Face the Nation (CBS) - 2009-03-08
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:01] Today on Face the Nation, is the
[0:03] president doing enough to help the
[0:04] faltering economy or should he do more?
[0:07] And the big question now, will Democrats
[0:10] go along?
[0:12] >> It seems as if every time the Obama
[0:14] administration announces a specific
[0:16] effort to help the economy, Wall Street
[0:19] tanks. Why is that? And is a second
[0:22] stimulus package in the works? We'll ask
[0:25] Peter Orzag, the White House budget
[0:28] director, and if Republicans don't like
[0:30] what the president is doing, what is
[0:32] their plan? We'll ask the head of the
[0:35] House Republicans, John Boehner. We'll
[0:38] talk about the Limbaugh Flap and the
[0:40] rest of the week's news with Michael
[0:42] Fletcher, who covers the White House for
[0:44] the Washington Post, and syndicated
[0:46] columnist Kathleen Parker. Then, I'll
[0:49] have a final word on mixed messages. But
[0:53] first, the economy on Face the Nation.
[1:04] Face the Nation with CBS News Chief
[1:07] Washington correspondent Bob Schiffer.
[1:09] And now from CBS News in Washington, Bob
[1:13] Schaefer.
[1:14] >> And good morning again. The White House
[1:16] budget director, Peter Orzag, is with us
[1:18] here in the studio from Cincinnati,
[1:20] Ohio. Republican leader in the House,
[1:23] John Boehner. We're going to start this
[1:24] morning with Peter Orzag. Mr. um uh
[1:27] Orzag, there seems to be opposition
[1:30] building now, uh not from Republicans.
[1:32] They've been against it from the get-go,
[1:34] but from Democrats to the president's
[1:37] plan to fund the expansion of health
[1:39] care by reducing the deduction that
[1:42] upper income taxpayers get when they
[1:46] give uh to charities. Uh the Treasury
[1:50] Secretary said the other day, "The
[1:51] administration understands there are
[1:53] other ways to fund health care. Does
[1:56] that mean that uh the president is
[1:58] rethinking this plan to reduce those
[2:00] deductions on upper income taxpayers?"
[2:02] >> Well, I think as people start to look at
[2:04] that proposal in more detail and compare
[2:06] it to the alternatives, they're going to
[2:08] come around to uh come around to our our
[2:11] our proposal. But let's step back and
[2:13] remember, we want to get healthcare
[2:15] reform done this year. Health care costs
[2:18] are burdening workers, state
[2:20] governments, and the federal government.
[2:21] We just held a health forum in which
[2:22] there was broad bipartisan support for
[2:24] getting health reform done this year. In
[2:27] addition, we have significant savings
[2:29] within Medicare and Medicaid that we
[2:31] have put on the table. For example, $177
[2:34] billion in reducing subsidies to private
[2:37] insurance companies that cover
[2:39] beneficiaries under Medicare and do it
[2:41] inefficiently. I think there's a lot of
[2:42] momentum behind healthcare. We're going
[2:44] to get it done this year. But I want to
[2:46] go back to my question. Is the president
[2:48] going to reconsider this idea of
[2:51] reducing those deductions as part of the
[2:53] plan to fund health?
[2:54] >> We put a proposal on the table. We think
[2:56] it's a good proposal. Inevitably, as the
[2:58] legislative process moves forward, other
[2:59] people will put proposals on the table.
[3:01] Let's let that play out.
[3:02] >> So, right now, uh would you say that the
[3:05] president is open to other ways to do
[3:07] this if he could find it? I'm going to
[3:09] again say we think this is the best way
[3:11] of proceeding, but of course other
[3:13] people have uh ideas and they should put
[3:15] them on the table.
[3:16] >> Congress uh has already approved an
[3:18] enormous stimulus package, but when the
[3:20] unemployment figures came out last week
[3:22] said unemployment is now at 8.1 million
[3:26] people. Some people began to say we may
[3:28] need yet another stimulus package that
[3:31] this one may not be enough. Uh are you
[3:34] thinking of another stimulus package? Do
[3:37] you think it'll be necessary?
