[Bobbie Battista:] Why can't they all get along?
[Rep. Richard Gephardt , Minority Leader:] I think what we're seeing this week is the end of what we thought was bipartisanship.
[Rep. Dick Armey , Majority Leader:] I personally don't believe Mr. Gephardt will suffer miss bipartisanship a whole lot, because he didn't avail himself to the opportunity to experience it personally.
[Battista:] As Congress prepares to vote on the president's tax cut plan, Democrats are crying, "No fair."
[Sen. Tom Daschle , Minority Leader:] They were not going to allow any alternatives to their version of the tax cut.
[Unidentified Male:] Up until now, the president's view has been "My way or the highway."
[Rep. Jennifer Dunn , Washington:] I think the Democrats who are saying that this is the end of bipartisanship will be back to fight another day.
[Battista:] Are Republicans reaching out to, or stomping out, the opposition? Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. Well, sometime in the next hour or so, the House is set to vote on President Bush's tax cut proposal. We will, of course, keep abreast of that for you. So let's introduce our first guests before they have to run off and vote. We are joined by Congressman J.C. Watts, a Republican from Oklahoma, and Representative Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat. Good to see both of you.
[Rep. Nita Lowey , New York:] Thank you.
[Rep. J.c. Watts , Oklahoma:] Thank you, Bobbie.
[Battista:] Congresswoman Lowey, let me start with you. By all accounts, the president this part of the president's tax cut proposal is going to pass the House. Is all of this happening just a little fast for you and some Democrats?
[Lowey:] This is so important for our country, and I really thought that there was going to be a new day, that we were going to have civility, that we were going to work together in a bipartisan way. The Ways and Means Committee didn't even have hearings. We don't have a budget. I support a tax cut, but in the context of a balanced budget. We don't have a budget. There is no balance. And here we are, we're having tax cuts. It doesn't make sense. In fact, you can predict the surplus as well as you can predict those 24 inches of snow that we were going to have in New York last week.
[Battista:] Congressman Watts, why the rush?
[Watts:] Well, Bobbie, let me just add that there were actually hearings in Ways and Means. Today, the Democrats are going to be able to offer a substitute, which means they can offer their package of taxes. We're going to have a vote on it. And I don't think it's a rush to say we're going to give six pennies of every dollar that comes into Washington back to the American people, the people that created the surplus. Give it back to those people to say, "You can use it to buy school clothes for your kids, buy new appliances, buy food, help pay car insurance. Do what you need to do with it." Six pennies of every dollar is what we're giving back. And so the budget is the 94 cents that's going to stay here in Washington. We're going to fuss and fight and argue about how that 94 cents is spent, but we're proposing that we give 6 cents back to the American people.
[Battista:] I'm thinking that a lot of Americans are because we kind of polled the audience here a few moments ago, most of them certainly want a tax cut, but they don't want to rush too much on it. Normally, don't you set the budget out before you start talking about tax cuts? I mean, have you circumvented standard procedure here a little bit?
[Watts:] Well, Bobbie, what we're doing is we're going to say what we're saying is, let's take six pennies of every dollar that comes into Washington. Let's take that off the table. You know, the budget is prepared around that 94 cents that's going to be left in Washington. You know, that the budget, you know, under last year's rules, we are still actually under a budget. But what we're doing I think it brings about fiscal responsibility to say, we're going to take 6 cents off the table. We're going to leave 94 cents in Washington, D.C. This is nothing new. This is very important to the American people. It's very important that we give tax relief to allow for job security, economic growth. Sixty-eight percent of the economy is driven by consumer spending, so it's not too fast, it's not too much, it's not irresponsible to give people their money back so they can spend it into the economy.
[Battista:] Representative Lowey, where is that 94 cents enough, and where's that 6 cents coming from?
[Lowey:] Oh, look, we support tax cuts. The Democrats support tax cuts. In fact, they support one-third tax cut, one-third investments in education, health care, and one-third of paying down the debt. It took us 20 years to get out of deficit spending. We don't want to go back to that time again. And all we are saying is, let's put together a budget. Let's make sure that we have sufficient funds to invest and protect Social Security, Medicare, put in place a prescription drug plan to make sure we keep paying for investments in education and after-school programs Head Start, child care, paying down the debt, which will lower interest rates. What's the rush? We should be working together, putting a budget in place, and make sure we have money at the bank. You talk to Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury. There are dozens of economists who are saying, let's make sure the surplus is real so we have enough of the resources that can continue to pay for the investments that the American people want. They want to modernize our schools. They want to make sure every child has the best education they can. That's all we're saying. We support tax cuts but in the context of a balanced budget.
[Battista:] On issues this big then, are you saying that there is no coalition building going on at all behind the scenes?
[Lowey:] Coalition building? What's happening with the Republican leadership is they're saying it's "My way or the highway." We weren't even allowed to vote on a substitute until today. We were going to have one vote on the Republican plan without giving us an opportunity to vote on the substitute. I guess something happened and they finally said, "OK, we'll give you that vote." But let's make sure that we have the money in the bank. The American people are saying, first is education. They want to make sure we have modern schools, enough computers, that we have after-school programs, that we have funds to train and retrain our teachers. Education is the key. And unless there are resources for education, Social Security, Medicare, prescription drug benefits, protecting our environment, the American people don't want a tax cut that will go to the few and not really be directed to the majority of American people.
[Battista:] Congressman Watts, getting this through the House may be the easy part here. What happens when it gets to the Senate? Is it going to slow down a bit?
[Watts:] Well, Bobbie, let me first address some of the comments that my good friend from New York has made. She talked about Secretary Rubin and what he has said. I talked to the current secretary of the Treasury yesterday. He told us, he said that at this time last year in the 2000, during this time in the year 2000, there was $40 billion sitting over in the Treasury. Today, the same time, there's $74 billion over in the Treasury. We've got plenty of money to do what we're trying to accomplish here. And let me encourage everybody to take off their Republican and Democrat caps and just go back to '93 and '94 when the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. They did not cut our taxes, the increased our taxes. They took more money from the American people, put more taxes on Social Security benefits, put taxes on energy issues I mean, on energy for the American people, which many seniors are dependent on. That's what they did. We became the majority. We paid down the debt. We put more money in education. We put more money in national security. The president has reached out for the first time in the last eight years. The president of the United States went to the Republican retreat, the Democrat retreat, where we talk about different policy issues. No president has done that in many, many years. He's had Republicans and Democrats both over at the White House to visit with him. We are allowing the Democrats today to offer a substitute to vote on their version of tax relief. And we're going to let the members vote on it. We're going to offer our version of tax relief and allow the members to vote on it. And we'll see what happens. But, you know, this is fair taxation, fair tax relief. It's going to affect over 60 million women, over 16 million African- Americans, over 15 million Hispanics. It's going to give them some of their money back. Six pennies of every dollar we're giving back to the American people to allow them more money to help them pay their bills every month. What's bad about that?
[Battista:] Let me get some of the American people in on this since that's your sales audience. Let me take a phone call first from Janice in California, then we'll go to the audience Janice.
[Caller:] Yes, thank you, Bobbie. I wonder if the two Congress people up there, they're so young, but I wish they would go back and do a little research in history. If they go back, I think they'll find that trickle-down economy first tried by Calvin Coolidge and Andrew Mellon from 1925 to '29 didn't work. We all know the results of that. The stock market crashed and we had a horrendous depression. Then along comes Reagan trying the Reaganomics, who, by the way Calvin Coolidge was his idol. That didn't work then. And so I'm wondering...
[Battista:] I'm guessing that they do remember or are familiar with that.
[Caller:] Well, they're very young. All they have to do is go to their library or anyone in the audience just research it. Trickle down doesn't work.
[Battista:] What about the history of this sort of tax cut?
[Caller:] The history...
[Battista:] Go ahead, Congressman Watts.
[Watts:] Well, Bobbie, I would say to the gentlelady and bless her heart for calling me young. You just made my day. I don't remember Calvin Coolidge. I remember who he was, that he was the president of the United States at one time. But I can tell you what. Back in 19 40 years ago when John Kennedy, when he offered tax relief, revenues grew. Twenty years ago, when Ronald Reagan offered tax relief or passed a tax bill, revenues grew. But what happened is, Bobbie, you can't allow your revenues to grow at double allow revenues to double but allow spending to triple. You know, that's where we got the deficits from. That's where we ran up the debt. You know, it has been proven there is a proven track record that giving tax relief is good for job security, is good for economic growth, but it's also a track record to prove that I don't care how many times revenue grow, if revenue increases more than they grow, that's bad. And so I disagree with the gentlelady to say that if we give the American people tax relief, that that's not going to be good for job security and economic growth.
[Battista:] Well, Congressman Lowey, Carol in Texas e-mails us: "Bush did this in Texas, and we have a budget shortfall this year. Do the math."
[Lowey:] Well, exactly that. And when we had that major tax cut by Ronald Reagan, we've been digging out of deficit spending for the last 20 years. And in the last eight years, because of the wise policies of the Clinton administration, we've had a healthy, strong economy. And I just want to make it very clear again that I support tax cuts. But we need a budget. We need to make sure that we have sufficient resources to invest in education, protect Social Security, protect Medicare to make sure there's enough money for investments in the military. Let's do a budget, and then let's put those tax cuts in the context of a balanced budget.
[Battista:] I've got to take a quick break here, and we'll continue with our two Congress people. Before we go to break, though, remember when President Bush remarked that his tax cut plan is neither too large nor too small but just right? Well, tell us what you think on the TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at cnn.comtalkback, AOL keyword: CNN. We'll be back in two minutes. A Republican group says it's taping radio ads using clips of a speech by President John Kennedy to support President Bush's tax cut plan. The Issues Management Center says JFK used the same arguments to cut taxes in a 1962 speech that President Bush uses now. A live shot of the House of Representatives as we continue here. Charlie Rangel there, a congressman, as debate continues on President Bush's income tax proposal. The vote should be coming up shortly. But let me go to the audience and get some opposing opinions. Ben, what do you think?
[Ben:] Well, it seems like both the Democrats and the Republicans have proposed a tax cut: the Democrats, $900 billion; the Republicans, $1.6 trillion. Why don't we just split this pizza in half and get this economy moving and get on with the show, and the public can spend the money and things will be better for all of us two or three years from now? Let's go.
[Battista:] Could it be that simple, Congressman Watts?
[Watts:] Well, it's not that simple, but the gentleman, I think, makes a good point in saying that, you know, we're going to get tax relief. The American people are going to get tax relief. What we're trying to do in our package is we're trying to reduce rates over the next 10 years. We're going to go from five rates down to four rates. Everybody benefits from that, everyone that pays taxes. We're going to eliminate the unfair marriage tax. It is unfair, in my opinion and in the opinion of Republicans to say that if two people decide to get married, just because they say "I do," they have to pay $1,400 more in taxes. We think it's unfair to say that if you own a business or a farm, that when you die, that you have to give half of that business or farm to the government. That's unfair. We're going to raise that per-child tax credit from $500 to a thousand dollars so anyone that has kids, you know, they get a higher tax write off for children. These are things that will make a real difference in people's lives as they try to pay their bills every month. And that's what we're trying to accomplish, help them pay their bills.
[Battista:] Representative Lowey, is the momentum building for the other aspects of this tax package like that?
[Lowey:] I want to make it very clear again that the Democratic package includes reduction in the estate tax, expanding the unified credit. It includes getting rid of the marital tax penalty, which I agree is fair. It includes an across-the-board tax cut. We just want to be sure that the money is in the bank, that the surplus is real. We don't want to go back to those days of deficit spending. We want to continue to pay down the debt so that we can lower interest rates, so young couples can afford a home. The difference here is not between a tax cut and no tax cut. It's between working together in a responsible way, putting a budget together, then making sure that we have everyone's best wisdom putting together a tax cut that will have investments in education, that will provide a real prescription drug benefit, that will preserve Social Security and Medicare, that will pay for our military. Our budget expert gave me a briefing, another Democrat, showing this isn't even a $1.6 trillion tax cut, it's a $2.6 trillion tax cut. So to say on hand you're going to preserve Social Security and Medicare, that's not real. Let's put the budget together and then work together. J.C. and I can could work together on a tax cut that would help working families in this country.
[Battista:] Let me...
[Lowey:] And, in fact...
[Battista:] I was going to say, let me take a few more comments from the audience here. And then you've touched on something, Representative Lowey, about working together, and we'll talk a little bit more about that issue of bipartisanship. Let me take Cathy on the phone from Michigan Cathy.
[Caller:] Hi. I think the deficit, it wasn't caused by the tax cut in the '80s. It was because of the Democrat spending. That's what the deficit in the '80s was caused from. President Bush right now has 70 percent set aside for Social Security and Medicare, which the Democrats failed to mention. And then the 30 percent is for the tax cut. And the Democrats always seem to use scare tactics, class warfare, rich against poor, black against white, men against women. You know, I am for this tax cut. Now they're talking the budget, we need a budget first. It seems they delay, delay, delay the Democrats.
[Battista:] All right, Cathy, thank you. And to Mike in the audience.
[Mike:] I just wanted to make the point that since the current tax structure is so progressive, the people with the most money are going to benefit greatest when there's an across-the-board tax cut because that's going to be regressive. People who need the money most are the people that are going to get the least. That's the largest segment of the population. So you're returning more money to the people who really don't need it quite as much as the ones who do.
[Battista:] Final...
[Lowey:] I have to agree with you.
[Battista:] Let me get final comments from our congresspeople here. Representative Lowey, you go first.
[Lowey:] Well, I would just say that the last speaker is absolutely right. And when you talk to people in the highest incomes, they understand that the people who need the tax cut most are those who are going to work every day trying to balance their family budgets, trying to purchase a house, trying to pay for the kids' education, trying to make sure that they have the money they need for everyday needs. So what we're saying is put together a budget. Let's make sure that this tax cut is going to help those who need it the most. And then I would hope that we can work together, not rush this through, not go back to the days of deficit spending, and let's work together in a bipartisan way getting that budget in place, and then putting a responsible tax cut in place in the House and the Senate so we can get those dollars back to working families.
[Battista:] Congressman Watts.
[Watts:] Well, Bobbie, we've got a targeted tax cut. We target people who pay taxes. We don't target anybody in or anybody out. If people pay taxes, we give them tax relief. Last year, we had about 32 million people that got tax refunds that don't pay any taxes. And now we're fighting to say the people that pay taxes, we shouldn't give them any of their money back through marriage relief, through eliminating the death tax, by raising their per-child tax credit, by reducing the tax rates. We're taxed from the time we get up from the time we go to bed at night. And people are overtaxed, they're overcharged. We ought to take some of their surplus, pay down the debt, you know, build national security, put more money in education, have a prescription drug benefit. But at the same time, give some money back to those people that pay the bills every month here in Washington and at home.
[Battista:] Got to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about ways that Congress can get together if that's possible, if they ever have, on things. We'll be back. Seventy-nine percent of poll respondents said they think the wealthy will benefit most from President Bush's tax plan, 12 percent think it will be the middle class, and four percent think it will be the poor. I wanted to get quick reaction from our Congress folks about this issue of bipartisanship. The tax plan isn't the only issue that the Democrats are charging the Republicans are kind of running through. There was that repeal of the ergonomics bill that went through pretty quickly and some complaints about that. And some of the e-mails all of the e-mails we're getting are like this: Brian in Florida says, "There never was and there never will be bipartisanship. Democrats did not practice it when they were in power and Republicans should fall for this Democrat media trap. Bipartisanship is an excuse for lack of commitment to core principles." Congressman Lowey, your reaction?
[Lowey:] Well, I think it's very disappointing that people in this country don't have the confidence. And may they don't have the confidence in bipartisanship because we don't have bipartisanship now with the Republican leadership in the House. For example, you referred to worker safety legislation. After 10 years of studies, after studies of the National Science Foundation, all of a sudden yesterday, worker safety was wiped off the map, one hour of discussion, when Democrats asked, pleaded with the Republican leadership to let us have a couple more hours. The Senate debated worker safety provisions for 10 hours after 10 years. We were given one hour and now all the people who go to work every day, 64 percent are women, people who sit at a desk with repetitive motions can't get the support they need. And, in fact, employees and employers have been working together in many corporations. It cost employers $20 million. Let's prevent that. Let's work together.
[Battista:] Congressman Watts, go ahead.
[Watts:] Well, Bobbie, this legislation that we defeated yesterday that we repealed, that President Clinton signed by executive order four days you know, within a week of when he left office, didn't give us any opportunity to discuss it or talk about it. And what that ergonomics legislation, what it did, it was anti-job creation and it was anti the economy. I mean, there was ridiculous things in there that says that if somebody works at a grocery store and they lift a turkey that's more than 15 pounds, that was bad. It just made no sense for small business. You know, this you know, Nita and I, we are bipartisan, we get along. We love each other. But the fact is bipartisanship doesn't mean that you have to use the Democrats' ball, the Democrats' bat, the Democrat rules, the Democrat officials, the Democrat fields. And they put their own fans the stand. There are legitimate differences. We have differences on taxes. They believe the money should stay in Washington. I believe it should go back to the American people. There's a real difference on education policy. I mean, I think it's healthy for us to have those discussions, those debates. But this tax relief package is good for the American people, good for job security, good for the economy, paying down the debt, prescription drug benefits. This is a good package.
[Battista:] All right, we know you both need to go, and we appreciate your time on a busy day. Thanks very much, Representatives Nita Lowey and J.C. Watts.
[Lowey:] Thank you.
[Watts:] Thank you.
[Battista:] And we'll be keeping an eye on that tax vote as well for you. Still ahead, Julianne Malveaux and Ramesh Ponnuru will join us. We'll be back. Welcome back. Joining us now, syndicated columnist and economist Julianne Malveaux; she is the author of "Wall Street, Main Street and the Side Street: A Mad Economist Takes a Stroll."
[Julianne Malveaux, Syndicated Columnist:] Hi Bobbie.
[Battista:] Hi Julianne. Also Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor of the "National Review." Ramesh, good to see you, too.
[Ramesh Ponnuru, "national Review":] Thanks.
[Battista:] