[Blitzer:] Got an old car maybe not even such an old car you'll be interested in Cash for Clunkers, especially if you like cash. Let's talk about this and what it means for you. Joining us, the secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood. Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming in.
[Ray Lahood, Transportation Secretary:] Thank you.
[Blitzer:] And Tom Forman is here to explain give us a little background. Cash for Clunkers what's this all about?
[Foreman:] A lot of buzz about this, because it's just starting today. Here's how it works in a nutshell and this is a simplified form. Let's say you have an older car that's not very fuel-efficient that you'd like to do a better job with. Let's say it's an SUV or something and it's got several years on it, maybe some good miles on it. Here's basically what will qualify this as a clunker that you can get a deal on 25 years old at most. So you want it younger than that. Eighteen miles a gallon or less. Drivable, registered and insured for the past year. That will qualify it as a clunker under this program. So if that's the car you want and you'd like to get a new car, the kind of new car you can qualify for is going to be a car that allows you to have a minimum of 22 miles per gallon, with some exceptions. If you're buying a truck, it may be a little less than that under $45,000 base price. Now with options, it can go a lot more. So you could be talking about a BMW that's $45,000 but push it much higher with the things you add on. More miles per gallon improvement over your previous car will mean more money. So that's the top amount that you can get out of this whole deal is about $4,500. But simply put, Wolf, if you have a car over here that's only worth about $1,500, this is a deal. You take it in, you're going to get a lot of money.
[Blitzer:] Let's ask let's ask the secretary of Transportation. Why is this good for taxpayers?
[Lahood:] Well, because people that have been driving cars with over 100,000 miles or a lot of miles on them can take them in, get the $4,500, get a new car. It helps the car manufacturer. It helps salesmen who've been out of work because they haven't been able to sell cars. It helps the economy and it helps the auto industry. It's a winwin for everybody.
[Blitzer:] How much money are we talking about for the U.S. Taxpayers?
[Lahood:] One billion dollars will buy 250,000 cars. And we believe we announced it today. And car dealerships all over America are full of people looking at new cars, looking at their options, looking at opportunities to buy a new car and cash in on between $3,500 and $4,500.
[Foreman:] Let me ask you something about that, though, Mr. Secretary. Edmunds.com, which, as you know, is one of the most respected sources out there for people who are trying to buy cars, has weighed in, saying here's part of the problem with that. Yes, you may get all these buyers, but most of these sales were going to happen anyway. These were people who were going to replace their car, so all they're getting is a tax break at the expense of all the rest of us. So taxpayers are underwriting private purchases for no real advantage to the economy, because these purchases were going to happen. And they say, as a result, there will be very little stimulus...
[Lahood:] Look, you guys...
[Foreman:] ...for additional car sales.
[Lahood:] You guys have been running stories for months about dealerships closing, salesmen out of work, people credit counselors in these dealerships who provide the credit out of work. Salesmen are going to be hired back. Showrooms are going to be open. Showrooms are going to be vibrant. You're not going to see a lot of new cars sitting on lots because people are going to buy them. A lot of these showrooms have been empty because people have not had the ability or the incentive to buy a new car.
[Blitzer:] So this is really an economic stimulus package, as well.
[Lahood:] It's a stimulus for car salesmen, for people who work in the in the showrooms, for the car dealers and for the automobile manufacturers and the people who make the cars.
[Foreman:] Edmunds, however, is saying this is only going to be about 50,000 more cars than we would have normally sold and it's a one shot deal...
[Lahood:] We had...
[Foreman:] ...they're saying it's not enough stimulus.
[Lahood:] We had two almost two million hits on our Web site from people just asking questions about this before we even rolled the program out. We think 250,000 new cars will be sold and it will be a good use to get people back to work making cars, selling cars and getting people into new cars.
[Blitzer:] Now, the 250,000 cars that are going to be sold new cars those aren't just U.S. Cars. Those are imports, as well.
[Lahood:] That's correct. But many of the imports many of the Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, all of those many of those are made in America by American workers, all over America. So we...
[Blitzer:] Because they're assembled in the United States.
[Lahood:] That's right.
[Blitzer:] And, Tom, there are some critics who say there's another way taxpayer money could have been used to achieve what might have even been a better result.
[Foreman:] Yes, here's the question with all of this, Mr. Secretary. One of the ideas is what if you have, over here, a car dealership. This is one way of doing it, by spurring sales over here. As you know, some other people have said, what if you did it this way. Instead, what if you said to the people who have these clunkers, when you get your auto emissions check, you're going to be slapped with a surcharge $500, $600, $300. That way, instead of the government and taxpayers paying their way out of the problem, you make the people with the problem pay their way out of it.
[Lahood:] Look it, we're putting...
[Foreman:] Why would that not work?