[3:38] >> Well, look, we just within the first
[3:40] month in office, we got the recovery act
[3:42] in law, enacted. We should give it some
[3:44] time to work. You you are starting to
[3:45] see the money um flow out to state
[3:47] governments, to unemployed workers. Uh
[3:50] it in tax relief. Let's give it some
[3:52] time to work. We we face a very deep
[3:54] economic hole. It's going to take some
[3:56] time to work our way out of it. Let's
[3:58] give the recovery act uh its
[4:00] >> How much time do you think you'd need,
[4:02] Mr. Horse? I mean, have you begun to see
[4:04] any impact yet or when would we begin?
[4:06] >> Well, again, the money just started to
[4:08] flow. So, you know, it will take weeks
[4:11] and months for it to start to uh to have
[4:13] an impact and we are facing a very deep
[4:16] and severe economic contraction.
[4:18] >> You know, every time uh the president
[4:21] proposes some sort of a rescue plan, uh
[4:24] it seems as if the stock market tanks.
[4:27] It goes down. went down again this week
[4:30] uh when he started talking about uh you
[4:33] know this mortgage bailout plan. Why do
[4:36] you think that is?
[4:37] >> Well, I think fundamentally the economy
[4:39] is weak. This jobs job losses began in
[4:42] January 2008. The stock market started
[4:45] declining in October 2007. This has
[4:48] been, you know, eight years in the
[4:49] making. And again, it's going to take
[4:50] some time to work our way out of it.
[4:52] >> What uh brokers don't seem to have much
[4:54] confidence in what what the president is
[4:56] doing. Why is that?
[4:57] >> Well, I don't know that I I I guess I
[4:59] I'm not sure I agree. I think again,
[5:01] we're focused on getting the economy
[5:02] back on its feet, addressing our
[5:05] long-term deficits, and by the way,
[5:07] investing in what corporate leaders and
[5:09] others have long said is the key to our
[5:11] economic future, a better education
[5:13] system, clean energy, and a more
[5:15] efficient health care system.
[5:17] >> Uh the president said last week that we
[5:19] shouldn't worry too much about the
[5:20] losses in the stock market. Um he said
[5:23] it was kind of like watching political
[5:25] polls. But listen to this.
[5:28] >> You know, the stock market is sort of
[5:30] like a tracking pole in politics. You
[5:33] know, it bobs up and down dayto day. Uh
[5:36] and if you spend all your time worrying
[5:37] about that, then you're probably going
[5:39] to get the long-term strategy wrong.
[5:42] >> So, what about that? Is this a good time
[5:44] to for people to go invest in the stock
[5:46] market? No. Brokers seem to be telling
[5:48] people to do that. Well, I'm not going
[5:49] to give uh stock market advice, but
[5:52] again, if if we look at the underlying
[5:54] resilience of the economy and focus on
[5:56] getting the economy both back on its
[5:58] feet in the short run and then investing
[6:00] in the things that lead to economic
[6:02] performance, education, a better
[6:04] healthare system, we will be doing our
[6:06] job.
[6:07] >> Lindsey Graham said this morning on Meet
[6:09] the Press that the press that the
[6:11] president's budget is scary. He called
[6:13] it a reckless exercise. It is scaring
[6:16] people. Uh, is your budget scary?
[6:19] >> Well, as Ronald Reagan once put it,
[6:20] there they go again. We've had eight
[6:22] years of uh, one approach. Didn't work.
[6:25] We're offering a new approach. Let's
[6:27] look at what the Republicans are putting
[6:28] on the table. The senior Republican on
[6:30] the House Budget Committee has put
[6:32] forward a plan that includes $3 trillion
[6:34] in tax cuts for the wealthy and
[6:36] corporations. A Medicare program when
[6:38] you turn 65, you'd be handed a check for
[6:41] 80% of the cost of healthcare inset and
[6:43] then you're on your own. and a social
[6:45] security plan in which your your social
[6:47] security funds would be invested in the
[6:49] stock market. I'm not making this stuff
[6:50] up. That is their alternative plan. I
[6:52] think they should come on the show,
[6:54] offer a detailed alternative to what
[6:56] we're talking about, and they'll let the
[6:58] American people evaluate the two ways
[7:00] forward.
