:08] economic woes. The protest came as the

[5:11] European Community sponsored peace

[5:13] conference on Yugoslavia resumed in

[5:16] Brussels.

[5:17] >> And that's it for the news summary

[5:18] tonight. Now it's on to the Republicans

[5:20] Buchanan versus Bush problem, the

[5:23] Democratic race in Florida, and a Nobel

[5:26] conversation about the economy.

[5:36] President Bush's Buchanan problem is our

[5:38] lead story tonight. Pat Buchanan, the

[5:41] former TV and newspaper commentator from

[5:43] the right, continues to hammer and run

[5:45] at Mr. Bush in Republican primaries. He

[5:48] has yet to win a state or even to score

[5:50] as much as 40 as 40% of a vote, but he

[5:53] will not go away. The issue growing in

[5:56] severity with each new attack statement

[5:58] from Buchanan is about harm. Harm to Mr.

[6:00] Bush in the Republican party in the

[6:02] fall. We get four perspectives on that

[6:05] now. Billy Nungesser is the chairman of

[6:07] the Louisiana Republican Party and the

[6:09] only state chair to endorse Buchanan. He

[6:12] joins us tonight from New Orleans. John

[6:14] O Sullivan is editor of the National

[6:16] Review. The magazine has been urging its

[6:18] readers to vote for Buchanan. Howard

[6:20] Baker, the former Senate majority leader

[6:22] and Reagan White House chief of staff is

[6:25] the Bush campaign chairman in Tennessee.

[6:27] Congressman Ben Weber of Minnesota is

[6:29] the secretary of the House Republican

[6:32] con conference. Congressman Weber, is

[6:34] Mr. Buchanan doing harm?

[6:36] >> I think that he is doing some harm. Uh

[6:38] there are some positive aspects to the

[6:40] Buchanan campaign. He's focus forcing

[6:41] the Bush campaign to focus quicker than

[6:43] it otherwise would have liked, forcing a

[6:45] reassessment of some policy positions

[6:47] that I don't particularly agree with.

[6:48] That's sort of like saying that a mugger

[6:50] forces you to focus on the issue of

[6:52] personal security. Uh he's doing damage

[6:54] to the president and he's really opening

[6:56] the fight of 1996 which will be the most

[6:58] significant fight the Republican party's

[7:00] had at least since 1980 four years in

[7:03] advance. But what is the harm that he is

[7:05] doing right now to President Bush and

[7:08] the Republican party in your opinion?

[7:09] >> Well, we have a recession obviously and

[7:11] we have a crisis in confidence in the

[7:14] country and political leadership across

[7:15] the spectrum. President's got to rally

[7:17] the country behind his leadership before

[7:18] the next election. It'd be easier

[7:20] obviously if he could just focus on the

[7:22] Democrats from here on out and Buchanan

[7:23] is making it much more difficult for him

[7:25] to do that. Is that how you see it,

[7:27] Senator Baker?

[7:27] >> Well, more or less. I agree with Vin

[7:29] that there's the potential for damage at

[7:31] least in my own state in Tennessee where

[7:34] I've campaigned almost every day for the

[7:36] last two weeks. I do not find that

[7:38] damage. I find no concrete evidence that

[7:40] uh Buchanan has any organized support or

[7:43] any significant support. You know, any

[7:45] campaign, whether it's a primary, a

[7:47] general election, there's a there's a

[7:48] baseline of opposition, and Pat Buchanan

[7:52] is getting that baseline of opposition,

[7:54] 25 35%.

[7:57] Uh, and, you know, I I I think

[7:59] potentially it could be divisive if it

[8:02] goes on indefinitely and if we can't

[8:04] bring the party together after the

[8:06] convention, but I do not think that the

[8:08] analogy to 1976 is apt. I think the

[8:11] party will come together. I think Pat

[8:13] Buchanan in the final analysis will

[8:15] >> talking about when Reagan Reagan and

[8:18] >> Ford exactly right and I think Pat

[8:20] Buchanan will support uh uh President

[8:22] Bush and I think the party will come

[8:24] together. I I really think Jim in the

[8:26] final analysis that the Republican party

[8:28] is now strong enough and mature enough

[8:30] to withstand a primary challenge.

[8:32] Primaries are the ordinary thing, not

[8:34] the out of the ordinary thing. So I

[8:37] think as it moves on that we'll be okay.

[8:40] >> You agree with that Mr. Nunger in New

[8:41] Orleans? Certainly s I agree with

[8:43] Senator Baker. You know, in every

[8:45] election, in every primary, every

[8:47] election, it would be nice if we had

[8:50] structure-wise if we had one Republican.

[8:52] It simplifies the process. But the truth

[8:55] of the matter is what it's all about and

[8:57] why we're having the convention is

[8:58] Houston is to pick our candidate. We'll

[9:00] all support the candidate, President

[9:03] Bush, or whoever that comes out of

[9:04] Houston. But nevertheless, I think there

[9:06] were important reasons why Buchanan had

[9:09] to make this run. And I agree with him.

[9:11] And I don't think it's uh uh good for

[9:14] him to say that we shouldn't challenge

[9:16] one another. I don't think that weakens

[9:17] a party. I think it strengthens it.

[9:19] Particularly when there's one key part

[9:21] of your party that's upset to bring it

[9:23] all out in the open is the best way. Mr.

[9:26] O Sullivan, there's nobody that that I

[9:28] am aware of who believes that Pat

[9:30] Buchanan has a chance, even a remote

[9:33] chance of being the nominee at this

[9:35] stage of the game. He has yet to get

[9:37] more than 37% of the vote. What is he

[9:40] accomplishing from this point on?

[9:42] >> Well, up to this point, I think he's

[9:43] accomplished exactly what the other

[9:45] three speakers said, plus one other

[9:47] thing. He's ensured that there's a

[9:48] repository for protest votes within the

[9:51] Republican column. Now, if there hadn't

[9:53] been that, many of those votes might

[9:55] have actually gone to the Democrats, and

[9:56] voting Democrat, like other sins, is

[9:58] something that it's much easier to do

[10:00] the second time around. So, I think that

[10:02] the overall impact so far has been

[10:03] reasonably positive for the party. But

[10:05] you're quite right at this point on

[10:08] without any real chance of winning um

[10:11] the nomination he it could become

[10:13] damaging if he continues particularly if

[10:15] for example he can mount a serious

[10:17] challenge in somewhere like California

[10:19] and seriously threaten the president's

[10:21] reputation that he couldn't hold on to

[10:23] the California primary. So um as you've

[10:25] said we've given our readers the uh

[10:28] instruction that they should cast a

[10:30] tactical vote for Mr. Buchanan up to

[10:32] this point to draw the president to the

[10:34] right. But uh from this point on um I

[10:36] think we're going to be suggesting that

[10:38] Mr. Buchanan should carefully consider

[10:40] about when he should withdraw. I think

[10:42] um I would say maybe after Michigan.