[Lahood:] We're putting people to work. These are people that are making the cars, auto UAW members, people who are selling the cars, people working the dealerships. We're going to get these high CO2 burning cars off the road...
[Foreman:] Why wouldn't this work...
[Lahood:] ...by killing the engines...
[Foreman:] Why wouldn't this do the same thing, though, with fewer tax dollars?
[Lahood:] We're look it, we're trying to put people to work and we're trying to sell automobiles, which have been it's one of the things in the market hurting terribly. You all know that. Stories have been written and talked about. These dealerships have been empty. Today they're full of people looking at new cars.
[Blitzer:] How long is it going to take, in your opinion, for these 250,000 cars to be sold, the billion dollars to be used, though?
[Lahood:] The program expires in November.
[Blitzer:] So it could but it could expire earlier...
[Lahood:] Look it...
[Blitzer:] ...if more people come with their clunkers, you it could expire a lot earlier.
[Lahood:] It could expire a lot earlier. We're saying go buy a new car. The American car manufacturer is back.
[Blitzer:] So the pressure is...
[Lahood:] Now is the time.
[Blitzer:] The pressure is on. People who have clunkers...
[Lahood:] This is going to be the summer for new cars.
[Blitzer:] And if you want the money, you better do it quickly, before the money runs out.
[Lahood:] The summer of new cars. Buy a new car, America.
[Blitzer:] He's a salesman.
[Foreman:] He's a salesman.
[Blitzer:] He's selling cars.
[Foreman:] You should be working a lot.
[Blitzer:] If the Transportation secretary thing doesn't work out, maybe Lee Iacocca.
[Lahood:] There you go.
[Blitzer:] You could go out there and sell some cars.
[Lahood:] Buy a new car, America. It helps everybody.
[Blitzer:] Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming in.
[Lahood:] Thank you, Wolf.
[Blitzer:] Thank you Let's go to Jack Cafferty right now. He's got "The Cafferty File." Do you have a clunker Jack? Do you need a new car?
[Cafferty:] Actually, I'm buying a new car and but they're not going to give me the $4,500, I'm afraid. But I like the enthusiasm of the secretary. He's...
[Blitzer:] I know. He's really enthusiastic.
[Cafferty:] He is fired up. That's good. The question this hour is: How can the United States prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Conor in Chicago: "We can't. We don't have the resources to widen our wars in that region, especially since Iran would prove to be the most difficult of these countries to conquer. We can't bomb their nuclear sites because of the risk of creating another Chernobyl in the Middle East. The reality is Iran will get the bomb and we will just have to adjust." Patrick says: "We've given them five years to give up their nukes. Time and time again, they've refused to do so. The time for diplomacy is over." Erich writes: "The U.S. cannot prevent Iran from getting nukes and the U.S. has no right to tell a sovereign nation what it can or cannot do. If the United States didn't bow to Israel's command in every instance of Middle Eastern foreign policy, then anti-US sentiment would be nonexistent. And if Israel allowed the displaced Palestinians the right to some of their land back, anti-Israeli sentiment would decrease, giving nations like Iran no legitimate reason to harness nuclear weapons." Linn writes: "They need to put more sanctions in place now, not when Iran is ready to wipe Israel off the map, like they have said they want to do." Floyd says: "The only way I see is to bomb or invade Iran. I think the United States is tired of that approach. Letting Israel do the bombing keeps our troops out of it. But I think most of the Middle East would go crazy. Arming allies might be the only choice left. We don't have the military manpower to go to war with any more countries and then rebuild and democratize them." And Glenn says: "We can't. We'll just have to deal with them. Israel has its own nuclear deterrent anyway." If you didn't see your e-mail here, you can go to my blog at CNN.comcaffertyfile and look for yours there among hundreds of others. You got a clunker there, Wolf?
[Blitzer:] No. I've got nice cars, Jack.
[Cafferty:] You've got nice cars.
[Blitzer:] Yes.
[Cafferty:] OK.
[Blitzer:] All right, Jack. Thank you.
[Cafferty:] See you tomorrow.
[Announcer:] This is CNN breaking news.
[Blitzer:] There's a significant development happening right now breaking news involving the Michael Jackson investigation into his death. Let's go to CNN's Ted Rowlands. He's working the story for us Ted, tell our viewers in the United States and around the world what we've confirmed.
[Ted Rowlands, Cnn Correspondent:] Well, Wolf, this is significant because it really does take this investigation to another level. What we have confirmed through a source that is close to the Jackson family with knowledge of the investigation is that Dr. Conrad Murray administered the powerful anesthetic, Propofol, to Michael Jackson during his care of Michael Jackson. And, of course, there has been a lot of talk about this drug and the possibility that it may have caused Jackson's death. This is the first significant turn, if you will, of events toward Dr. Murray and this drug. Now, Dr. Murray's lawyers have told us I just got off the phone with them that they will not speak to this specifically. They say they won't respond to unnamed sources. And they have said, in an earlier statement, that Murray never administered or prescribed anything that would result in Jackson's death. But that's the headline here a significant connection, for the first time, between Dr. Conrad Murray and Propofol or Diprivan, as it has been also referred to, that anesthetic that would only normally be used in a hospital setting, apparently used by Dr. Murray, given to Michael Jackson.