[7:01] >> Well, they are on the show because John
[7:02] Boehner is going to is sitting right
[7:04] there uh and we're going to talk to him
[7:05] in just a minute. Uh the
[7:09] spending bill that is now before uh the
[7:12] Congress to keep the government running
[7:14] for the rest of this year includes $7.7
[7:17] billion in uh earmarks. The president
[7:20] said he's going to go ahead and sign
[7:22] that. He doesn't like it, but he's going
[7:23] to do it. Republicans have managed to
[7:25] block it. So you've had to have a
[7:27] continuing re resolution which keeps the
[7:30] government running but at last year's
[7:32] spending levels. Is that what's going to
[7:34] happen here? Will this uh this whole
[7:36] spending bill just go by the buy and
[7:38] we'll end up the year with continuing
[7:40] resolutions holding le spending to the
[7:42] levels of last year? I
[7:44] >> I don't think so. And again, these bills
[7:46] were supposed to be done last September.
[7:47] They are, you know, they are already
[7:50] negotiated. They include important
[7:52] things like $200 million to fight
[7:54] healthc care fraud. Uh important
[7:56] investments in PEL grants. They also
[7:58] contain a level of ear marks that even
[8:00] though it's down significantly from the
[8:02] peak, down 75% from the peak under the
[8:04] Republicans,
[8:06] still too high. But we're like a relief
[8:08] pitcher stepping into the ninth inning.
[8:10] And you know, we can't just redo the
[8:12] whole game. Next month, we're going to
[8:14] start the process on the fiscal year
[8:15] 2010 budget. That will be under our
[8:17] watch and the game's going to be a lot
[8:19] different.
[8:19] >> John Boehner, who's about to follow you
[8:22] here, says we need a spending freeze,
[8:24] good or bad? Well, I think look, we're
[8:27] talking about changing the course here.
[8:28] We need to unfortunately we have
[8:30] underinvested in education, in clean
[8:33] energy, and in healthcare. We need to
[8:35] make those key investments while also uh
[8:38] getting more efficiencies out of the
[8:39] rest of the government. That's exactly
[8:41] what this budget does. It reduces the
[8:43] basic operations of government to the
[8:45] lowest levels as a share of the economy.
[8:47] So, you're spending I just don't think
[8:49] that's a blunt approach. We need to be
[8:51] investing more in some areas and then uh
[8:54] obtaining more efficiencies in others.
[8:55] >> All right, Mr. Ros, thank you. And we're
[8:58] going to get the other side of it now
[8:59] from John Boehner. Well, what about
[9:00] that, John Boehner? Why do you think
[9:03] that it's a good idea to just simply
[9:05] freeze spending?
[9:06] >> Well, because I think if you look around
[9:08] the country, our economy is struggling.
[9:11] American families are tightening their
[9:12] belt, but they don't see government
[9:14] tightening its belt. And I think that we
[9:16] can get through this year and and lead
[9:18] by example and show the American people
[9:20] that government can go on a diet as
[9:22] well.
[9:22] >> Well, you just heard what Mr. Orzac
[9:24] said. He said the Republicans keep
[9:26] saying no, but they really hadn't come
[9:28] up with much of anything. What's your
[9:29] response to that,
[9:30] >> Bob? We had a plan to stimulate the
[9:32] economy that cost half as much as the
[9:34] president's proposal and would have
[9:36] created twice as many jobs. Uh, under
[9:38] our plan, we would have created 104,000
[9:41] additional jobs uh here in Ohio. And as
[9:44] we look at their budget, it's pretty
[9:46] clear that their budget spends too much,
[9:48] it taxes too much, and it borrows too
[9:51] much from our kids and grandkids. Uh
[9:53] it's time for government uh to go on
[9:56] this diet. It's time for government to
[9:58] tighten the belt uh and show the
[9:59] American people that we get it because I
[10:01] don't think most Americans uh today when
[10:04] they look at Washington, uh they look at
[10:07] what in the world's going on over there.