[10:45] That of course also implies that the

[10:47] Bush campaign has an obligation too,

[10:50] namely uh to keep the level of debate uh

[10:53] between the two men at a relatively

[10:56] civilized level because I don't think

[10:57] you're going to get Pat Buchanan to pull

[11:00] out by denouncing him as a racist or

[11:02] whatever. I think in order to get him to

[11:04] pull out, you've got to make it plain

[11:06] you regard him as a legitimate

[11:07] Republican candidate as Mr. Nongessa was

[11:09] arguing. See there's a fundamental

[11:11] question here that we have if I can

[11:12] interrupt for just a second.

[11:14] >> John O Sullivan makes a very logical

[11:16] case for putting pressure on pres the

[11:18] president assuming to move to the right

[11:20] assuming that the objective of Mr.

[11:22] Buchanan is to move Bush to the right

[11:24] help him get reelected and make him a

[11:26] better president. I believe that Pat's

[11:28] ultimate objective has nothing to do

[11:29] with George Bush. You could care less if

[11:31] he gets reelected. He's talking about

[11:33] 1996. And that's why I don't agree with

[11:35] the position that National Review has

[11:37] taken up to now. Pat Buchanan in many

[11:39] ways represents a fundamental departure

[11:41] from the conservatism of Ronald Reagan

[11:43] that I believe in that John Sullivan

[11:45] believes in that Howard Baker believes

[11:47] in and that's what I think he is focused

[11:49] on and he doesn't care if George Bush is

[11:50] reelected

[11:51] >> to find the differences between Pat

[11:53] Buchanan's Republicanism and Reaganism.

[11:55] >> Ronald Reagan defined a Republican party

[11:57] that believed in international

[11:58] leadership. Pat Buchanan is essentially

[12:00] an isolationist and a protectionist.

[12:02] He's anti-immigration. Ronald Reagan

[12:04] defined a Republican party that believed

[12:06] in entrepreneurial capitalism as an

[12:08] engine of economic and social progress.

[12:10] Pat Buchanan talks about venture

[12:12] capitalists as vulture capitalists and

[12:14] spends very little time talking about

[12:15] economic growth. Those are not the kinds

[12:17] of things that are at the center of

[12:19] Reagan conservatism. Ronald Reagan's

[12:21] vision of conservatism was a progressive

[12:23] force in society, a a force of freedom,

[12:26] free markets, uh, uh, capitalist

[12:28] economics, but not a course, not a

[12:31] reactionary force turning the clock

[12:32] back. Everything I hear from Pat

[12:34] Buchanan is sort of a longing for the

[12:36] good old days of the 1950s. And that's

[12:37] not the conservatism that I identify

[12:39] with or that Ronald Reagan took into the

[12:41] White House.

[12:42] >> Mr. Nunes, is that the

[12:44] >> Huh?

[12:44] >> Excuse me, Congressman. In all due

[12:46] respect, uh, you're defining what

[12:49] Reagan's conservative was. Most of us,

[12:51] and we were all Reagan conservatives,

[12:53] too. The truth of the matter is, would

[12:55] you judge President Bush on where he's

[12:57] deviated from the Reagan conservativism

[13:00] on taxes and other things? Would you be

[13:02] willing to say he doesn't define

[13:05] correctly Reagan conservatives? That's

[13:07] not fair. That's your That's your

[13:09] analysis of of uh Buchanan, but it's not

[13:12] the facts. when he speaks on trade and

[13:14] all the rest, he does not define himself

[13:16] as an isolations or one who wants to

[13:19] withdraw from the world scene. The truth

[13:21] of the matter is he says a dialogue

[13:23] should be done on it. And I don't think

[13:25] anybody is in favor of not having a

[13:27] dialogue. We have serious problems both

[13:30] on trade and in this country and

[13:32] particularly where the Bush

[13:33] administration has has strayed from the

[13:36] Reagan uh uh uh structure. So the truth

[13:40] of the matter is Buchanan hasn't

[13:43] strayed. Buchanan's in this race because

[13:45] George Bush moved away from it. And I

[13:47] think you'll find most Reagan people

[13:49] will agree with that even if they don't

[13:51] vote for Buchanan. And there's no

[13:53] there's no question about we're going to

[13:55] win the election in November. The

[13:57] Democrats have given us opposition and

[13:59] that we are going to win. But that

[14:01] doesn't take away from the fact that

[14:02] Buchanan has a chance. He has a right to

[14:05] take that chance. He has a right to talk

[14:07] about the issues and to presume what

[14:09] he's thinking isn't a fair analysis.

[14:11] >> Senator Baker, how do you respond to Mr.

[14:13] Nung?

[14:14] >> Well, you know, everybody who runs opens

[14:15] themselves up to an interpretation of

[14:17] what they say and what they mean. And I

[14:19] happen to agree with Ben. I think that

[14:21] uh I I think that the Reaganism that Ben

[14:24] Weber has described is precisely the

[14:26] Reganism that I saw and that I worked

[14:28] with at the White House. And I have no

[14:30] doubt on earth but that President Reagan

[14:32] fully and enthusiastically supports

[14:34] George Bush. Every president is

[14:36] different. Every person who occupies

[14:38] that office puts his own imprint on it.

[14:40] So there are differences. There are

[14:42] differences in style and technique. But

[14:44] the basic philosophy of George Bush, as

[14:47] I see it and believe it, is essentially

[14:49] the same as the philosophy and style and

[14:52] technique of Ronald Reagan. I think they

[14:54] I I I think George Bush is the lineal

[14:57] descendant of Ronald Reagan and deserves

[14:59] high marks for his contribution to the

[15:01] ending and winning of the Cold War

[15:03] toward the reiteration of our belief in

[15:06] the free enterprise system and the

[15:08] destiny of this country to lead the free

[15:09] world. That's the essential part.

[15:11] >> Mr. O Sullivan then Weber used the term

[15:14] reactionary a moment ago to describe the

[15:16] positions of Pat Buchanan. He mentioned

[15:19] immigration. There have also your new

[15:20] your magazine has raised the issue of

[15:22] anti-semitism in some of his comments.

[15:25] There's also been comments that he has

[15:27] made having to do with with racial

[15:29] issues. What is your position on that?

[15:31] You consider him a a re a reactionary?

[15:34] >> Um, no I don't. But that's um I'd like

[15:36] to respond to Vin's point because I do

[15:38] think that looking ahead is what we've

[15:40] got to do. I think that this is election

[15:42] year. You never get serious discussion

[15:43] of politics in election year. And when

[15:45] the election's over and there is going

[15:47] to be a big argument on the right on

[15:49] exactly the issues that Vin talked

[15:50] about, I think that I am going to be on

[15:52] the same side as Vin against Pat in many

[15:56] of these questions. But the important

[15:57] thing is that that argument should be

[15:59] conducted in a united right uh on

[16:02] civilized terms. If we try to uh drive

[16:06] Pat Buchanan out, we'll drive an awful

[16:08] lot of his followers with him and the

[16:10] next um four or five years will find

[16:13] that a lot of conservative votes in a

[16:15] sense may go to a third party. And I

[16:17] think that's got to be avoided. I I

[16:19] don't say at all costs, but at

[16:20] considerable costs. Now, one of the

[16:22] costs which I would not be prepared

[16:24] myself to take is I would not be

[16:26] prepared to endorse anything that's

[16:28] smacked of racism or anti-semitism. And

[16:30] we have condemned that completely. I

[16:32] think it's fair to point out that Mr.

