David Gergen's Blog, page 17
November 12, 2010
Is America losing its influence? By David Gergen
By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political AnalystNovember 12, 2010 3:08 p.m. EST
Editor's note: David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN, has been an adviser to four U.S. presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School.(CNN) -- Opening The New York Times on Friday morning, I blinked. The headline on its lead story, spread over two columns, blared out, "Obama's Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage."Whether or not you like this president, the headline should make every American wince. Yes, other presidents have experienced setbacks, but it has been a long time since any of them has been so publicly rebuffed in a gathering of the world's major nations. Indeed, since World War II, our presidents have dominated the world's economic decision-making.In this case, Obama took double blows. His hosts in South Korea resisted making concessions that would have wrapped up the biggest bilateral trade deal for the U.S. in more than a decade -- a deal that Obama insisted be done by this week. No one knows now if it will be completed.Meanwhile, at a meeting of the G-20 nations in Seoul, Obama ran into more trouble. For months he and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have been pointing toward these talks as a place to secure a firm agreement from China to increase the value of its currency and to gain agreement from China, Germany and others to reduce their trade surpluses. The doors were slammed in American faces. China refused to make firm promises, and the U.S. was lectured by China, Germany, Brazil and others that it was manipulating for a weaker dollar so that it can increase exports.There is a suggestion coming from the White House that the press is being unduly dramatic in its reporting on these setbacks. But is this believable about The New York Times? Hardly.No, what we have here is something more serious: not only a president who is personally weakened by elections at home but a proud nation that is also weakened in the eyes of the world.For too long, the U.S. has been seen by a growing number of other nations as acting recklessly with our finances. Within less than a generation, we have fallen from being the world's biggest creditor to the world's biggest debtor. Fingers are also pointed at us for causing the Great Recession.We increasingly face a stark choice: Either we get our economic house in order or we will lose much of our influence -- and our leadership -- on the world stage.Time to take a more welcoming look at the national deficit commission? I think so.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Gergen.
Editor's note: David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN, has been an adviser to four U.S. presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School.(CNN) -- Opening The New York Times on Friday morning, I blinked. The headline on its lead story, spread over two columns, blared out, "Obama's Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage."Whether or not you like this president, the headline should make every American wince. Yes, other presidents have experienced setbacks, but it has been a long time since any of them has been so publicly rebuffed in a gathering of the world's major nations. Indeed, since World War II, our presidents have dominated the world's economic decision-making.In this case, Obama took double blows. His hosts in South Korea resisted making concessions that would have wrapped up the biggest bilateral trade deal for the U.S. in more than a decade -- a deal that Obama insisted be done by this week. No one knows now if it will be completed.Meanwhile, at a meeting of the G-20 nations in Seoul, Obama ran into more trouble. For months he and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have been pointing toward these talks as a place to secure a firm agreement from China to increase the value of its currency and to gain agreement from China, Germany and others to reduce their trade surpluses. The doors were slammed in American faces. China refused to make firm promises, and the U.S. was lectured by China, Germany, Brazil and others that it was manipulating for a weaker dollar so that it can increase exports.There is a suggestion coming from the White House that the press is being unduly dramatic in its reporting on these setbacks. But is this believable about The New York Times? Hardly.No, what we have here is something more serious: not only a president who is personally weakened by elections at home but a proud nation that is also weakened in the eyes of the world.For too long, the U.S. has been seen by a growing number of other nations as acting recklessly with our finances. Within less than a generation, we have fallen from being the world's biggest creditor to the world's biggest debtor. Fingers are also pointed at us for causing the Great Recession.We increasingly face a stark choice: Either we get our economic house in order or we will lose much of our influence -- and our leadership -- on the world stage.Time to take a more welcoming look at the national deficit commission? I think so.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Gergen.
Roundtable: The GOP Victory, the Tea Party Ascendancy — and Obama's Next Steps Matt Taibbi, David Gergen and Peter D. Hart debate the Republican comeback
By Jann S. Wenner and Eric BatesNov 10, 2010 11:39 AM ESTThe following is an article from the November 25, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone. This issue is available on newsstands Friday, as well online in Rolling Stone's digital archive. Click here to subscribe.The morning after Americans went to the polls, we sat down at the Rolling Stone offices in New York with the two political experts we have consulted after every national election since 2004. David Gergen, director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Kennedy School at Harvard, has served in the White House as a senior adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. Peter D. Hart, known for his nonpartisan poll for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, has conducted public-opinion research for 30 governors and 40 U.S. senators, from Hubert Humphrey to Ted Kennedy. Also joining us this year was Matt Taibbi, contributing editor for Rolling Stone and author ofGriftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids and the Long Con That Is Breaking America.Obama in Command: The Rolling Stone InterviewHow big a defeat is this for Democrats?Peter Hart: I've been doing Election Night for 46 years, and next to 1980, this is the hardest to stomach. It was just an old-fashioned beating. First and foremost, it was about turnout. Republicans and the elderly showed up, but Democrats and the young didn't. Only about one in 10 voters was under the age of 30 this year, compared to one in five in 2008. Blacks and Latinos also turned out in smaller numbers: They represented only 18 percent of voters this year, compared to 22 percent in '08. The Democrats won on both the coasts and almost nowhere in between. Was it a big defeat? You'd better believe it.David Gergen: What we are seeing now is the high-water mark for the Obama presidency, at least domestically. No matter what else happens, even if he gets re-elected, he will never be as powerful as he was during his first two years. After Obama's election in 2008, I was one of those who believed that we were at a turning point — that the Reagan tide was receding, and we would see a cycle of progressive politics for 15 or 20 years. To have that reversed so quickly is stunning. This is the first time since the Truman-Eisenhower years that we've had three elections in a row in which more than 20 House seats have changed hands. We may be moving away from political cycles and into a period of extreme volatility in our politics, just as we have extreme volatility in our markets.Matt Taibbi: My take is that it's not as bad as it seems. The first thing I thought when I saw the results come in last night wasn't all the gains the Republicans made, but the places where they should have won and didn't — mainly because they had Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell who had won primary battles and then proved unable to beat Democrats in the general election. What we saw last night was the Tea Party taking over the Republican Party. That more radicalized, extreme wing of the party is going to play a kingmaking role in the presidential election in 2012 — and that's going to make it impossible for the Republicans to retake the White House.How big a force was the Tea Party in this election?
Hart: We asked Republicans who are part of the Tea Party — slightly more than 20 percent of registered voters — if they consider themselves first and foremost to be a Tea Party person or a Republican. Half of them said, "I'm Tea Party through and through." That underscores exactly what Matt is saying.
Gergen: If it were not for the extra boost of enthusiasm the Tea Party provided, I imagine the Republicans would have won only 40 to 50 seats, instead of the 60-plus they gained. But the Tea Party also makes it harder in the future for Republicans to maintain a coherent party. Matt is right that they will have a large voice in the nomination process in 2012. But one cannot discount that someone could arise, as Reagan did in the past, who can bridge the differences within the party and keep people united.
Taibbi: To me, the main thing about the Tea Party is that they're just crazy. If somebody is able to bridge the gap with those voters, it seems to me they will have to be a little bit crazy too. That's part of the Tea Party's litmus test: "How far will you go?"
Gergen: I flatly reject the idea that Tea Partiers are crazy. They had some eccentric candidates, there's no question about that. But I think they represent a broad swath of the American electorate that elites dismiss to their peril.
Hart: I agree with David. When two out of five people who voted last night say they consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party, we make a huge mistake to suggest that they are some sort of small fringe group and do not represent anybody else.
Taibbi: I'm not saying that they're small or a fringe group.
Gergen: You just think they're all crazy.
Taibbi: I do.
Gergen: So you're arguing, Matt, that 40 percent of those who voted last night are crazy?
Taibbi: I interview these people. They're not basing their positions on the facts — they're completely uninterested in the facts. They're voting completely on what they see and hear on Fox News and afternoon talk radio, and that's enough for them.
Gergen: The great unwashed are uneducated, so therefore their views are really beneath serious conversation?
Taibbi: I'm not saying they're beneath serious conversation. I'm saying that these people vote without acting on the evidence.
Gergen: I find it stunning that the conversation has taken this turn. I disagree with the Tea Party on a number of issues, but it misreads who they are to dismiss them as some kind of uneducated know-nothings who have somehow seized power in the American electorate. It is elitist to its core. We would all be better off if we spent more time listening to each other rather than simply writing them off.