[10:09] Uh they want Washington to do the same
[10:11] thing they're doing. But don't you have
[10:12] to come up with something a little more
[10:14] specific? Uh don't Some people say,
[10:17] "Look, it would be a lot better if if
[10:19] you'd make a few compromises here and
[10:21] try to work with the president to to dig
[10:24] our way out of this hole that we all
[10:26] find ourselves in." And at the same
[10:28] time, they also point out that the
[10:29] president's popularity ratings keep
[10:31] going up while the Republican party's uh
[10:34] ratings keep going down.
[10:36] >> Hey, Bob, listen. Uh I want to work with
[10:39] the president on behalf of the American
[10:40] people. That's what they sent us to
[10:42] Washington to do. Uh, and while I like
[10:45] the president as much as the American
[10:46] people do, I think he's a great guy,
[10:48] there are serious differences in terms
[10:50] of the approach that he would like to
[10:52] take and the approach that I think many
[10:54] Republicans would like to take. Uh, this
[10:56] week we had the proposal on bailing out
[10:59] irresponsible homeowners. Uh, and what
[11:02] the president's plan does is ask the 90%
[11:04] of of mortgage holders who are
[11:07] struggling to make their payments and
[11:09] make them on time. He's asking those 90%
[11:12] to bail out the other eight or 10%
[11:15] who've acted irresponsibly.
[11:17] That's not what the American people
[11:19] want. And so when we have disagreements,
[11:22] I think it's our obligation to offer all
[11:25] alternatives. And I just believe that
[11:27] when it comes to housing, we ought to
[11:29] have the $15,000 tax credit that was in
[11:33] the stimulus bill uh for all who would
[11:35] buy a home. uh because at the end of the
[11:38] day that will help all homeowners in
[11:40] terms of increasing the value of their
[11:41] homes.
[11:42] >> There's no question that the uh White
[11:46] House uh is uh encouraging the idea that
[11:50] the person who really speaks for your
[11:52] party, the person who is the most
[11:54] influential amongst Republicans uh is
[11:57] Rush Limbaugh. What is your response to
[11:59] that, Mr. Boehner? Bob, this is a
[12:01] distraction that was created by the
[12:04] White House uh to divert people's
[12:06] attention uh from the spending binge
[12:08] they've been on over the last six weeks
[12:10] and it's really unfortunate uh because
[12:13] this distraction won't create one single
[12:16] new job in America and it won't help one
[12:19] struggling family in America. Uh and
[12:21] what we really need to do is work
[12:23] together in a responsible way to address
[12:25] the needs of our economy and the needs
[12:27] of American families and small
[12:29] businesses. Well, he certainly gets a
[12:30] lot of attention. Uh, do you think Rush
[12:32] Limbaugh uh is the leader of your party?
[12:35] >> There are a lot of people who want to
[12:36] speak on behalf of our party. Uh, and
[12:39] over the course of the next few years,
[12:40] we'll see a lot of people emerge,
[12:42] whether they be governors, members of
[12:43] Congress, uh, those who may be on the
[12:46] outside, uh, who want to take a more
[12:48] active role in our party. But at the end
[12:50] of the day, it's it's important for
[12:53] members of of Congress and governors to
[12:55] speak up in terms of how our principles
[12:58] uh will lead to policies and proposals
[13:01] uh that will help the American people. I
[13:03] said on the opening day when I gave
[13:04] Nancy Pelosi the gabble uh that we
[13:07] wouldn't just be the party of no uh we
[13:10] had to disagree. We would be the party
[13:12] of better solutions. uh and you'll see
[13:14] us continue to put forward better
[13:16] solutions uh to to the problems
[13:18] Americans face. When you look at what's
[13:20] happened on Wall Street the last six
[13:22] weeks, uh the reason the market
[13:24] continues to go down is because many
[13:27] people on Wall Street don't think the
[13:29] policies the president's proposing will
[13:31] work. At the end of the day, I think we
[13:33] needed to do a stimulus bill, but I've
[13:35] got concerns that all it will do is grow
[13:37] the size of government and put a lot of
[13:39] debt on our kids and really won't
[13:41] stimulate the economy. And I think Wall
[13:43] Street's saying the same thing.
[13:45] >> You know, u last week auditor said that
[13:49] uh General Motors survival was in
[13:52] substantial doubt. Now, you're from
[13:54] Ohio. There are a lot of auto workers
[13:56] that are already out of work there. Do
[13:58] you think General Motors could survive
[14:00] bankruptcy? Uh
[14:02] >> I think they could survive bankruptcy.
[14:04] uh hopefully they'll be able to come to
[14:06] an agreement with all of their
[14:07] stakeholders uh before they get to that
[14:09] point, you know, and the stakeholders
[14:11] are the stockholders, the bond holders,
[14:13] and the employees. And at the end of the
[14:16] day, all of them are going to have to
[14:18] come to an agreement uh to help this
[14:20] company survive. It's an important
[14:21] institution uh in our country. Uh it
[14:24] impacts hundreds of thousands of jobs.
[14:27] Uh but they have to do the serious work
[14:29] that they've avoided doing over the last
[14:30] 30 years if they're going to survive.
[14:32] they may be coming back to the
[14:35] government for even more money. Would
[14:37] you uh favor another uh infusion of
[14:41] federal money to General Motors?
[14:44] >> I don't think the government should put
[14:45] any more money there until General
[14:47] Motors shows that they can be a viable
[14:50] company for the long term and that
[14:52] there's a reasonable chance that any
[14:54] loans that the government would make uh
[14:57] would be paid back to the taxpayers.
[14:59] Anything short of that is just throwing
[15:01] good money after bed.
[15:02] >> All right, Mr. Boehner, I want to thank
[15:04] you for joining us this morning. And
[15:06] when we come back in just one minute,
[15:08] we'll have a little round table about
[15:10] all of this.
[15:21] And back now with syndicated columnist
[15:23] Kathleen Parker and Michael Fletcher,
[15:26] who covers the White House for the
[15:27] Washington Post. Well, we wound up that
[15:29] discussion with John Boehner talking
[15:31] about Rush Limbaugh, so let's continue
[15:33] the talk. Mr. Boehner didn't seem to
[15:36] want to touch that.
[15:37] >> Yeah, Republicans have learned to keep
[15:38] their mouth shut when it comes to Rush,
[15:40] you know, otherwise they might have to
[15:41] apologize to him. U but the interesting
[15:43] thing about this is the whole the whole
[15:45] idea that the White House would engage a
[15:48] talk radio host seems fairly unpreent. I
[15:51] mean, George W. Bush wouldn't even
[15:53] acknowledge other heads of state. Um,
[15:55] but here we are talking about a a radio
[15:58] host. Now, there is a uh my first
[16:00] impulse when I heard about it was, "Oh,
[16:01] well, there goes the fairness doctrine
[16:03] because we're having too much fun. Who
[16:04] would want to bring it back?" But
[16:06] there's a new little conspiracy theory
[16:08] floating out there that I'll just throw
[16:10] on the table. And that is that the White
[16:12] House is very strategically doing this
[16:14] because then once you designate Rush
[16:16] Limbbo as the head of the Republican
[16:18] party, then you can say, "Hey, wait a
[16:20] minute. the head of the Republican party
[16:22] is on the radio every day speaking to 20
[16:24] million people more than even the
[16:25] president reaches. Therefore, we need
[16:27] the fairness doctrine. So, we'll see.
[16:29] >> The fairness doctrine, of course, is the
[16:31] law that we used to have that said if
[16:33] you put on uh one side, you have to put
[16:36] on the other, right?
[16:37] >> Now, people would argue, of course,
[16:38] broadcasters argue there are so many
[16:40] places to express opinion on all sides
[16:44] that that you don't need that.
[16:45] >> Well, and the president has said he has
[16:46] the president has said I he has no
[16:48] interest in that. But but Democrats do
[16:49] want to get the fairness doctrine back
[16:51] in place and Republicans do feel that
[16:53] and that they think now this is a new
[16:56] theory so I won't go too far with it but
[16:58] there is some chatter that that this is
[17:00] actually a deliberate attempt to sort of
[17:01] create this uh this dynamic that now has
[17:04] to be addressed.
[17:05] >> One thing about it the White House is
[17:07] not reluctant Mr. Boehner may be
[17:09] reluctant to talk about Rush Limbbo but
[17:11] the White House is not we saw all last
[17:13] week. I think they found that Michael
[17:15] Moore I mean on the other side I mean
[17:16] Rush Limbaugh is kind of this polarizing
[17:19] figure and I think the White House wants
[17:21] to put him out there as kind of the face
[17:22] of the Republican party because of that
[17:24] even though he's very popular with the
[17:25] base the Republican parties I think
[17:28] people now 28% of Americans selfidentify
[17:30] as Republican. So their growth is going
[17:32] to come with independence or you know
[17:34] bringing back the Reagan Democrats and
[17:36] as long as um Rush Limbar is the face of
[17:38] the Republican party in the White
[17:40] House's um view they won't be able to do
[17:42] that. Michael, how do people at the
[17:44] White House feel about this idea that
[17:46] suddenly uh the opposition to the
[17:49] president's budget, a lot of it is
[17:50] coming from very influential Democrats
[17:52] like Mike uh uh like Max Balkas, the
[17:55] chairman of the Senate Finance
[17:56] Committee, who says he doesn't see why
[17:59] you should uh reduce that deduction that
[18:02] upper income people can take on
[18:03] charitable contributions to finance
[18:06] health care. He says he doesn't see any
[18:08] any connection between the two. Is that
[18:10] gonna I is the White House going to back
[18:12] off on that? Do you think
[18:13] >> they may? I mean, this is a big problem
[18:15] for the White House going forward if
[18:17] they can't even keep their partisans on
[18:19] board on a proposal like that. And you
[18:21] think about some of the ambitious plans
[18:22] laid out in the budget. You get beyond
[18:24] that into this whole idea of taxing
[18:26] carbon emissions and a lot of people say
[18:27] that will raise people's energy bills
[18:29] and the White House acknowledges as much
[18:31] and they say, "Well, people will be
[18:32] returned the money through the tax
[18:34] code." It gets to be a very complicated
[18:35] argument. So if you can't keep people on
[18:37] board on something that you know the
[18:39] president had talked during the campaign
[18:40] about you know the wealthy having to
[18:41] kick in more but if you can't keep
[18:43] Democrats on board there it has to be a
[18:44] concern to them.
[18:45] >> Where do you think this is going
[18:46] Kathleen?
[18:47] >> Well you know I think look the the
[18:49] president has come out with a budget
[18:51] that's got everything in it. Clearly
[18:53] they expect to have to make some
[18:55] compromises along the way but even if
[18:57] you get a a percentage of huge you still
[19:01] wind up with big. And so these are the
[19:03] sorts of things that they may be willing
[19:05] I think just listening to Mr. doors,
[19:07] there's uh their intimations that these
[19:09] are the kind of things that well, we
[19:10] could we could talk about that, you
[19:12] know. So, I think what we're looking at
[19:15] right now is not what we're going to end
[19:16] up with. There's a lot of room for new
[19:19] ideas.
[19:20] >> What about the It's interesting to me in
[19:23] that the president is more popular than
[19:25] ever according to the latest polls and
[19:28] yet you're seeing some, you know,
[19:31] question about his policies and is this
[19:34] budget a good idea? I mean, uh, where do
[19:37] you think this is going to play out
[19:39] here?