[16:34] Buchanan has condemned David Juke. He

[16:37] has disavowed any votes from the white

[16:39] supremacist right and says he doesn't

[16:40] want votes on the basis of bigotry. I

[16:43] myself read today a condemnation by him

[16:46] of anti-semitism in the strongest terms.

[16:48] The one thing he has not done and which

[16:50] I would like to see him do and which the

[16:51] magazine has called upon him to do is to

[16:53] look at the statements which last year

[16:55] at the time of the Gulf War gave rise to

[16:57] all these suspicions. um consider them,

[17:00] reflect on the fact that people of

[17:02] goodwill and decency do think that they

[17:04] give rise to suspicions of anti-semitism

[17:06] and apologize to those he's offended.

[17:08] And those he's offended, by the way, I

[17:10] think include people like um um those

[17:13] who've defended him without agreeing

[17:14] with his political views. Michael

[17:16] Kinsley of the um of the New Republic.

[17:19] Um Mark Shields, a commentator on this

[17:22] network. They have defended him. And I

[17:25] think he owes it to them. I think he

[17:26] owes it to himself and he owes it to the

[17:28] cause of civilized debate to make it

[17:30] plain that he has absolutely no time for

[17:34] any of the causes which have been any of

[17:36] the attacks that have been leveled at

[17:37] him and that he I'm sorry I expressed

[17:39] that badly. He has no he he doesn't um

[17:41] he is not the man that he's alleged by

[17:43] his critics. He must make that

[17:45] absolutely plain. Um and I think an

[17:47] apology is the way to do that. But

[17:49] that's the only thing lacking. He has

[17:50] several times disavowed the kind of uh

[17:54] resentful language and um racist talk of

[17:58] which he's accused.

[17:58] >> Let me ask Finn Weber about this. Are

[18:00] you concerned about what this uh uh the

[18:03] the aura of this that is around Pat

[18:05] Buchanan and what that how that projects

[18:07] as far as the image of the Republican

[18:09] party is in this election.

[18:10] >> Um I'm careful not to get into that

[18:13] criticism of Pat Buchanan. I I think he

[18:15] has to speak for himself. I'd agree with

[18:17] what John O'Sullivan said. I'd like to

[18:20] see him be clearer in rejecting

[18:22] anti-semitism and rejecting some of the

[18:25] previous statements he's made. But when

[18:26] I said reactionary, I wasn't meaning

[18:28] racist or anti-semitic. I simply mean

[18:30] that this is Pat in my view seems to

[18:33] look at the world of the 1950s and want

[18:35] to turn the clock back. That's what we

[18:36] conservatives were accused of for

[18:38] decades following the New Deal. And

[18:40] that's not what Ronald Reagan stood for.

[18:42] He talked about a vision of conservatism

[18:44] that could take America into the 21st

[18:46] century.

[18:47] >> Mr. Nung guessesser as a practical

[18:48] matter here finally. Do you believe that

[18:51] Patan is going to stay in there until

[18:53] the very end until the convention in

[18:56] Houston?

[18:57] >> Oh, I think he will as long as he thinks

[18:59] he's a useful tool in this thing whether

[19:02] to win. I don't I don't I'm hoping that

[19:04] he'll be encouraged after tomorrow's

[19:07] election. But I think that's a decision

[19:09] like all candidates had to make like one

[19:11] of the Democrats did today. I think

[19:13] Buchanan will decide when and if he's

[19:16] going to get out and I think in all

[19:18] fairness that is his decision and uh I I

[19:21] will leave it up to him and I suggest

[19:22] all of us should do that.

[19:24] >> Well, Senator Baker, how about where do

[19:26] you think Buchanan when when does

[19:28] Buchanan become a serious problem? You

[19:31] say it it isn't there yet, but if he

[19:34] let's say just for discussion purposes,

[19:36] let's say he continues to get this

[19:38] protest vote that you said around in in

[19:40] the 30s and he hangs in there and when

[19:42] does it become a problem for the for the

[19:44] party and Mr. Bush?

[19:45] >> Well, there are two problems. One is

[19:46] when is it really a problem for George

[19:48] Bush? And I suspect it never will really

[19:50] be a problem for George Bush in terms of

[19:53] his ultimate nomination and his ultimate

[19:55] election. The other is the problem for

[19:57] for Pat Buchanan. I you know I'm not big

[20:01] on giving advice to Pat nor is he big on

[20:03] taking it from me but on the other hand

[20:04] I've never taken advice from him either

[20:06] so it's a draw but you know Pat has to

[20:10] think very carefully I suspect about at

[20:12] what point this damages his image his

[20:15] credibility as a candidate in 1996 and

[20:18] my own view is we ought to keep him

[20:20] viable as a candidate that he ought to

[20:22] conduct himself so he will be a viable

[20:24] candidate that we should avoid personal

[20:26] attacks on him that we should let him

[20:28] publish and propose his own issues and

[20:31] debate them freely in this primary and

[20:33] in these caucuses. But that when

[20:36] President Bush clearly is the nominee of

[20:38] the party, what else is to be done

[20:40] beyond that point? I think Pat begins to

[20:43] damage his own prospects and I would not

[20:45] like to see that.

[20:45] >> You agree with that, John O'Sullivan,

[20:47] that there is and you think he's almost

[20:48] there. Is that right? Oh, I think that I

[20:51] agree in with every word of what Senator

[20:53] Baker has just said and I would say that

[20:55] uh the D is cast for Super Tuesday and

[20:58] probably for Michigan, but I would guess

[21:00] that Michigan is the time when he should

[21:02] think uh he should pull out. And by the

[21:04] way, that would apply almost more

[21:06] strongly, the better he does because

[21:08] although he's not obviously going to be

[21:10] able to prevent President Bush becoming

[21:12] the party nominee, nonetheless, the

[21:14] better he does, the more he damages the

[21:16] Republican party's chances in the fall.

[21:17] So, I think we've now reached the point

[21:19] at which he's he's done a very effective

[21:21] job of dragging the Republican party to

[21:23] the right and he can retreat from the

[21:25] field with honor.

[21:26] >> Meaning he the the better he does, the

[21:28] more vulnerable he shows President Bush

[21:30] to be and and opens him up a little more

[21:33] as a soft peanut to use the uh an

[21:36] analogy in a different race

[21:37] >> without at the same I agree without at

[21:39] the same time being able to further

[21:41] accomplish any of the things he's

[21:43] already done. He's already kept

[21:44] Republican voters, protest voters in the

[21:46] Republican column. He's already uh

[21:49] demolished David Juke, so to speak. Juke

[21:51] is now marginalized to the low single

[21:53] digits. He's already um uh um ensured

[21:57] that conservative issues are back on the

[21:59] agenda in the White House and the White

[22:01] House is waking up to the fact that it's

[22:03] got real problems, which by the way, as

[22:05] Vin will remember from a meeting we had

[22:07] in um at Thanksgiving, uh the White

[22:10] House at the time had no idea of the

[22:12] trouble it was in. Well, it knows now.

[22:15] >> All right. And we're in trouble if we

[22:17] don't go pretty soon. And we're going to

[22:18] go. All four of you gentlemen, thank you

[22:20] very much for being with us.

[22:21] >> Thank you.

[22:31] Next, the Democratic presidential

[22:33] campaign. Tomorrow is Super Tuesday. 11

[22:36] states, mostly in the South, will be

[22:38] holding primaries and caucuses. One of

[22:41] the more hotly contested races is in

[22:43] Florida. Judy Woodruff reports.

[22:48] With a population larger than all but

[22:50] three other states in the union and with

[22:53] 148 convention delegates up for grabs,

[22:55] Florida is one of the most coveted

[22:57] jewels for Democrats on Super Tuesday.

[23:00] Nearly three4s of its people were born

[23:03] somewhere else. That's what gives Paul

[23:05] Sanas any chance at all against native

[23:08] southerner Bill Clinton. Florida is a

[23:11] very cosmopolitan state and it's uh it's

[23:15] really several states in one and it's

[23:18] very much like California in that sense.

[23:21] Uh there are so many different

[23:24] population groups with different

[23:26] economic social interest here that it

[23:30] takes a very broad appeal. And I think

[23:32] that winning Florida, it's a mega state.

[23:35] >> Just as in the other mega states,

[23:37] television is the main vehicle for that

[23:40] appeal, which has been telescoped into

[23:42] the six days since last Tuesday's

[23:44] primaries. As for the economy here, it's

[23:47] the worst it's been in a decade. A 10%

[23:50] drop in tourism, the leading industry,

[23:53] numerous bank closures, and layoffs

[23:56] across the board, right up to the grim

[23:58] unemployment figures released just last

[24:00] week. 29-year-old Dana Walker had to go

[24:04] to work as a waitress after she lost her

[24:06] 8-year job with a drafting and

[24:08] engineering firm. It was devastating. Uh

[24:12] when you've had a very secure job for

[24:14] eight years and you go to work one day

[24:16] and find out that it's no longer there,

[24:19] I it changes everything about you.

[24:21] >> It is restoring jobs and repairing the

[24:24] economy that the two leading Democrats,

[24:26] Paul Sonis and Bill Clinton, are making

[24:29] the focus of their campaigns here. In

[24:31] many ways, their formulas are similar.

[24:34] >> If you look at the way other governments

[24:35] are organized, let's just take the

[24:38] German government for example. There's a

[24:40] country with a third our population with

[24:42] almost the same volume of exports as we

[24:44] have. Why? Because they have a system

[24:48] for doing things that we don't have. For

[24:50] taking their best ideas and turning them

[24:52] into manufacturing jobs in their country

[24:54] instead of some other country.

[24:55] >> We've lost 1.2 million jobs in

[24:58] manufacturing. So the Japanese and the

[25:00] Germans and everybody else is simply

[25:01] ebbing away our manufacturing base. So

[25:04] it is inevitable if that continues they

[25:07] will get the high paid jobs and we will

[25:09] end up as we are now losing competitive

[25:12] advantage. So ultimately what it comes

[25:14] down to you have to invest in the

[25:17] infrastructure the personal the

[25:20] manufacturing base the engine that

[25:21] drives the economy. Unlike the Reagan

[25:24] Bush philosophy of keeping government

[25:26] out of the private sector, both Sonis

[25:29] and Clinton proposed tax breaks for

[25:31] business as a reward for investing in

[25:33] new plant and equipment and in research

[25:36] and development. And they would require

[25:39] firms to get involved in retraining

[25:41] workers. But similarities don't win

[25:43] elections. And Clinton has moved

[25:46] aggressively over the past week to

[25:48] stress the differences between himself

[25:50] and his chief opponent. differences he

[25:53] says make Sus unacceptable as a

[25:55] president.

[25:56] >> Next Tuesday you will have a clear

[25:58] choice now between two Democrats. One

[26:02] who favors traditional democratic social

[26:04] policy and is liberal on that but who

[26:06] wants a refined version of 1980 style

[26:09] trickle down economics. One who says

[26:11] let's cut capital gains tax across the

[26:13] board. Let's make corporate executives

[26:15] less accountable and they'll do what's

[26:17] best for us and create jobs. Don't worry

[26:19] about economic fairness. We'll deal with

[26:21] that later. That candidate is not me.

[26:24] That is not me. I say, "Let's put our

[26:28] people first. Let's invest in our

[26:29] people."

[26:30] >> Clinton refers to his own heavier

[26:32] emphasis on investing in education and

[26:35] vocational training and to's more

[26:38] sweeping cut in the tax rate on capital

[26:40] gains. And he's been driving these

[26:43] points home with commercials like this

[26:45] one. Time magazine says much of what Sus

[26:48] proposes smacks of trickle down

[26:49] economics. He even says he'll be the

[26:51] best friend Wall Street ever had.

[26:54] >> Sis has responded by accusing Clinton of

[26:57] changing his tune.

[26:58] >> Last month, the candidates debated in

[27:00] New Hampshire and they agreed with Paul

[27:02] Sonis. They praised his good ideas, but

[27:05] then the polls changed and so did the

[27:07] other candidates. Now they're attacking

[27:09] Paul Sonis. Sonis has also criticized

[27:12] Clinton's plan to give a tax cut to the

[27:14] middle class.

[27:16] >> There are those who say, "I'll give you

[27:18] a middle class tax cut.

[27:20] It's not going to create any jobs."

[27:23] Our obligation is to grow the economy so

[27:27] people can work. So for me, no middle

[27:30] class tax cut. We'll get to that way

[27:33] down the road when we have the economy

[27:36] working. But other than Clinton's pitch

[27:39] for tax relief, even active supporters

[27:42] question how significant the policy

[27:44] differences between the two men really

[27:46] are.

[27:46] >> I don't think there's a nickels worth of

[27:48] difference between Clinton and Sonus in

[27:50] terms of how they would get the economy

[27:52] going.

[27:53] >> Traveling from one end of the state to

[27:55] the other, it's clear that many

[27:57] Democrats here don't see the

[27:59] distinctions on issues or are just plain

[28:02] disenchanted with Washington. Do you

[28:04] think any of the Democrats are saying

[28:06] anything important and interesting right

[28:07] now?

[28:09] >> I ain't heard it.

[28:11] >> I ain't heard none of it yet.

[28:14] >> What do you think the country needs

[28:15] right now? Do you think it's just good

[28:16] enough to vote for Mr. Bush again or

[28:18] what? What do you think?

[28:19] >> Yeah. Uh

[28:23] >> because they ain't one of them going

[28:25] into they're going to going to have no

[28:26] difference. They done got us in too much

[28:29] debt. We ain't got no work now.

[28:32] >> No. everybody being laid off and that's

[28:36] going to continue for a while.

[28:39] >> They don't they don't pull that thing

[28:40] out of there in overnight.