[Blitzer:] Stand by for a moment, because Jeff Toobin, our senior legal analyst, is joining us on the phone right now Jeff, let's talk about the legal significance of this, because there's certainly there's certainly no doubt that there have been suggestions over the past few weeks that manslaughter could be part of this investigation in other words, if there was medical malpractice. Jeff Toobin, I think we just lost him for a second, but let's go back to Ted Rowlands Ted, have the attorneys for Dr. Murray themselves have said that a manslaughter investigation was underway?
[Rowlands:] Well, that was in the search warrant which was served in Houston last week at the clinic of Dr. Murray. In the affidavit and the search warrant itself and the return of the search warrant, it spelled out that what investigators were looking for was "evidence that could support a manslaughter case." We're also told, through sources, to expect possibly more of these search warrants in connection with Dr. Murray in the days moving forward. Clearly, there is an investigation that involves the possibility of manslaughter. And now, with this new information that there is a connection, now, for the first time, we're hearing, between Murray and this Diprivan or Propofol that normally wouldn't be used in the setting it was apparently used for. Clearly, you're seeing now a change in terms of this investigation and the very real possibility that if, indeed, when the coroner's report comes out which we're expecting that later this week that if if homicide is the cause of death, that Dr. Murray could potentially could face criminal charges.
[Blitzer:] All right. I think we've got Jeff Toobin on the line Jeff, this is a potentially very significant development. Give us your thoughts on manslaughter and and this new development.
[Jeffrey Toobin, Cnn Senior Legal Analyst:] Well, Wolf, it's certainly a important development. And it's not good news for Dr. Murray. But I'd be definitely hesitant to conclude that we are definitely headed for a manslaughter charge here. There are other possible explanations for how this drug could have been administered, at whose instigation, how many times it is done it had been done before, what were the circumstances, what did the doctor know, what did Michael Jackson tell him, what did Jackson have access to on his own? There are a lot of questions still to be answered. And though this is certainly not good news for the doctor, it is far from certain that this will lead to a criminal prosecution.
[Blitzer:] Because he hasn't been charged with anything right now. I think the next step, formally, is to wait for the coroner's report right, Jeff?
[Toobin:] Absolutely. Certainly the most important piece of evidence will be cause of death how did he how did Michael Jackson die? That will lead to all further legal steps, if there are any. And, by the end of this week, we should know that very important piece of information, which, of course, could be disputed by other experts, if, in fact, this winds up in court.
[Blitzer:] If, in fact, Dr. Murray and we don't know this to be true. But if, in fact, he was giving Michael Jackson this anesthetic Propofol or Diprivan, as it's called, that doesn't necessarily mean that's illegal or anything, does it Jeff?
[Toobin:] Not necessarily, although certainly the the nature of this drug, as I understand it, is that it is far from an ordinary drug given to people. There would have to be some sort of explanation from Dr. Murray for why he did it. But it needs to be said that he probably will have an explanation that that may well lead a prosecutor not to bring charges or a jury to reject those charges if it's brought. So there's a lot more we need to know before we conclude that that a case will even be brought, much less that the doctor is is guilty of any wrongdoing.
[Blitzer:] Let me get back to Ted Rowlands Ted, my understanding was this drug, Propofol, is usually only administered in a hospital under hospital settings and is usually used for something to put someone to sleep a light sleep, for a colonoscopy, for example.
[Rowlands:] Exactly, a hospital or clinic scenario, not in somebody's home. But as Jeff said, if the doctor let's assume for a second that, indeed, he was using it, as our source was telling us, he could very well have a very good explanation for it if because it's not a controlled substance. Having it is not illegal. If he's got a good explanation for it, possibly, that, in itself, would be enough. One other note here is that there was a third meeting between Dr. Murray and LAPD that was to take place last Friday. But following that search warrant that was served in Houston, they postponed that meeting. And that meeting has not yet been set. But Murray's people their lawyer his lawyer tells told us just a few minutes ago on the phone, again, they are more than willing to talk to police and tell them whatever they want. At least that's publicly what they're saying.
[Blitzer:] And so no formal comment on this specific new development from the lawyer?
[Rowlands:] Only that they will not comment on any any story that uses an unnamed source. That was their comment.
[Blitzer:] All right, Ted. Thanks very much. Jeff Toobin, thanks to you, as well. The coverage will continue. "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts right now.