[19:39] >> I mean, I think a lot of anxiety
[19:40] obviously, I mean, spins off of the
[19:42] economic anxiety people feel. I mean,
[19:44] they see the president doing all of
[19:46] these things even before he was in
[19:47] office. They saw the Bush administration
[19:48] shoveling all of this money into the
[19:50] financial system. And many people say
[19:52] that tarp, the first half of the, you
[19:54] know, bailout basically prevented an
[19:56] implosion. But people have not seen
[19:58] improvement. So I think as long as that
[20:00] overlays there, as long as you have the
[20:01] kind of numbers we saw last week where
[20:03] unemployment continues to skyrocket,
[20:05] consumer spending continues to tank, I
[20:07] think you'll see this kind of air of
[20:09] anxiety. I mean, I think people are
[20:10] hopeful that this stuff will work, but
[20:12] there's no evidence yet that that it is
[20:14] working, I think. And people are worried
[20:15] about that.
[20:16] >> Well, they're worried, but polls also
[20:17] show that that the people are much more
[20:20] patient and and with this is huge and
[20:23] they understand it's complicated and and
[20:25] President Obama's been in place what,
[20:27] six weeks. And so while we in Washington
[20:30] are are ready to sort of measure
[20:32] everything on a daily basis, uh I think
[20:34] if you go out into the uh out into the
[20:37] Hustings, you find that people are much
[20:39] uh less likely to demand answers
[20:41] immediately. Even President Obama said,
[20:43] "Look,
[20:44] the economy is not a speedboat. It's an
[20:47] oceanliner. You know, what we're trying
[20:49] to do is change the direction and
[20:51] whatever changes we have will be
[20:52] gradual. It'll be later down the road
[20:54] that we are in a different place. Of
[20:56] course, we're trying to not free
[20:58] associate to the Titanic, but
[21:00] >> there you are.
[21:01] >> Well, I want to thank all of you, but I
[21:03] I I tell you, I'm reminded of what
[21:04] Russell Long, the former chairman of the
[21:07] Senate Finance Committee, once said that
[21:08] nobody likes taxes. He used to say
[21:11] people would tell him, "Don't tax him.
[21:13] Don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the
[21:16] tree." And that is more true as every
[21:19] passing day passes. We'll be back.
[21:22] Thanks to both of you. Back in a moment
[21:23] with a final thought.
[21:29] This portion of Face the Nation is
[21:31] sponsored by the people of America's oil
[21:34] and natural gas industry. Learn more at
[21:37] energyto.org.
[21:43] Finally, today there are more important
[21:46] things to worry about. But may we have
[21:48] just a moment of sympathy for the poor
[21:50] State Department employee who came up
[21:53] with the idea of the gag gift that
[21:55] Secretary of State Clinton presented to
[21:58] Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in
[22:00] Moscow. It was to be a play on Vice
[22:03] President Biden's remark that it was
[22:05] time to press the reset button on
[22:08] Russian-American relations. So Mrs.
[22:11] Clinton presented the foreign minister
[22:12] with a little box with a button on it
[22:15] and a sign that said reset in Russian.
[22:18] Or at least that's what the Americans
[22:20] thought it said. I hope we got the right
[22:22] word, Mrs. Clinton beamed. No, you got
[22:26] it wrong, the minister replied. You got
[22:28] the word that means overcharged. Oops.
[22:32] Oh well, no real harm done. But I can't
[22:34] help wondering what happened to that
[22:37] hapless soul who caused the boss to lay
[22:39] an egg. If he or she was in mi in Mrs.
[22:42] Clinton's traveling party, it must have
[22:44] been a long plane ride home. If it is
[22:48] any consolation, I have seen a lot
[22:50] worse. I was standing on an airport
[22:52] runway in Warsaw when then President
[22:55] Jimmy Carter told a Polish crowd he was
[22:58] looking forward to getting to know them.
[23:00] Surprisingly, the crowd let out a
[23:03] horrified, "Oh, and no wonder when we
[23:06] found out why." Somehow, the president's
[23:09] own translator mangled his words, and in
[23:12] Polish, the message came out that Mr.
[23:15] Carter was eager to know the crowd in a
[23:18] biblical sense.
[23:21] These things happen. Back in a moment.
[23:33] And that's our broadcast. We'll be back
[23:35] here right at this very spot next Sunday
[23:39] on Face the Nation.
[23:44] This broadcast was produced by CBS News,
[23:47] which is solely responsible for the
[23:49] selection of today's guests and topics.
[23:52] It originated in Washington, DC.