[28:42] >> There is certainly from my conversations

[28:45] with people a great deal of unhappiness

[28:46] about the current candidates. Nobody

[28:48] feels very strongly for them.

[28:50] >> There is nothing that any one of them

[28:52] has said that has struck me. And and you

[28:54] know why I get the feeling that they

[28:56] aren't talking to me, they're talking to

[28:58] each other. Those Democrats who do like

[29:01] the choices seem to be basing their

[29:03] decision on factors other than the fine

[29:06] points of each candidate's economic

[29:08] blueprints. I like Sonus' brutal

[29:10] honesty. He's candid. He's sincere. I

[29:14] feel that deep down inside he's a good

[29:16] man. Um Clinton appeals to me because I

[29:19] think he has a personality that can

[29:20] inspire the American people. Uh I think

[29:23] he can make them be better than they

[29:26] are. Time and again, those other factors

[29:30] appear to be working in Clinton's favor.

[29:33] >> I've heard him speak. I've heard the

[29:35] others speak. And amongst all the

[29:38] candidates that are running now, I feel

[29:40] like that Governor Clinton is the man

[29:43] that is qualified for the job of beating

[29:47] Bush. And that's the main object that

[29:49] we're here.

[29:50] >> I think Clinton has some charisma. He

[29:53] has some charm and he has some excellent

[29:54] ideas. He represents the future. Clinton

[29:57] also appears for many voters to have put

[30:00] to rest the allegations raised earlier

[30:03] about marital infidelity and avoiding

[30:05] the Vietnam War draft.

[30:08] >> I think Clinton showed us the type of

[30:10] man he is and how capable he is of

[30:14] facing an issue coming out talking about

[30:17] it when he's being surrounded by

[30:20] reporters all sorts of questions on his

[30:23] personal life his draft status. He faced

[30:26] it and that's what we want on the

[30:28] problems that are facing us in America.

[30:31] >> It was more of just mudslinging and

[30:34] trying to make the other guy look bad.

[30:36] And to me, it did nothing but help him

[30:38] out in my eyes.

[30:40] >> In fact, exit polls done in last week's

[30:43] primary states of Georgia, Maryland, and

[30:46] Colorado showed that the earlier

[30:48] problems Clinton had pulling women

[30:50] voters have receded for the time being.

[30:53] Seeing all this and worried that it may

[30:56] be behind, the Song's campaign has gone

[30:58] on the offensive. The candidate who

[31:01] preached brotherly love among the

[31:02] Democrats has rolled up his sleeves and

[31:05] come out punching.

[31:07] >> The other approach is to do the same

[31:08] thing Judge Bush did, which is to

[31:10] pander, say anything to get elected.

[31:14] Well,

[31:21] >> this is my opponent, Panda Bear.

[31:25] >> Song singled out a Clinton comment in

[31:28] favor of continuing to build submarines

[31:30] and charged it was an unprincipled

[31:32] appeal to Democratic voters in one of

[31:35] the main submarine building states.

[31:37] Anybody who plays with people's passions

[31:40] in that kind of cynical way has no right

[31:43] to be running for president of the

[31:45] United States.

[31:47] >> Sus also lashed out at Clinton's

[31:49] characterization of his growth first

[31:51] economic plan as not American.

[31:54] >> It is code to try to paint you as

[31:56] something different.

[31:59] This is all the old politics, all the

[32:02] old insinuations. Not American. You can

[32:05] say anything you want about my politics,

[32:07] but not the American. That language was

[32:10] picked specifically.

[32:12] >> Clinton shot back that Sus was

[32:14] overreacting, but Sonus refused to back

[32:17] down.

[32:18] >> Do I like it? No. Am I uncomfortable? I

[32:21] sure am. Why did I go a year just

[32:23] campaigning on the issues because I

[32:25] think I have a message. I mean, this

[32:27] makes sense of Bill Clinton. I have a

[32:29] message. He does not. So, to get me off

[32:32] the message, I have to now. You hit Paul

[32:34] Sus, he'll hit back and he's off his

[32:37] message. It is destructive to my

[32:40] campaign, but it's more destructive to

[32:42] me as a leader to have the suggestion

[32:44] made that I cannot counter punch. And

[32:47] that's what I'm faced with is I'm damned

[32:49] if I do, damned if I don't.

[32:51] >> The result is that Florida voters are

[32:53] confronted with a bitter war of words in

[32:56] the final few days before the primary.

[32:58] >> Well, will you consider voting for Bill

[33:00] Clinton? and Sus is confronted with a

[33:03] superior Clinton organization,

[33:05] especially in the heavy Democratic

[33:07] voting condominium projects of South

[33:10] Florida's Gold Coast, as well as a

[33:12] Clinton advantage with black voters. But

[33:15] the turnout among blacks so far this

[33:17] year has been lackluster, and Florida

[33:20] voters have demonstrated in recent

[33:21] campaigns that the mass media can outrun

[33:24] a good organization. Political observers

[33:27] say that benefits.

[33:29] So along comes a Paul Sonis here. He's

[33:32] riding a little bit of a media wave out

[33:33] of New Hampshire. He's become the the uh

[33:36] trendy candidate by being unfashionable.

[33:39] And suddenly Paul Sonis goes from almost

[33:43] nowhere in polls in December to where

[33:45] he's running neck andneck with Bill

[33:47] Clinton.

[33:48] >> What has made the difference for Songis

[33:50] are largely college educated voters who

[33:53] need no prompting to go to the polls.

[33:55] Even so, there are real doubts that

[33:58] Sonus has the time to reach enough of

[34:00] them to overcome Clinton's built-in

[34:02] advantage.

[34:05] Still to come on the NewsHour, a Nobel

[34:07] economist looks ahead. But first, this

[34:10] is Pledge Week on Public Television.

[34:12] We're taking a short break now so your

[34:14] public television station can ask for

[34:16] your support. That support helps keep

[34:19] programs like this on the air.

[34:23] >> Good evening. I'm Janet Jay here for

[34:25] Oregon Public Broadcasting. Do you

[34:27] remember when McNeel Larer first

[34:29] started? It was a halfhour show and

[34:32] called the McNeel Lar report over 15

[34:35] years ago and then it expanded to a full

[34:38] hour and further enhanced its image as

[34:41] respected, envied and emulated. The sort

[34:44] of programming that you expect from

[34:46] Oregon public broadcasting. We hope that

[34:48] because you listen and watch, you'll

[34:51] also feel that it's worth paying for. If

[34:54] you haven't made that pledge yet, isn't

[34:56] it about time? For a $60 contribution,

[34:59] you'll receive a handsome OPB mug with

[35:03] its unique etched design or contribute

[35:07] $100 and we'll send you two mugs. The

[35:10] number to call in Portland is 2452345.

[35:14] from anywhere else in our viewing area.

[35:16] All of Oregon and southern Washington,

[35:18] call toll-free 1 800-2452346.

[35:23] Hi, I'm Jeff Gardenny. Everything that

[35:26] happens in the world is news to Robert

[35:28] McNeel and Jim Lair. But it's no news to

[35:30] us that 49% nearly half the money we

[35:33] need to run OPB comes directly from your

[35:36] contributions. Money needed to bring you

[35:39] the quality programs you see on Oregon

[35:41] Public Broadcasting. You and your

[35:43] support are essential to maintain the

[35:45] schedule you watch and enjoy on OPB.

[35:48] When you call to make your pledge,

[35:49] you'll find that it's easy to pledge

[35:50] with your credit card. You can even pay

[35:52] in monthly installments. Just ask your

[35:55] phone volunteer for all the details when

[35:57] you call and make your pledge. A

[35:59] contribution of $100 brings you a pair

[36:01] of ski lift tickets to Mount Hood

[36:03] Meadows, but you need to use your credit

[36:04] card or we can't get you the tickets

[36:06] before the snow melts. For your

[36:08] convenience, we have a toll-free number

[36:10] for pledges coming from anywhere in our

[36:11] viewing area. 1 8002452346.

[36:16] Or if you're calling from Portland, the

[36:17] number is 2452345.

[36:21] We take Mastercard, Discover, Visa and

[36:24] American Express. How's that for good

[36:26] news? Hi, I'm Bob Allen. You know,

[36:28] everyone has their own reasons for

[36:30] liking the McNeelair NewsHour. Whatever

[36:32] yours are, I hope that you'll feel

[36:34] strongly enough to pledge to keep them

[36:36] on the air. is really quite simple. Your

[36:38] contribution of $150 brings you a copy

[36:41] of the new book Feeding Frenzy, a timely

[36:43] research work into journalistic

[36:45] practices of exposing the private lives

[36:47] of politicians. In this current election

[36:50] year, many consider it must readading.

[36:52] The book is yours when you contribute

[36:53] $150 to OPB. So call now. Just pick up

[36:57] the phone. The call is free. It's

[36:58] 18002452346

[37:01] or in Portland 2452345.

[37:06] I'm Claudia Brown.

[37:07] >> I'm Mark Susman. You watch the McNeel

[37:09] Lair NewsHour for its unique approach

[37:11] and because it's the only full hour of

[37:13] national and international news and the

[37:15] only nightly news at 7 p.m.

[37:17] >> OPB brings you McNeel Lair because you

[37:19] need and deserve more than 12 second

[37:21] sound bites. More than just sensational

[37:23] headlines, but OPB is a partnership in

[37:26] paying for programs like McNeel Lair,

[37:28] Washington Weekend Review, and Northwest

[37:30] Week calls for a commitment from the

[37:32] community, government, business, and

[37:35] from you, our most important partner.

[37:37] >> Tonight is your chance to make that

[37:38] commitment. Please call now and pledge

[37:40] your support for the McNeel Lair

[37:42] NewsHour and all the other programs you

[37:44] watch here every day. Thank you. Our

[37:47] phone volunteers from the American

[37:49] Association of Critical Care, nurses,

[37:51] and the Portland Symphonic Choir have

[37:53] donated their time tonight to take your

[37:55] pledges. They get satisfaction from

[37:58] this, and we think you'll get similar

[38:00] satisfaction when you make that pledge.

[38:02] Thank you for that phone call. The

[38:04] phones are starting to ring, so don't

[38:07] forget, you have just enough time before

[38:10] the program starts. You know, that isn't

[38:12] all you get. You get a for a $150

[38:16] contribution to OPB. We'll send you that

[38:19] newly published book, Feeding Frenzy.

[38:22] This expose thoroughly investigates the

[38:24] news media probes into the private lives

[38:28] of public figures. A copy can be yours

[38:30] with $150 commitment to OPB. And besides

[38:34] maintaining quality programs for your

[38:36] viewing pleasure, pledging gives you the

[38:38] benefits of OPB membership. One bonus

[38:41] that membership offers is the OPB

[38:44] membership card called a ticket to

[38:45] Oregon. I've used it often myself and

[38:48] this card entitles you to discounts,

[38:50] free admission to concerts, museums, and

[38:54] theatrical events around the state.

[38:56] You'll also receive 12 issues of OPB's

[38:58] monthly program guide, Oregon Focus,

[39:01] which contains our television and radio

[39:04] schedule along with descriptions of

[39:06] major series, plus articles by local and

[39:09] national writers. Now, how's that for

[39:11] satisfaction? Give us a call with your

[39:14] pledge of support. In Portland, that

[39:16] number again is 2452345.

[39:19] and Elsewhere in Oregon and southern

[39:21] Washington, wherever you're watching,

[39:23] call toll-free 1 8002452346.

[39:29] Indepth news and public affairs coverage

[39:31] is expensive, but it's the quality you

[39:33] deserve. That's why OPB is committed to

[39:35] bringing you national programs like the

[39:37] McNeel NewsHour, Washington Weekend

[39:40] Review, and our own local news program,

[39:42] Northwest Week. But without your phone

[39:44] call with your pledge of a contribution,

[39:46] our in-depth news coverage just would

[39:48] not be possible. Now, once again, we're

[39:50] offering the special OPB handed mug as a

[39:53] reminder of your commitment to Oregon

[39:55] public broadcasting, and it's yours with

[39:57] a contribution of $60. If you contribute

[40:00] $100, we'll send you two mugs.

[40:03] Your membership dollars will help keep

[40:05] the kind of reporting you appreciate on

[40:07] the air. So just pick up the phone.

[40:08] Call's free 1 8002452346

[40:12] or in Portland 2452345.

[40:15] Now that's using your head.

[40:17] >> Now we're about ready to go back to the

[40:19] NewsHour, but you still have plenty of

[40:21] time to phone in your pledge. However,

[40:24] our volunteers will be here to take your

[40:27] calls. Now those numbers are easy to

[40:29] remember. If you're calling from

[40:30] Portland, the number is 2452345.

[40:34] from anywhere else in our viewing area.

[40:36] All of Oregon and Southern Washington,

[40:38] call toll-free 1 8002452346.

[40:43] Now, for those of you who already have

[40:45] called, our thanks. You just bought

[40:48] yourself a piece of support for the

[40:50] McNeel Lar NewsHour.

[40:55] If you'd prefer to mail us your

[40:56] contribution, here's the address. Oregon

[40:59] Public Broadcasting Foundation, Post

[41:01] Office Box 4373,

[41:04] Portland 97208.

[41:07] However, if you'd like to call in your

[41:09] contribution, our phone volunteers will

[41:11] be glad to take your pledge in Portland

[41:14] 2452345.

[41:17] Elsewhere in our viewing area,

[41:19] 1-8002452346.

[41:29] It's a spectacular star-studded opening

[41:32] night celebration. The greatest stars

[41:34] from the opera world together honoring

[41:36] the Metropolitan Opera's 25 years at

[41:38] Lincoln Center. Join us for the

[41:39] Metropolitan Opera Silver Anniversary

[41:41] Gala on Great Performances.

[41:44] >> It's where you belong tonight at 8.

[42:03] Finally tonight, the first in a series

[42:05] of conversations on problems in and

[42:08] solutions for the US economy. This week,

[42:11] we'll hear the views of four Nobel

[42:13] Prizewinning economists. First up is

[42:16] Robert Solo, professor of economics at

[42:19] the Massachusetts Institute of

[42:21] Technology, who was awarded the Nobel

[42:23] Prize in 1987. He joins us from Boston.

[42:27] And thank you for joining us, Professor

[42:29] Solo.

[42:30] >> My pleasure.

[42:31] >> What is wrong with the US economy?

[42:34] >> Well, there's more than one thing that's

[42:35] wrong with the US economy. I could think

[42:37] of three. Uh the first and easiest is

[42:40] that we're we're in a recession. We've

[42:43] been having what's not really a deep

[42:45] recession, but a long recession. Uh, a

[42:48] long recession that makes people

[42:51] pessimistic, and then their pessimism

[42:53] tends to to prolong it. One of the

[42:56] really surprising things you see is how

[42:59] deeply pessimistic consumers are when

[43:02] they're asked. Uh, they feel worse than

[43:05] the the numbers, the objective facts

[43:08] would lead you to expect. And I think

[43:11] one of the interesting questions about

[43:12] the longer run is why they feel that

[43:15] way. But anyhow, that's the first

[43:16] problem. We're having a recession. Uh we

[43:19] will come out of it. We'll come out of

[43:21] it if we just lay there and uh and do

[43:24] nothing about it. It even looks right

[43:27] now as if the the second quarter of this

[43:30] year, the April, May, June quarter will

[43:32] be a uh will mark the beginning of an

[43:35] upturn, but probably probably a slow

[43:39] upturn and maybe not really uh good

[43:43] enough, not good enough in the sense

[43:45] that uh there would be room to to uh

[43:50] provide more jobs and more income for

[43:52] people. But we've got we will come out

[43:55] of the the recession. I would personally

[43:57] like to to help it a little uh push it a

[44:01] little.

[44:01] >> In what way? Uh well uh what I'd like to

[44:04] see is some immediate uh stimulus partly

[44:08] from the Federal Reserve partly.

[44:11] >> You mean cutting uh discount rate

[44:13] >> cutting interest rates uh again even

[44:16] more?

[44:16] >> Even more there's no uh there's no

[44:18] immediate uh inflationary threat and I

[44:22] think that there is a little room for

[44:23] that.

[44:24] >> And what would that do? Well, it would

[44:27] uh it would make credit a little easier

[44:30] and make uh the buying of of goods on

[44:34] credit uh uh easier for people to do. Uh

[44:38] I don't think we get a tremendous uh uh

[44:42] kick stimulus to the economy out of

[44:45] that, but uh there would seem to be

[44:47] little harm in trying it. More to the

[44:50] point, I think, would be to uh uh do

[44:54] something on the budgetary side that

[44:57] would provide that immediate stimulus,

[45:00] but do it in a way that's consistent

[45:04] with the longer run needs of the

[45:06] economy.

[45:07] >> Like for example, what? Well, uh uh the

[45:11] longer run need of the economy is for uh

[45:15] >> well, excuse me. We'll get we'll get to

[45:16] that part, but I mean the short term

[45:19] that you my own favorite uh but I'm

[45:21] willing to entertain anything

[45:23] reasonable. My own favorite would be for

[45:26] the the federal government to uh uh

[45:31] provide some money for state and local

[45:33] governments, which are broke, flat out

[45:35] broke, to uh uh continue infrastructure

[45:40] projects, to continue urban uh

[45:43] infrastructure projects, to provide a

[45:46] little something for uh public schools

[45:48] to do. uh and even to provide a little

[45:52] uh uh food for hungry people in uh uh in

[45:56] the cities of the US but the uh mostly

[46:00] for investment activities on the parts

[46:02] of state and local uh governments. I

[46:04] wouldn't mind if uh if there were a

[46:07] shortrun increase in the the budget

[46:10] deficit for that purpose, but it uh one

[46:13] wants that only only immediately only

[46:15] just to help the economy pick itself up

[46:18] off the floor and uh and start moving.

[46:21] Do you do you think that would affect

[46:23] this whole uh the measures that you've

[46:25] just described would in some way have an

[46:29] impact on this pessimism that is rampant

[46:33] among people?

[46:34] >> Well, I think some of the pessimism will

[46:38] turn around with the economy. It is no

[46:42] fun uh hearing about layoffs in your

[46:46] town, elsewhere in your company. Uh and

[46:50] when that stops then some of that

[46:53] pessimism will be relieved but I think

[46:56] >> and people will start I mean is it is is

[46:58] the pessimism keeping people from

[47:01] spending is that what it is?

[47:03] >> I think I think it is doing uh I think

[47:05] it is doing that the the the surveys the

[47:09] questionnaires that pick up this

[47:10] information ask consumers uh uh how they

[47:14] feel about the economy. do they think

[47:16] this is a good time to uh buy a car, buy

[47:19] a a dishwasher, buy anything

[47:22] substantial? And there's no doubt that

[47:25] uh that there's an impact there and

[47:27] anything that will will turn that around

[47:30] will will help in the short run. But the

[47:34] you get the feeling uh that uh uh the

[47:39] the depth of the pessimism some of which

[47:43] was expressed uh earlier on the program

[47:46] by people in uh in Florida that the

[47:49] depth of that must come from something

[47:53] over and above the immediate the

[47:55] everyday facts because uh uh in 1982 for

[48:00] instance in the recession then which was

[48:03] the deepest of the post-war period, the

[48:05] unemployment rate got up above 10%. Uh

[48:09] it's now uh the last month's figures

[48:11] were 7.2%. There are uh more people

[48:16] working, fewer people unemployed

[48:19] relative to the labor force than there

[48:20] were then, but the the

[48:24] attitudes don't seem to reflect that.

[48:26] and and you get the feeling that uh

[48:30] people out there believe that something

[48:32] irreversible has happened. Something bad

[48:36] has happened to the US economy that is

[48:39] not just short run. And

[48:40] >> are they right?

[48:41] >> Uh yes, I think uh uh I think they are

[48:45] >> what is it?

[48:45] >> Uh we have uh over the past decade or so

[48:52] uh uh not looked after the seed corn. We

[48:56] have uh run the economy on a sort of

[49:00] consumption first uh basis and the rest

[49:04] of the world uh the rest of the advanced

[49:07] industrial world the people who are

[49:09] catching up with us every day are are

[49:13] consume less of what they produce and

[49:15] they invest more. uh we we lag in that

[49:20] uh respect and and so we we don't

[49:25] improve our industrial base. We don't uh

[49:29] get new technology into the plant. We

[49:32] don't build uh as much new plant as uh

[49:36] uh as other countries. We what we do is

[49:39] we consume more.

[49:40] >> Are you are you hearing anything in the

[49:44] presidential campaign? economics seems

[49:46] to be the biggest issue. Are you hearing

[49:49] any prescriptions that that address any

[49:51] of that? Anything that, as the guy says

[49:53] is uh makes a nickels worth of

[49:55] difference.

[49:56] >> Well, well, I I sit there and I listen

[49:59] to the candidates and every so often I

[50:02] hear a good word. I hear a word or a

[50:04] sentence that uh makes me look up and

[50:07] say, "Yeah, that's what uh it's all

[50:10] about." But I can't honestly say that

[50:14] anybody has anybody running for office

[50:17] anyhow has has produced a a consistent

[50:22] program a program that is obviously

[50:25] inspired by the uh kind of belief that

[50:29] I've just been stating that what we

[50:31] ought to be after is every kind of

[50:34] investment even at the expense of and in

[50:38] fact uh at the expense of consumption.

[50:41] As soon as the economy recovers uh and

[50:44] gets back toward uh uh a reasonable

[50:48] state of the labor market and a

[50:50] reasonable use of capacity, then if we

[50:53] want to get more investment in there,

[50:54] we're going to have to make room for it.

[50:56] And we ought to make room for it by

[50:58] consuming less. I don't I don't detect

[51:01] uh any kind of a thoughtout uh uh

[51:04] program, just the occasional good word.

[51:08] What other elements would a solo

[51:10] prescription for long-term economic

[51:13] health and growth and confidence be

[51:16] include?

[51:16] >> Well, uh I said that I think the the

[51:20] fundamental need over the next decade is

[51:24] to uh invest more and consume less of

[51:28] our product. And I mean investment

[51:32] uh in the very broadest sense. It

[51:35] includes uh plant and equipment. Yes, it

[51:38] certainly does that. But also uh the

[51:41] transportation and communications and

[51:44] information infrastructure of the

[51:46] economy. It includes uh uh spending on

[51:50] research and I mean primarily on

[51:54] research in manufacturing process in

[51:57] making things better and making things

[52:00] cheaper. And finally it includes uh

[52:03] investment in people uh investment in

[52:06] education and primarily I would think in

[52:10] in that part of the educational process

[52:13] that lies between school and work.

[52:15] >> Just briefly what do you see as the role

[52:18] of government in that particularly in

[52:21] this era of trill 340 some trillion

[52:25] dollars worth of deficits?

[52:27] Well, uh there are a lot of things the

[52:30] government can do. Most of them involve

[52:33] spending some money in the longer run

[52:37] that the what is spent on promoting

[52:40] investment either by providing

[52:41] incentives to the private sector which

[52:44] is most of what needs to be done but

[52:47] also in the government doing a lot of

[52:48] things itself by way of transportation

[52:51] and and communication. the money to do

[52:53] that. Uh once the economy is reasonably

[52:57] fully employed, right now we could we

[52:59] could do it any way we like because

[53:01] there is plenty of spare capacity. Once

[53:05] the economy is reasonably fully

[53:07] employed, it's got to come either from

[53:10] reduction in the government part of

[53:13] consumption and I'm thinking there

[53:15] primarily of the military budget or it

[53:17] has got to come from higher taxes. Well,

[53:19] we've got to go, Professor Solo, but

[53:21] thank you very much for sharing those

[53:22] thoughts with us.

[53:23] >> Oh, you're welcome.

[53:32] >> Again, the major story of this Monday,

[53:34] Iowa Senator Tom Harkin dropped out of

[53:36] the Democratic presidential race. The

[53:38] three remaining Democrats, Bill Clinton,

[53:40] Paul Sis, and Jerry Brown, campaign for

[53:43] votes in tomorrow's eight primaries and

[53:45] three caucuses. Pat Buchanan will

[53:48] challenge President Bush in eight

[53:49] Republican primaries. Good night,

[53:51] Charlene.

[53:52] >> Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour

[53:54] tonight. Join us tomorrow night for

[53:56] Super Tuesday political analysis and an

[53:58] economic look ahead with Nobel Prize

[54:01] winner Paul Samuelson. I'm Charlene

[54:03] Hunter G. Good night.

[54:12] Funding for the McNeel Aeron NewsHour

[54:14] has been provided by PepsiCo

[54:28] Mexico.

[54:31] Part of helping the world live and

[54:33] communicate better is keeping it well

[54:35] informed. That's why funding for the

[54:37] NewsHour is also provided by AT&T

[54:40] and by the Corporation for Public

[54:42] Broadcasting and viewers like you.

[54:56] Video cassettes of the McNeel Larer

[54:58] NewsHour are available from PBS video.

[55:01] Call 1-800328

[55:04] PBS1.

[55:10] This is PBS.

[55:20] Funding for the McNeeler NewsHour has

[55:23] been provided by ODS Health Plan, the

[55:25] group medical plan that meets the needs

[55:27] of more than 600,000 Oregonians by

[55:30] providing a broad range of medical and

[55:32] dental coverage and responsive service.

[55:37] >> Hi, I'm Janet Day back for Oregon Public

[55:40] Broadcasting. There's an old saying, no

[55:43] news is good news. Come on, would it

[55:46] really be good news if we had no news?

[55:50] No McNeel Larer of Washington Week,

[55:52] Northwest Week. If because of a lack of

[55:55] funding, it weren't there for just for

[55:57] you. And not only that, think of the

[56:00] places you've seen through OPB. The

[56:03] programs you watch on OPV provide you

[56:05] with a window on the world. We take you

[56:08] to places, show you things you'd never

[56:10] be able to see otherwise, and all in the

[56:13] comfort of your own home. You can have

[56:15] global adventures. You can have a front

[56:17] row seat for performances by the world's

[56:19] most renowned artists. You can also

[56:22] learn from our greatest scientists as

[56:24] they astound you with the latest

[56:26] scientific discoveries. Nowhere but on

[56:28] public television can you get all of

[56:31] this quality and variety. It's TV worth

[56:34] watching and TV worth paying for. Once

[56:37] again, we're offering the special OPB

[56:40] handetched mug as a reminder of your

[56:42] commitment to Oregon public

[56:44] broadcasting. It's yours with a

[56:46] contribution of $60. And if you

[56:49] contribute $100, well, we'll send you

[56:52] two mugs. In Portland, call 2452345.

[56:56] And elsewhere in Oregon and southern

[56:58] Washington, wherever you're watching,

[57:00] call toll-free 1 8002452346.

[57:06] >> Hi, I'm Bob Allen with Special Projects

[57:08] here at OPB. And you know, when we ask

[57:10] you to make a pledge, we're not asking

[57:11] for a gift. We're asking you to make an

[57:13] investment.

[57:16] All four of the networks have made wins

[57:18] so far for Clinton in Florida,

[57:20] Tennessee, Texas, and Oklahoma. Bush has

[57:23] won all those. Songus won Massachusetts

[57:25] and will probably win neighboring Rhode

[57:27] Island.

[57:27] >> That's what they expect. He said today

[57:29] he doesn't mind coming in second. I

[57:30] think he sees

[57:31] >> Super Tuesday was designed to propel the

[57:33] candidacy of a southern Democrat and

[57:35] that's what it's doing.

[57:36] >> All right. Well, coming up next, Dan

[57:37] Rather will have all the election

[57:39] results. Thanks for joining us.

[57:40] >> Come back and see us at 11. We'll even

[57:41] have results from Hawaii tonight. See

[57:44] you then.