Hart: I agree. The point here is that the Obama administration would be at their own peril to somehow misread this as a fringe, unacceptable group of people. This is a huge portion of the electorate, and they represent a core within the Republican Party.
We can talk about the Tea Party as a factor, but some of this clearly has to be laid at Obama's doorstep. What missteps did he make that contributed to the Republican victory in this election?
Hart: To begin with, he failed to live up to his covenant, and that was change we could believe in. The public was looking for a change agent for the average person. They didn't like that all the special interests and the banks were bailed out, the auto industry was bailed out, and at the same time unemployment and the economy got worse. At the end of the day, the president lost the middle of the electorate, he lost the suburbs and he lost blue-collar America. He lost seven of the eight Midwest states, from Pennsylvania to Iowa, that he carried in 2008. The Democrats lost all six Senate races there, and at least five governorships.
Taibbi: I agree with Peter. There was a moment right after Obama got elected where he had an opportunity to really distinguish himself from the policies of the Republican Party. Instead, he essentially continued the Bush policies, and even retained some of the same people who were the architects of the Bush bailouts, most notably Timothy Geithner. Democrats could have stood up and explained how financial interests had taken advantage of people — why everyone was losing their jobs, why there was this credit crash and mortgage crash — but they didn't do that. What they did instead was invest all their political capital in rescuing the financial sector, hoping it would trickle down to ordinary people. Blue-collar people were craving an explanation for why their economic situation was so bad, and the Democrats just didn't give them that explanation.
Gergen: Had the president's fundamental approach for the past two years been about jobs, he would have been a lot better off coming into the election. People would have felt that he was on their side. He helped to stabilize the major banks, which prevented us from going over a cliff, and he deserves credit for averting another Great Depression. But he clearly made a strategic miscalculation in assuming that the stimulus would keep unemployment under eight percent. In retrospect, it was a blunder to spend so much time on health care instead of jobs. If Franklin Roosevelt's most important accomplishment of his first two years had been a health care bill, we'd have all said that was nuts.
Matt Taibbi on the Tea PartyPeople were also upset that he compromised on every single thing that came up, cutting backroom deals rather than standing up for his core principles. It was easy for voters to say, "Throw the bums out — and he's just another one of the bums."
Gergen: We're all mystified by the fact that this was a fellow who was able to make both the liberal base of the party and the moderates believe that he was their great hope, yet he wound up making both of those groups disappointed. It's very surprising.
The Vanishing Obama VotersWhen we met to assess the election two years ago, it seemed that the Karl Rove tactic of playing to the extremes might be a thing of the past. How did riling up the base make such a comeback so quickly?
Taibbi: A lot of it has to do with the vacuum of power in the Republican Party. After the 2008 election, the party had no leadership, no coherent message and no ideas that had any kind of traction. Bush's presidency was completely discredited, and they suffered this terrible defeat with a conventional mainstream Republican, John McCain. That created an opportunity for all these more radical ideas to step to the forefront, and it turned out that they were perfectly suited to the moment.
Gergen: I think it's more complicated than saying that the Republicans went to their base. The media has spent way too much time on the Tea Party and Christine O'Donnell and far too little time on the emergence of moderate-right Republicans like Rob Portman and John Kasich in Ohio. There are as many traditional conservatives coming into office on the Republican side as there are Tea Partiers. You have to remember, this was not a vote for the Republican Party — it was a negative election about what was going on in Washington. That's why the Republicans are smart to be humble about this election. I think both parties are now on probation. The voters are basically saying, "We'll put you guys in there, and if you don't solve this, we'll throw you out."
What do the Democrats and Obama have to do now, given the Republican majority they face in the House?
Hart: First, get the economy working. Job one is the only job, and that's getting people back to work. Second, find a way to connect with average voters. In the past few months, Obama started going into people's backyards during the campaign. He was closer to them physically, but he never connected with them emotionally. Third, look beyond his current group of insiders in the White House and find new people who can help him survive, the way Bill Clinton sought out Leon Panetta after Republicans retook the House in 1994.
Gergen: If Obama is going to govern as well as prosper politically, he has to pivot back toward the center. He must embrace some sort of Social Security reform, just as Clinton did with NAFTA, even though his base will scream about it. He must also enlarge his inner circle by bringing in people who have the trust of the business community. One of the surprises for me has been that even though Obama rescued the banks, the alienation of the business community has reached a point that is threatening the recovery. Business people are sitting on a lot of money and not investing it because there is so much uncertainty about taxes, health care, financial regulations and energy. Obama's got to be more of a partner with the business community.
Taibbi: I have to disagree. The notion that the business community is disappointed with Obama because of what he's done in the past two years, I just don't see that. They're sitting on a lot of money, but they're sitting on it because he gave it to them.
Gergen: You don't think they're disappointed?
Taibbi: I'm sure they would have preferred the Republican agenda, where they would get 100 percent of what they want. Under Obama, they only got 90 percent. He bailed out the banks and didn't put anybody in jail. He gave $13 billion to Goldman Sachs under the AIG bailout alone and then did nothing when Goldman turned around and gave themselves $16 billion in bonuses. He passed a financial-reform bill that contains no significant reforms and doesn't really address the issue of "too big to fail." FDR, in the same position, passed radical reforms that really put Wall Street and the business community under his heel.
Gergen: If you talk to many CEOs, you'll find that they're very hostile toward Obama.
Taibbi: Who cares what these CEOs think? I don't care — they're 1/1,000th of a percent of the electorate. They're the problem. Obama needs to get other people's votes, not their votes.
Gergen: It's not their votes he needs to get — it's their investments and jobs.
In 2008, Obama managed to win over both the financial sector and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Now he seems to have pissed off both ends of that coalition.
Hart: There's a fascinating point from the exit polls that supports part of what Matt is saying. When you ask voters who is most to blame for the current economic crisis, 35 percent say it's Wall Street bankers, 29 percent say it's George W. Bush and 23 percent say it's Barack Obama. However, among those who say it's Wall Street bankers, 56 percent voted for the Republicans in this election. So go figure.
That said, I worry that if the president and the Democrats were to follow Matt's advice, they would be appealing to the smallest segment of the electorate. Right now Obama has the support of 85 percent of Democrats. If you want to get America back to work, you don't want to put the people who have the ability to invest on the other side of their fence.
Taibbi: So if we put people in jail for committing fraud during the mortgage bubble, we're endangering our ability to win over the CEOs? Obama should have made sure that there are consequences for people who committed crimes. Instead, he pursued a policy of nonaction, and that left him vulnerable with ordinary people who wanted an explanation for why the economy went off the cliff.
Gergen: I don't think his problem is he hasn't put enough people in jail. I agree that when people commit fraud, they ought to spend some time in the slammer. But there's a tendency in today's Democratic Party to turn away from someone like Bob Rubin because of his time at Citigroup. I served with him during the Clinton administration, when the country added 22 million new jobs, and Bob Rubin was right at the center of that. He was an invaluable adviser to the president, and he is now arguing that one of the reasons this economy is not coming back is that the business community is sitting on money because of the hostility they feel coming from Washington.
Taibbi: I'm sorry, but Bob Rubin is exactly what I'm talking about. Under Clinton, he pushed this enormous remaking of the rules for Wall Street specifically so the Citigroup merger could go through, then he went to work for Citigroup and made $120 million over the next 10 years. He helped push through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which deregulated the derivatives market and created the mortgage bubble. Then Obama brings him back into the government during the transition and surrounds himself with people who are close to Bob Rubin. That's exactly the wrong message to be sending to ordinary voters: that we're bringing back this same crew of Wall Street-friendly guys who screwed up and got us in this mess in the first place.
Gergen: That sentiment is exactly what the business community objects to.
Taibbi: Fuck the business community!
Gergen: Fuck the business community? That's what you said? That's the very attitude the business community feels is coming from many Democrats in Washington, including some in the White House. There's a good reason why they feel many Democrats are hostile — because they are.
Taibbi: It's hard to see how this administration is hostile to business when the guy it turns to for economic advice is the same guy who pushed through a merger and then went right off and made $120 million from a decision that helped wreck the entire economy.
We've talked about the Democrats. What do Republicans have to do now to build on their victory?
Gergen: The danger for the Republicans is that they will overplay their hand. We've had a pattern of newly elected people who feel they have a mandate of some sort, and then go beyond what the public really wants. Clinton got his hand slapped early on because voters thought he had overreached to the left. Then Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush got slapped for overreaching to the right. Now Obama has gotten his hand slapped for pursuing too much government. There's going to be a tendency on the part of some Republicans to sense blood in the water — Obama's wounded, let's spend the next two years taking him out. But the public is clearly looking for action on the economy, not for more politics in the sandbox.
Are there any areas where Democrats and Republicans can reach consensus in the next two years? Or are we looking at total war right up until November 2012?
Hart: There are potentially some areas of agreement in regulatory reform and energy. Social Security could also be an interesting bridge, but it's probably a bridge too far. I think the wars are going to be fought over the budget and health care.
Gergen: On foreign policy, they have the potential to reach an agreement on the endgame in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, and to present a forceful case to the world on Iran. On the domestic front, one of the trickiest questions we're going to face is a showdown between the Republicans and the president over a potential shutdown of the government. We all remember that Clinton used that masterfully to gain an upper hand against Newt Gingrich. That moment seems to be in the offing again, and I don't know how either side is going to play it.
The Republicans could also try to repeal health care reform.
Gergen: We're in a situation in which each side has a veto. Jim Schlesinger, who served as secretary of both defense and energy, once said that everybody in Washington has the capacity to say no, but nobody has the capacity to say yes. That makes for gridlock, and paralyzes government. That's a very real possibility we face — one that will hurt both sides heading into 2012. If joblessness is still high, you've got a wounded Obama, you've got an angry Tea Party, where are we then? We're a country in decline — and that, to me, is the biggest fear.
Hart: Despite all the seats Republicans picked up, there are still three gaping holes in their image. First, their image remains as negative as it was after the election in 2008 — 41 percent of registered voters have negative feelings toward the Republicans. Second, half of those who identify with the Republicans care more about the Tea Party than the GOP, and they're going to hold the leadership's feet to the fire; John Boehner is about to get some electroshock treatment. Third, as the victories of Jerry Brown in California and Harry Reid in Nevada underscore, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate is the Hispanic vote. Democrats had a 22-point advantage among Hispanics in 2004; today that has grown to a 38-point advantage. Anti-immigration rhetoric may have driven Republican voters to the polls this year, but they will pay a price for it in 2012.
Taibbi: You would certainly think that if the Republicans spend the next two years screeching about immigration and Medicare and Social Security, they would lose votes with Hispanics, the elderly and, well, people in general. But you never know how American voters will react when you take their benefits away. I can envision a scenario where the Republicans push for steep cuts in social services in the name of balancing the budget, then just keep the social cuts and leave out the balancing-the-budget part, which is what they did in the Bush years. And then the dingbats in the Tea Party will throw a parade for them in 2012.
Speaking of 2012, which of the Republican presidential hopefuls benefited the most from this election?
Gergen: There's no question that Sarah Palin has gained more from this as a Republican kingmaker. But I imagine there's going to be a search for someone else to serve as the bridge-builder I mentioned earlier. To me, the leading possibility, if he can overcome the brand-name problem, is Jeb Bush. Two years ago, you would have said, "Impossible." Today, quite possible. He's a much more viable candidate today than he was two years ago, and he's one of the few people I know who could bridge the various factions within the party and hold people together. So I'm putting my money on Jeb Bush as a potential star who might emerge and unite the party.
Taibbi: Whew. I was already depressed this morning, but thinking about another Bush as the better-case scenario in an either/or political future makes me want to douse myself with kerosene and jump into a blast furnace.
So where do we stand? By splitting control of the House and Senate, have voters doomed us to two more years of partisan gridlock?
Gergen: The looming, transcendent question is whether we can govern ourselves as a people, or whether we're going to just drift into a serious decline. My hope is that Obama will head to the center and the Republicans will be a constructive opposition. It would be good if they could actually get things done as we did in the latter Clinton years, like balancing the budget and welfare reform. If the Republicans play an obstruction game for the next two years, it is possible that they could succeed in 2012, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory. It would be taking over a country that is almost ungovernable by that point, a nation that is going to be ever closer to the edge.
Hart: David draws an eloquent picture, as he always does, of how we would like the world to be. But during the Clinton period in the late Nineties, there wasn't Fox News. Fox not only demonizes everything the president says and does — it has become the major vetting group for Republicans, and it will not allow any kind of compromise to exist. It's like the ending of The Sun Also Rises, when Lady Brett Ashley nestles in the arms of Hemingway's hero and imagines what their life together might have been like. She says, "Wouldn't it be nice?" It would be nice, but I don't think we're going to get there.
The following is an article from the November 25, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone. This issue is available on newsstands Friday, as well online in Rolling Stone's digital archive. Click here to subscribe.
November 11, 2010
The Deficit Problems and The Debt Problems.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Hello my friend, Tony. I was having a big conversation with my friend Christine Romans about these deficits and what they mean. I got caught up and almost forgot I have a show to do. Good to see you my friend and we're going to pick up that coverage of the cruise ship just came in. You have a great afternoon.
This country's crushing debt and deficit can bring to mind Mark Twain's famous like about the weather. Everybody talks about them but nobody does anything about them. That's not strictly true of course, but not since the '90s has Washington done anything big and bold to balance the budget and level off our long-term debt until maybe now.
An independent, bipartisan commission that President Obama tasked with doing what politicians won't has done just that. Weeks ahead of schedule -- it was supposed to be released on December 1st -- it has gone public with a plan that it says would slash deficits by almost 4 trillion, with a T, dollars over the next decade.
Here's what the plan is going to look like. I'm going to level with you; even economists have a hard time grasping these billions and trillions, so they use GDP, the total size of the economy, as a reference point. Next year's deficit will likely hit -- and that's the bar on your extreme left there -- will likely hit 8 percent of GDP.
But if you follow the dark red bars, not the lighter parts above it, the dark red bars; it drops to under 2 percent of GDP by 2017 and then stays there. That's the commission's scenario. So if they didn't do anything under current policy, it would be those lighter colored bars. Under the projections that they're making, under this proposal, look at where the deficit goes in this country.
The pink bars are nothing much below 4 percent as far as the eye can see, now I know this is a lot of numbers, I'm going to give this to you in a different way. The way that's probably more important to you. Check out the debt. What I showed you was the deficit. The debt is the accumulation of all those deficits. It's the accumulation of all our yearly borrowing. The middle line, the red line there assumes that current law in this country stays exactly where it is, in which case the debt never drops below 60 percent of GDP.
That's kind of scary. Now let's just look at the light blue line. That's the top line. That's a real world projection because law is not going to stay as it is. That assumes that the Bush tax cuts are not renewed for the wealthy and you can see that that ends up with debt equaling twice the U.S. economic output by 2035. Think about that; debt that is twice as big as everything that we do in this economy.
Some people would call that bankrupt. Now, look at the bottom line, that dark blue line. That is what the commission proposes. They say that if you put into force the things that they want based on a number of economic assumptions, the debt starts to go down, it starts to get a lot lower. OK, how would that happen? Let's say we all like that - obviously if you look at that thing you're going to say, "I want that bottom line, I want that dark blue line."
Everything is on the table; everything that we spend money on has got to be on the table. Defense gets cut just like everything else. To bring military savings up to $100 billion in 2015, the panel recommends freezing pay, including non-combat pay in the ranks, cutting procurement, buying less stuff and reducing overseas bases by a third. Now that's the military.
To cut as much from domestic spending, the panel recommends freezing government pay, cutting the government work force, and eliminating earmarks, what critics call pork. In fairness, earmarks are not a substantial part of the problem right now, but they are looking at everything they can cut. How many times have we heard that? The panel says reform and simplify.
Cut rates, cut income tax rates at the federal level but also cut out deductions, credits, what the Wogs call tax expenditures, by the way, some of those -- that includes the credit that you get for your mortgage interest to some degree. They want to keep it in for people with not very big mortgages. Members also want to jack up the gas tax 15 cents a gallon. It will cost you more to drive.
I haven't even gotten to social security, and I stress, this is a draft of a proposal. The real proposal is coming out December 1st and this is light years from actually becoming law, but it is a whole lot to chew on. Joining me to chew on the business and the politics are two of the best - CNN Senior Political Analyst, David Gergen and my partner on "Your Money", CNN Business Correspondent Christine Romans.
I'm going to start with you, Christine, because I want to get to that social security part of things. The bottom line is this does include changes to social security. It means not receiving social security, increasing the retirement age.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, up to 69 years old by the year 2050. So seniors right concerned about "wait a minute, what does this mean for my check next year?" Nothing. For generation why, it means some big changes to you. You're going to have to work longer if these sorts of provisions make it.
VELSHI: But you've got 40 years to plan for it.
ROMANS: You've got 49 years to plan for it. And frankly, when you ask surveys for Generation Why, many of them know, they know that changes are coming and that maybe the safety net will be a little different looking for them. Also changes to how inflation is calculated for these benefits and also maybe means testing these benefits.
VELSHI: That means not everybody gets them.
ROMANS: That means not everybody gets them.
VELSHI: You have to qualify.
ROMANS: More of an insurance program than an investment program. You know, so those are things that are problematic for the aggressives. You already heard Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dick Durbin coming out very strongly against these plans, but the President in Seoul said, let's put it all on the table. And do not shoot anything down yet.
VELSHI: And this is -- let's bring David Gergen in. David, I mean, that's the bottom line. I think a six-year-old can solve the deficit problems and the debt problems. The issue is we have to have the resolve as a country to make the difficult decisions, and this panel has come forward with some things that will be very hard for some people to swallow. There is no free lunch. Somehow we are going to have to pay to reduce this country's deficit.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, as you well know, Ali, we've been having a party here on the money we're borrowing from the future for a long time. And the same politicians now put us in this mess are objecting to ways to try to get us out of it. And I must say, yesterday when this first came out, many of us looked at it, the leaders of the commission - and let's remember, it's just the leaders who propose it.
They don't have the votes inside the commission as of this moment. But they were both bold and courageous in proposing this. In the cold light of morning, when you look at it, as Matt Miller a wonderful columnist pointed out in Washington Post blog section today, this is actually courageous but not very bold.
It does not balance budget, even with all these screens. This doesn't balance a budget until 2037. It takes us 27 years to balance the nation's budget? Come on, give me a break.
VELSHI: So you think there need to be tougher stuff inside. Tougher medicine.
GERGEN: Absolutely, absolutely. This isn't - we're not really being tough enough on ourselves here if we're going to take 27 years to balance a budget. You know a responsible, political answer here, the commission really ought to come up with something that votes something very much like this, but it's just a starting point.
It ought to get tougher, not a lot lighter and not torn apart. We're too close, as you know, to the edge financially. You just mentioned how big the debt was compared to the GDP. It's around over 60 percent. That's up in a very, very problematic zone. It's heading toward 100, which is very dangerous.
VELSHI: Right and you don't need to be a mathematician or an economist to understand what a 100 percent debt as a 100 percent of everything you put out there. That is a very dangerous situation. By the way, we're American individuals were for a while.
GERGEN: Well Greece got to 115 percent and went bankrupt, right? So, and traditionally, since second world war, since slightly after second world war, our average debt as a percentage of GDP has been around 36 percent. We're in the 60-plus percent range right now, and that is growing increasingly dangerous. We have a choice now. Either we can show that we are mature adults who know how to govern a society responsibly, or we can refuse to do that and just take this country straight off the rails.
ROMANS: And the big issue here is that when you have your debt that is such a big part of the size of your economy, that means what you're paying in interest is money that is going out the door to pay an interest, it's not going to running your country. And the prosperity of America has always been what has made her special around the world and what has allowed her to flex her foreign policy muscle at the same time.
So, this is an issue that is not just an economic issue, but it becomes an issue in terms of diplomacy, and that is a very serious thing for us to think about. One thing I asked a bunch of analysts earlier today, David, was how do you sell to people that they're going to have to take some pain here in the middle class? This is going to hurt for everyone, no matter who you are.
And she told me, if you don't do it now, there won't be a car to drive for your complaining about 15 cents gas, there won't be a job to work that you're complaining about having to work until your 69. There won't be a house to live in where you're complaining about your mortgage deduction. That's how serious it is for some budget analysts. VELSHI: Good discussion and David and Christine and I are all committed to continuing to having this discussion with you in great detail. We're going to do what we have to do to break this down. Americans have said this is a very, very important concern to them and they are right about that, so we will stay on top of this. David, good to see you. We'll have a fuller discussion about this again, and Christine, we'll stay on top this together. Christine will be with us again in an hour.
Part of the Transcript from CNN Newsroom aired November 11, 2010
This country's crushing debt and deficit can bring to mind Mark Twain's famous like about the weather. Everybody talks about them but nobody does anything about them. That's not strictly true of course, but not since the '90s has Washington done anything big and bold to balance the budget and level off our long-term debt until maybe now.
An independent, bipartisan commission that President Obama tasked with doing what politicians won't has done just that. Weeks ahead of schedule -- it was supposed to be released on December 1st -- it has gone public with a plan that it says would slash deficits by almost 4 trillion, with a T, dollars over the next decade.
Here's what the plan is going to look like. I'm going to level with you; even economists have a hard time grasping these billions and trillions, so they use GDP, the total size of the economy, as a reference point. Next year's deficit will likely hit -- and that's the bar on your extreme left there -- will likely hit 8 percent of GDP.
But if you follow the dark red bars, not the lighter parts above it, the dark red bars; it drops to under 2 percent of GDP by 2017 and then stays there. That's the commission's scenario. So if they didn't do anything under current policy, it would be those lighter colored bars. Under the projections that they're making, under this proposal, look at where the deficit goes in this country.
The pink bars are nothing much below 4 percent as far as the eye can see, now I know this is a lot of numbers, I'm going to give this to you in a different way. The way that's probably more important to you. Check out the debt. What I showed you was the deficit. The debt is the accumulation of all those deficits. It's the accumulation of all our yearly borrowing. The middle line, the red line there assumes that current law in this country stays exactly where it is, in which case the debt never drops below 60 percent of GDP.
That's kind of scary. Now let's just look at the light blue line. That's the top line. That's a real world projection because law is not going to stay as it is. That assumes that the Bush tax cuts are not renewed for the wealthy and you can see that that ends up with debt equaling twice the U.S. economic output by 2035. Think about that; debt that is twice as big as everything that we do in this economy.
Some people would call that bankrupt. Now, look at the bottom line, that dark blue line. That is what the commission proposes. They say that if you put into force the things that they want based on a number of economic assumptions, the debt starts to go down, it starts to get a lot lower. OK, how would that happen? Let's say we all like that - obviously if you look at that thing you're going to say, "I want that bottom line, I want that dark blue line."
Everything is on the table; everything that we spend money on has got to be on the table. Defense gets cut just like everything else. To bring military savings up to $100 billion in 2015, the panel recommends freezing pay, including non-combat pay in the ranks, cutting procurement, buying less stuff and reducing overseas bases by a third. Now that's the military.
To cut as much from domestic spending, the panel recommends freezing government pay, cutting the government work force, and eliminating earmarks, what critics call pork. In fairness, earmarks are not a substantial part of the problem right now, but they are looking at everything they can cut. How many times have we heard that? The panel says reform and simplify.
Cut rates, cut income tax rates at the federal level but also cut out deductions, credits, what the Wogs call tax expenditures, by the way, some of those -- that includes the credit that you get for your mortgage interest to some degree. They want to keep it in for people with not very big mortgages. Members also want to jack up the gas tax 15 cents a gallon. It will cost you more to drive.
I haven't even gotten to social security, and I stress, this is a draft of a proposal. The real proposal is coming out December 1st and this is light years from actually becoming law, but it is a whole lot to chew on. Joining me to chew on the business and the politics are two of the best - CNN Senior Political Analyst, David Gergen and my partner on "Your Money", CNN Business Correspondent Christine Romans.
I'm going to start with you, Christine, because I want to get to that social security part of things. The bottom line is this does include changes to social security. It means not receiving social security, increasing the retirement age.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, up to 69 years old by the year 2050. So seniors right concerned about "wait a minute, what does this mean for my check next year?" Nothing. For generation why, it means some big changes to you. You're going to have to work longer if these sorts of provisions make it.
VELSHI: But you've got 40 years to plan for it.
ROMANS: You've got 49 years to plan for it. And frankly, when you ask surveys for Generation Why, many of them know, they know that changes are coming and that maybe the safety net will be a little different looking for them. Also changes to how inflation is calculated for these benefits and also maybe means testing these benefits.
VELSHI: That means not everybody gets them.
ROMANS: That means not everybody gets them.
VELSHI: You have to qualify.
ROMANS: More of an insurance program than an investment program. You know, so those are things that are problematic for the aggressives. You already heard Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dick Durbin coming out very strongly against these plans, but the President in Seoul said, let's put it all on the table. And do not shoot anything down yet.
VELSHI: And this is -- let's bring David Gergen in. David, I mean, that's the bottom line. I think a six-year-old can solve the deficit problems and the debt problems. The issue is we have to have the resolve as a country to make the difficult decisions, and this panel has come forward with some things that will be very hard for some people to swallow. There is no free lunch. Somehow we are going to have to pay to reduce this country's deficit.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, as you well know, Ali, we've been having a party here on the money we're borrowing from the future for a long time. And the same politicians now put us in this mess are objecting to ways to try to get us out of it. And I must say, yesterday when this first came out, many of us looked at it, the leaders of the commission - and let's remember, it's just the leaders who propose it.
They don't have the votes inside the commission as of this moment. But they were both bold and courageous in proposing this. In the cold light of morning, when you look at it, as Matt Miller a wonderful columnist pointed out in Washington Post blog section today, this is actually courageous but not very bold.
It does not balance budget, even with all these screens. This doesn't balance a budget until 2037. It takes us 27 years to balance the nation's budget? Come on, give me a break.
VELSHI: So you think there need to be tougher stuff inside. Tougher medicine.
GERGEN: Absolutely, absolutely. This isn't - we're not really being tough enough on ourselves here if we're going to take 27 years to balance a budget. You know a responsible, political answer here, the commission really ought to come up with something that votes something very much like this, but it's just a starting point.
It ought to get tougher, not a lot lighter and not torn apart. We're too close, as you know, to the edge financially. You just mentioned how big the debt was compared to the GDP. It's around over 60 percent. That's up in a very, very problematic zone. It's heading toward 100, which is very dangerous.
VELSHI: Right and you don't need to be a mathematician or an economist to understand what a 100 percent debt as a 100 percent of everything you put out there. That is a very dangerous situation. By the way, we're American individuals were for a while.
GERGEN: Well Greece got to 115 percent and went bankrupt, right? So, and traditionally, since second world war, since slightly after second world war, our average debt as a percentage of GDP has been around 36 percent. We're in the 60-plus percent range right now, and that is growing increasingly dangerous. We have a choice now. Either we can show that we are mature adults who know how to govern a society responsibly, or we can refuse to do that and just take this country straight off the rails.
ROMANS: And the big issue here is that when you have your debt that is such a big part of the size of your economy, that means what you're paying in interest is money that is going out the door to pay an interest, it's not going to running your country. And the prosperity of America has always been what has made her special around the world and what has allowed her to flex her foreign policy muscle at the same time.
So, this is an issue that is not just an economic issue, but it becomes an issue in terms of diplomacy, and that is a very serious thing for us to think about. One thing I asked a bunch of analysts earlier today, David, was how do you sell to people that they're going to have to take some pain here in the middle class? This is going to hurt for everyone, no matter who you are.
And she told me, if you don't do it now, there won't be a car to drive for your complaining about 15 cents gas, there won't be a job to work that you're complaining about having to work until your 69. There won't be a house to live in where you're complaining about your mortgage deduction. That's how serious it is for some budget analysts. VELSHI: Good discussion and David and Christine and I are all committed to continuing to having this discussion with you in great detail. We're going to do what we have to do to break this down. Americans have said this is a very, very important concern to them and they are right about that, so we will stay on top of this. David, good to see you. We'll have a fuller discussion about this again, and Christine, we'll stay on top this together. Christine will be with us again in an hour.
Part of the Transcript from CNN Newsroom aired November 11, 2010
In Memory of Ted Sorensen
"In 2002, I sat down with Ted Sorensen to discuss his legendary career as a presidential speechwriter. Please enjoy this recording in memory of Ted. He provided fascinating insights into his relationship with John Kennedy and into the craft of writing speeches that sing. "
http://www.archive.org/details/CplLea...
Draft deficit plan launches likely grueling political battle
By Tom Cohen, CNNNovember 11, 2010 -- Updated 1128 GMT (1928 HKT) 
President Obama named Erskine Bowles, center, and Alan Simpson co-chairmen of the commission earlier this year.STORY HIGHLIGHTSComprehensive proposal draws criticism from both sidesCo-chairman of the deficit commission says all issues includedPresident Obama reserves comment until a final proposal emergesRead the draft proposal (PDF) Washington (CNN) -- The release Wednesday of a draft proposal for reducing the federal deficit made clear how hard it will be to devise a sustainable plan that can win the necessary political support.
Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairmen of President Obama's federal deficit commission, offered up a wide-ranging set of ideas that would bring $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.
Their package touched every aspect of government, combining deep spending cuts with tax increases to eventually bring both expenditures and revenue to 21 percent of gross domestic product.
Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, called the scope of the initial plan "the first time in my memory of Washington ... that it's all there."
"We have harpooned every whale in the ocean," he told a news conference with Bowles, the former chief of staff for Democratic President Bill Clinton.
The draft plan will be debated and revised by the commission before a December 1 deadline, but immediate reaction ranged from cautious consideration to outright rejection on both the political right and left.
Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a liberal Democrat, called the proposal "simply unacceptable," and two Democratic commission members voiced initial opposition while a third mixed praise with serious reservations.
Retiring GOP Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, a deficit hawk on the commission, called the draft plan "aggressive and comprehensive" but added he hoped it could be improved, while conservative tax reform advocate Grover Norquist flatly rejected any tax increases to reduce the deficit.
Obama, who is in Asia, was noncommittal, according to White House spokesman Bill Burton.
"The president will wait until the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work before commenting," said Burton, who called the draft "a step in the process towards coming up with a set of recommendations."
If 14 of the 18 commission members agree on a final plan, it will go up for a vote by the lame-duck Congress that serves until the end of the year. If not, the panel's work will serve as the basis for continuing efforts to come up with legislation in the new Congress that will convene in January, this time with Republicans in control of the House.
Either way, a bitter political debate is certain.
"Raising taxes is what politicians do when they don't have the guts to govern," Norquist said, while on the other side, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the commission leaders had told working Americans to "drop dead."
"The gap between the rich and the middle class has never been greater in our country. These proposals will only make the situation worse," added Democratic Rep. Janice Schakowsky of Illinois.
Such vitriolic reaction might be exactly the result sought by Simpson and Bowles, two political veterans steeped in the ways of Washington. Commission members said they were surprised when the chairmen announced at a meeting Wednesday that they were going public with the draft plan.
By laying out their proposal, even an early version, the pair flushed out the initial negotiating stances of both sides while positioning themselves as potential deal-makers.
"Coming out early was brilliant politics," said Garett Jones of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. "The first mover sets the agenda, so Bowles and Simpson are now the 'go-tos' on deficit reduction."
Jones also praised the broad approach by the commission chairmen, saying they "gored all the sacred cows, so they have a real chance at succeeding."
David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst, called the wide-ranging plan that includes proposals affecting Washington sacred cows such as defense spending, Social Security, Medicare and taxes "an act of political courage," and added: "For those who reject them out of hand, it's an act of political irresponsibility and indeed cowardice."
Under the plan, 75 percent of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years would be achieved through spending cuts -- including defense -- and the rest from more tax revenue.
The proposed defense cuts include freezing noncombat military pay at 2011 levels for three years to save $9.2 billion and reducing overseas bases by one-third to save $8.5 billion. It also would direct $28 billion in cuts already proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates toward deficit reduction.
Outside of defense, the report recommends eliminating 250,000 contractors, saving $18.4 billion, and freezing federal pay for three years, saving $15.1 billion.
In addition, the report would lower income tax rates and simplify the tax code, abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax -- the so-called wealth tax -- and reduce tax breaks such as the mortgage interest deduction.
The plan also aims to make Social Security solvent over 75 years through a number of measures, including smaller benefits for wealthier recipients, a less generous cost-of-living adjustment for benefits, and a very slow rise in the retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075.
On health care, the report recommends capping growth in total federal health spending -- everything from Medicare to health insurance subsidies -- at 1 percent over the rate of economic growth.
Maya MacGuineas, who runs the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, called the report "remarkable," adding: "In a period when there has been little good news on the deficit and debt front, this is truly a most encouraging sign."
In the end, commission members may scale down the proposal by Bowles and Simpson to specific items on which they agree, Schakowsky told CNN.
"I believe we can come up with a proposal that reaches the $250 billion mark [in deficit reduction] by 2015," she said.CNNMoney's Jeanne Sahadi and CNN's Ted Barrett, Dana Bash, Dan Gilgoff, Joe Von kanel and Lisa Desjardins contributed to this story.
President Obama named Erskine Bowles, center, and Alan Simpson co-chairmen of the commission earlier this year.STORY HIGHLIGHTSComprehensive proposal draws criticism from both sidesCo-chairman of the deficit commission says all issues includedPresident Obama reserves comment until a final proposal emergesRead the draft proposal (PDF) Washington (CNN) -- The release Wednesday of a draft proposal for reducing the federal deficit made clear how hard it will be to devise a sustainable plan that can win the necessary political support.Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairmen of President Obama's federal deficit commission, offered up a wide-ranging set of ideas that would bring $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.
Their package touched every aspect of government, combining deep spending cuts with tax increases to eventually bring both expenditures and revenue to 21 percent of gross domestic product.
Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, called the scope of the initial plan "the first time in my memory of Washington ... that it's all there."
"We have harpooned every whale in the ocean," he told a news conference with Bowles, the former chief of staff for Democratic President Bill Clinton.
The draft plan will be debated and revised by the commission before a December 1 deadline, but immediate reaction ranged from cautious consideration to outright rejection on both the political right and left.
Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a liberal Democrat, called the proposal "simply unacceptable," and two Democratic commission members voiced initial opposition while a third mixed praise with serious reservations.
Retiring GOP Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, a deficit hawk on the commission, called the draft plan "aggressive and comprehensive" but added he hoped it could be improved, while conservative tax reform advocate Grover Norquist flatly rejected any tax increases to reduce the deficit.
Obama, who is in Asia, was noncommittal, according to White House spokesman Bill Burton.
"The president will wait until the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work before commenting," said Burton, who called the draft "a step in the process towards coming up with a set of recommendations."
If 14 of the 18 commission members agree on a final plan, it will go up for a vote by the lame-duck Congress that serves until the end of the year. If not, the panel's work will serve as the basis for continuing efforts to come up with legislation in the new Congress that will convene in January, this time with Republicans in control of the House.
Either way, a bitter political debate is certain.
"Raising taxes is what politicians do when they don't have the guts to govern," Norquist said, while on the other side, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the commission leaders had told working Americans to "drop dead."
"The gap between the rich and the middle class has never been greater in our country. These proposals will only make the situation worse," added Democratic Rep. Janice Schakowsky of Illinois.
Such vitriolic reaction might be exactly the result sought by Simpson and Bowles, two political veterans steeped in the ways of Washington. Commission members said they were surprised when the chairmen announced at a meeting Wednesday that they were going public with the draft plan.
By laying out their proposal, even an early version, the pair flushed out the initial negotiating stances of both sides while positioning themselves as potential deal-makers.
"Coming out early was brilliant politics," said Garett Jones of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. "The first mover sets the agenda, so Bowles and Simpson are now the 'go-tos' on deficit reduction."
Jones also praised the broad approach by the commission chairmen, saying they "gored all the sacred cows, so they have a real chance at succeeding."
David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst, called the wide-ranging plan that includes proposals affecting Washington sacred cows such as defense spending, Social Security, Medicare and taxes "an act of political courage," and added: "For those who reject them out of hand, it's an act of political irresponsibility and indeed cowardice."
Under the plan, 75 percent of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years would be achieved through spending cuts -- including defense -- and the rest from more tax revenue.
The proposed defense cuts include freezing noncombat military pay at 2011 levels for three years to save $9.2 billion and reducing overseas bases by one-third to save $8.5 billion. It also would direct $28 billion in cuts already proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates toward deficit reduction.
Outside of defense, the report recommends eliminating 250,000 contractors, saving $18.4 billion, and freezing federal pay for three years, saving $15.1 billion.
In addition, the report would lower income tax rates and simplify the tax code, abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax -- the so-called wealth tax -- and reduce tax breaks such as the mortgage interest deduction.
The plan also aims to make Social Security solvent over 75 years through a number of measures, including smaller benefits for wealthier recipients, a less generous cost-of-living adjustment for benefits, and a very slow rise in the retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075.
On health care, the report recommends capping growth in total federal health spending -- everything from Medicare to health insurance subsidies -- at 1 percent over the rate of economic growth.
Maya MacGuineas, who runs the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, called the report "remarkable," adding: "In a period when there has been little good news on the deficit and debt front, this is truly a most encouraging sign."
In the end, commission members may scale down the proposal by Bowles and Simpson to specific items on which they agree, Schakowsky told CNN.
"I believe we can come up with a proposal that reaches the $250 billion mark [in deficit reduction] by 2015," she said.CNNMoney's Jeanne Sahadi and CNN's Ted Barrett, Dana Bash, Dan Gilgoff, Joe Von kanel and Lisa Desjardins contributed to this story.
November 10, 2010
November 9, 2010
President Obama and 60 Minutes
We are going to have more on the president's trip to India in a few minutes, including a very heated confrontation between the White House press secretary and Indian security all on behalf of the U.S. news media. We will explain what's going on. Stand by for that.
Before he left on his Asian tour, President Obama gave an interview that's still generating a lot of buzz. He's talking candidly about where his administration went wrong, leading to the Democrats' trouncing on Election Day. Listen to what he told CBS' "60 Minutes."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "60 MINUTES")
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that, over the course of two years, we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that, you know, leadership isn't just legislation, that it's a matter of persuading people and giving them confidence and bringing them together and setting a tone. We haven't always been successful at that.
And I take personal responsibility for that, and it's something that I have got to examine carefully as I go forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Let's go deeper with our senior political analyst David Gergen.
David, admitting failures, is that going to help the president going forward?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it does help when he shows humility, as he did in that interview.
What I think does not work is when he claims that this was a communications failure and that essentially is what derailed Democrats. The fact -- I think the facts show, Wolf, that the president and his team did not take their eye off the ball about trying to persuade people.
The president was out regularly. By a CBS tally, in the first 423 days of the president's time in office, he gave 471 speeches, comments, remarks. He was out in the public eye trying to persuade people more than once a day. That's far more exposure than any of his predecessors, even including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
So, it was not a lack of exposure. Take health care. He gave 54 speeches on health care. Now, it wasn't that people didn't get the message. They did get the message. But it's this -- that old line about people who sell dog food. You can package it any way you want and make it -- and beautiful ribbons and a great bow, but sometimes the dogs just don't like the dog food.
BLITZER: So, looking forward, what does he need to do now?
GERGEN: Well, Wolf, I think it's an interesting question. He clearly -- you had a conversation with Gloria Borger in the last hour, I thought, that was important.
And that is, he's got to get this unemployment rate down. I think that that's partly a question of coming back with some ideas for how to advance the economy, and then actually getting some momentum. And I don't think it's a matter of just giving tons more speeches and getting into people's backyards.
You know, Americans showed, when George W. Bush, you know, gave speech after speech about the Iraq war, when they thought we were losing it, they just stopped listening. And he could give as many speeches as he wanted. They wanted to see facts change on the ground. He's got to see facts change.
In his case, the unemployment rate has to be coming down by the time he goes into the elections. If I can just take one more second on this, history shows that -- and these are interesting numbers -- that of the last nine elections -- of the last nine presidents who sought reelection, the only three who lost were those who had unemployment rates at 7.5 percent or higher.
And that was, namely, Jerry Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush Sr. Those three went down on reelection bids with a high unemployment rate. For Barack Obama, I think the goal has bringing it under 7.5 percent by November of 2012.
BLITZER: That's going to be very, very hard, if you speak to economists, as you well know.
GERGEN: Hard to do.
BLITZER: Yes.
All right, David, thanks very much.
Before he left on his Asian tour, President Obama gave an interview that's still generating a lot of buzz. He's talking candidly about where his administration went wrong, leading to the Democrats' trouncing on Election Day. Listen to what he told CBS' "60 Minutes."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "60 MINUTES")
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that, over the course of two years, we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that, you know, leadership isn't just legislation, that it's a matter of persuading people and giving them confidence and bringing them together and setting a tone. We haven't always been successful at that.
And I take personal responsibility for that, and it's something that I have got to examine carefully as I go forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Let's go deeper with our senior political analyst David Gergen.
David, admitting failures, is that going to help the president going forward?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it does help when he shows humility, as he did in that interview.
What I think does not work is when he claims that this was a communications failure and that essentially is what derailed Democrats. The fact -- I think the facts show, Wolf, that the president and his team did not take their eye off the ball about trying to persuade people.
The president was out regularly. By a CBS tally, in the first 423 days of the president's time in office, he gave 471 speeches, comments, remarks. He was out in the public eye trying to persuade people more than once a day. That's far more exposure than any of his predecessors, even including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
So, it was not a lack of exposure. Take health care. He gave 54 speeches on health care. Now, it wasn't that people didn't get the message. They did get the message. But it's this -- that old line about people who sell dog food. You can package it any way you want and make it -- and beautiful ribbons and a great bow, but sometimes the dogs just don't like the dog food.
BLITZER: So, looking forward, what does he need to do now?
GERGEN: Well, Wolf, I think it's an interesting question. He clearly -- you had a conversation with Gloria Borger in the last hour, I thought, that was important.
And that is, he's got to get this unemployment rate down. I think that that's partly a question of coming back with some ideas for how to advance the economy, and then actually getting some momentum. And I don't think it's a matter of just giving tons more speeches and getting into people's backyards.
You know, Americans showed, when George W. Bush, you know, gave speech after speech about the Iraq war, when they thought we were losing it, they just stopped listening. And he could give as many speeches as he wanted. They wanted to see facts change on the ground. He's got to see facts change.
In his case, the unemployment rate has to be coming down by the time he goes into the elections. If I can just take one more second on this, history shows that -- and these are interesting numbers -- that of the last nine elections -- of the last nine presidents who sought reelection, the only three who lost were those who had unemployment rates at 7.5 percent or higher.
And that was, namely, Jerry Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush Sr. Those three went down on reelection bids with a high unemployment rate. For Barack Obama, I think the goal has bringing it under 7.5 percent by November of 2012.
BLITZER: That's going to be very, very hard, if you speak to economists, as you well know.
GERGEN: Hard to do.
BLITZER: Yes.
All right, David, thanks very much.
Secrets of Leadership; One of Most Successful Women in America
KING: It's an honor to welcome Marilyn Carlson Nelson to LARRY KING LIVE. She's an extraordinary woman, chairman, former CEO of the Carlson Companies. She received global recognition for the Carlson brand of hotels and restaurants, travel and marketing services, named one of the America's best leaders by "U.S. News & World Report." And her new book is "How We Lead Matters: Reflections on a Life of Leadership."
You're the first CEO, first female CEO of a major company?
MARILYN CARLSON NELSON, CHAIRMAN & FMR. CEO CARLSON COMPANIES: Oh, I think there might have been a couple before me, maybe Jill Barad (ph) at -- at...
KING: The toy company.
NELSON: ... the toy company, et cetera. But one of the early ones. I hate to admit it but it's true. It was very exciting.
KING: What do the Carlson Companies -- what do they do?
NELSON: Carlson is a travel and hospitality company. We have a thousand hotels.
KING: Oh!
NELSON: Radisson, Country Inns and Suites, Park Plaza, Park Inns. We have TGI Fridays all over the world, 160 countries of hotels and restaurants.
KING: I thought we were going to help you make it.
(LAUGHTER)
NELSON: Oh, well, you are! You are.
KING: So what are you, retired or you're...
NELSON: I'm the chairman.
KING: You remain chairman?
NELSON: Right.
KING: Now, tell me about the book, "How We Lead Matters: Reflections on a Life of Leadership." (INAUDIBLE) and the foreword is by our own David Gergen. What prompted you to write it?
NELSON: Well, I didn't expect to write a book. One day, my grandson, Jamie (ph), who was 12 at the time, said -- they call me Mame -- said, Mame, were you alive during segregation? And at first I wondered if he thought the Civil War, and then I realized he was probably studying Civil Rights and the '60s. And that was when I came out of school.
And I also started thinking there's a real chance that my grandchildren won't ever really know what I fought for, what I stood for. You know, they'll see me as the person who was on the sidelines for soccer games and hockey games, et cetera. So I started writing little stories. And I put a piece of poetry with them because I love poetry and I thought sometimes it makes the point.
And they were very accessible stories, everything from meeting -- from serving brats and beer to the KGB to going to China and working with Madam Chan, one of the wealthiest women in China and how we became so close and never spoke a word in the same language, to the gerbils and how I had a test of my integrity when one of my younger daughters brought the gerbils home -- but all little stories that were insights into moments in my life where I kind of had an "A-ha." I saw something about leadership or I saw something about accountability.
Larry, if I could give them only one gift, I'd ask them not to point fingers and always say, Why doesn't someone else fix it, but to take hands and fix it.
KING: Could you teach leadership?
NELSON: I am teaching.
KING: You can?
NELSON: I am teaching.
KING: You mentioned you don't believe in born leaders?
NELSON: Yes. I think there is -- I think there is -- well, Aristotle said look for the children with gold in them. I think there are some human beings who have a natural caring for others and natural energy and a desire to make a difference. I know Hubert Humphrey said once that you could tell a leader because they felt like everything was their responsibility.
They wanted to fix their friend's children's diseases or they wanted to pick up something off the floor if there was something left on the floor, and -- but I've been teaching corporate responsibility and I do think you can -- you can learn to be an integrative thinker. You can begin to understand that there are relationships beyond the obvious and that sometimes -- actually, I happen to think women are particularly good at it. That -- because I think you need to connect the dots.
It's something you do. I mean, you're a genius at that. You can see relationships. Some people are very linear, and they just don't recognize that there are externalities to every decision and that these decisions are complex. And tomorrow's leaders, I think, are going to need to partner. I think government won't be able to do it alone. NGOs won't be able to do it alone, and business as multi- nationals it is can actually partner and we can solve some of these big problems together. KING: The book is "How We Lead Matters." The guest is the extraordinary Marilyn Carlson Nelson. Subtitle, reflections on a life of leadership. What a life. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with Marilyn Carlson Nelson. Extraordinary woman. Her book is "How We Lead Matters. " This book was published by accident?
NELSON: It was published by accident, yes, because --
KING: Meaning?
NELSON: After Jamie asked me about my reflections, and I started reflecting and putting it on paper, some of the executives started asking me if they could have copies, and then I got worried. I wanted it to be so honest. It talks about everything from how I felt becoming CEO to having hysterectomy to how I felt when I lost a daughter in an automobile accident, and it's all very, very personal.
And I sent it to a friend who actually, without asking, sent it to McGraw Hill. So unlike most people who shop their books and I got a call that McGraw Hill wanted to publish this. I should send some more stories. And they laugh because they say I'm the only one that ever sat there and said, you don't really think someone would want to read it, do you? And they said, are you talking as out of publishing your book? But I felt like someone was going to have the keys to my diary a little bit.
KING: Do you know David Gergen?
NELSON: I know David Gergen.
KING: Extraordinary guy.
NELSON: He's wonderful. I'm blessed to be on the dean's council at the Kennedy Center and to work from time to time with David Gergen. And he is nurturing public sector leaders. I think he's one of the best examples of true leadership.
KING: He's special. How old was your daughter when she died?
NELSON: Nineteen.
KING: How did you deal with that?
NELSON: How do you deal with it? I think, first of all, you -- you go through all the steps. Everybody sends you books telling you that you're going to go through the steps and you think, oh good, I'm a smart person. I can skip a few but you don't. You go through depression and anger, and they tell you that you're probably going to get a divorce because there's a high probability, but my husband and I almost 50 years now together. We just clung to each other, and slowly but surely, we tried to make sense of it.
KING: Have other children?
NELSON: We have three other children.
KING: Did that help?
NELSON: I'd say at the time I thought when people say you have other children, it was like, they're not -- no one's replaceable. I mean, they're not interchangeable, but I'm sure when I have friends who've lost an only child and how lonely it is, I'm blessed and we are blessed. But the interesting thing, Larry, is that as we started to try to come to grips with it, what we were more aware of than anything was that she didn't have any more time. And we had time.
And the fact that her life was cut off made us realize that ours could be cut off. Any minute. And we wanted to use our days. So, my husband became vice chairman of the Medtronic, and he was a surgeon before that. He went to Medtronic because he felt like maybe he could use his scientific understanding to help more people. And I became just convinced that I wanted every day to matter. So, at night when I go to bed and I pull back the covers, I ask myself, if I were an artist and today was a painting, would I step back and say, I'll sign my name to that.
And some days I can sign my name to -- I've kind of lived up to what I'd like to be. I've been loving. I've been forgiving. I've perhaps struck a blow for things that I believe in and haven't walked away. Some days I don't. But just going through the exercise kind of commits me to trying to use those days to cherish the people I love, to try to make the world a more inclusive place and to use her needless death as long as I have breath to make a difference.
KING: The book "How We Lead Matters: Reflections on a Life of Leadership." The guest is Marilyn Carlson Nelson. Some more moments after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Marilyn Carlson Nelson is the guest. The book is "How We Lead Matters." David Gergen wrote the foreword which is pretty good for anybody to get a foreword written by someone as no other than knowledgeable and wonderful as Mr. Gergen. It's published by McGraw Hill. There's still a shortage of female CEOs, right?
NELSON: There is.
KING: Why?
NELSON: I don't think there's going to be, actually, Larry. I think, right now, we have 44 percent of the people getting MBAs are women that used to be less than 30 percent. So, I think that's one ticket that a lot of people need to check off. I don't think it's essential that you have an MBA, but I think the culture kind of looks to that as one of the steps. We have 60 percent of the undergraduate degrees now are going to women, 60 percent.
There are two for every two men graduating from undergraduate, three women are graduating, over half of the lawyers, law school, and medical school. So, it's important the pool is there. And I think the demographics are in our favor that if you can say in our favor. The fact is that we're going to be, you know, in our country, we're barely replacing ourselves with two children. Western Europe is less than replacing themselves.
And today, it's not really in the post industrial world, it's not how strong you are or how tall and muscular you are. It's really how you can vision and lead and collaborate, and I think that women are going to partner with men, and I actually think there's going to be that kind of wonderful energy. We got great energy with some of the immigrants who came to our country. My grandfather who came from Sweden, I mean, so full of energy and excited.
KING: Think we'll see a woman president?
NELSON: We almost did.
KING: Almost did.
NELSON: We almost did and a very strong and capable woman. I think we will, of course, one day. I think we'll see a woman president. And --
KING: A great women leaders in other countries.
NELSON: Fantastic. I - I think so often -- I've met with several of them, and even some leader in the more traditional leadership roles. Queen Silvia of Sweden has become a very dear friend. We'd been working -- she created something called the World Childhood Foundation, and she invited our family, my sister Barbara heads our family foundation, and she came and invited us to participate with her in creating the World Childhood Foundation which was to deal with street children.
And then, of course, we backed into a subject that you've been looking at recently because these street children, especially runaway girls, but even little boys, are so vulnerable to being trafficked. It is 21st century slavery. And I guess, if I had to describe myself, I think one of the descriptors I would use would be I like to think of myself as a 21st century abolitionist because we're in the travel business. We discovered that a lot of this plays out through travel and tourism.
That there are over 2.5 million children being trafficked for sexual purposes around the world. And when I heard that 45 percent of the travelers to go see angervot (ph) are really going there to use those children or to buy those children, I thought, we have to do something. And so, Carlson was the first, and I have to say so far, the only significant travel or hotel company in the United States to sign on to end child trafficking with the (INAUDIBLE) which is subsidiary of the United Nations.
KING: Yes.
NELSON: And it was Queen Silvia, really, who said, you have a platform, use it.
KING: And we've not seen the last of you and me.
NELSON: That's good.
KING: I have some ideas about you are an extraordinary lady.
NELSON: I'm so glad to see you.
KING: The book "How We Lead Matters: Reflections on a Life of Leadership." The Extraordinary Marilyn Carlson Nelson.
October 27, 2010
Could The Republicans be One Step Closer ?
A new poll suggested Republicans could be one step closer to taking over the reins of power in Washington at least in one house, the House of Representatives, only eight days from now. Let's talk about that and more with another member of the best political team on television, our senior political analyst, David Gergen. Let me put up these numbers on the new poll that Politico and George Washington University, the battleground poll put out. Among independent voters, David, would you vote for a Republican or Democrat candidate for Congress? Among these independent voters, 44 percent said they would vote for the Republican. 30 percent said they would vote for the Democrat. A 14-point spread. That's a significant number, I suspect, you're going to tell us, David.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely, Wolf. And in some ways, it's one of the untold stories of this election. We've been focusing so much on the tea party, which is an enormous force in this election. But so are the independents and this gigantic shift we're seeing, almost a seismic shift we're seeing of independents who voted heavily for Democrats and four years ago in the midterms and voted heavily for President Obama have shifted in this election. So this -- this Georgetown Politico poll finds them 14 points ahead on the Republican side at a time when the generic difference overall among all voters in that same poll is only five points. So you can see the independents adding a lot of weight. And the independent vote, Wolf, is bigger today than it has been in a number of years. About 10 years ago some 30, 31 percent, 32 percent of Americans tended to say they were independent. Now it's about almost 40 percent of Americans say they are independent.
BLITZER: If we dig deeper on these independents, our recent CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll continuing we asked the independents their views of the tea party movement. Look at this -- of those independents, 43 percent say they support the tea party. 15 percent say they oppose the tea party. 39 percent said they were neutral. But a lot more of these independents like the tea party than don't.
GERGEN: That's right. They agree with them heavily on the issue of spending, anti-spending. And they agree heavily on their views about anti-the health care bill. The independents have come over very strongly on that. But, Wolf, what we're seeing I think more generally is that a lot of Americans are no longer anchored in one party or the other. And they move essentially with the tides of what's going on with public affairs. This election -- this is one of the most interesting things about this election. This election we're going to see more than 20 house seat switch hands. We know that. What is interesting is this is the third straight election in which we've seen 20 house seats switch. That kind of volatility we haven't seen in a long time. This is the first time in over 60 years when we've seen three straight elections for the House of Representatives in which more than 20 seats shift hands. That says a lot about how the independents are not anchored. They're going one way and they're going the other. And if you're the Republicans, you may win them this time, but you could lose them next time, unless you perform while you're in office.
BLITZER: Look how quickly things changed between 2008 and 2010. So they can change again before 2012. Because the American public wants change, but they're not yet getting the change, at least if you believe the polls that they want. David, thanks very much.
GERGEN: Thanks, Wolf.
Transcript From The Situation Room Aired October 25, 2010
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely, Wolf. And in some ways, it's one of the untold stories of this election. We've been focusing so much on the tea party, which is an enormous force in this election. But so are the independents and this gigantic shift we're seeing, almost a seismic shift we're seeing of independents who voted heavily for Democrats and four years ago in the midterms and voted heavily for President Obama have shifted in this election. So this -- this Georgetown Politico poll finds them 14 points ahead on the Republican side at a time when the generic difference overall among all voters in that same poll is only five points. So you can see the independents adding a lot of weight. And the independent vote, Wolf, is bigger today than it has been in a number of years. About 10 years ago some 30, 31 percent, 32 percent of Americans tended to say they were independent. Now it's about almost 40 percent of Americans say they are independent.
BLITZER: If we dig deeper on these independents, our recent CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll continuing we asked the independents their views of the tea party movement. Look at this -- of those independents, 43 percent say they support the tea party. 15 percent say they oppose the tea party. 39 percent said they were neutral. But a lot more of these independents like the tea party than don't.
GERGEN: That's right. They agree with them heavily on the issue of spending, anti-spending. And they agree heavily on their views about anti-the health care bill. The independents have come over very strongly on that. But, Wolf, what we're seeing I think more generally is that a lot of Americans are no longer anchored in one party or the other. And they move essentially with the tides of what's going on with public affairs. This election -- this is one of the most interesting things about this election. This election we're going to see more than 20 house seat switch hands. We know that. What is interesting is this is the third straight election in which we've seen 20 house seats switch. That kind of volatility we haven't seen in a long time. This is the first time in over 60 years when we've seen three straight elections for the House of Representatives in which more than 20 seats shift hands. That says a lot about how the independents are not anchored. They're going one way and they're going the other. And if you're the Republicans, you may win them this time, but you could lose them next time, unless you perform while you're in office.
BLITZER: Look how quickly things changed between 2008 and 2010. So they can change again before 2012. Because the American public wants change, but they're not yet getting the change, at least if you believe the polls that they want. David, thanks very much.
GERGEN: Thanks, Wolf.
Transcript From The Situation Room Aired October 25, 2010
David Gergen's Blog
- David Gergen's profile
- 24 followers
David Gergen isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
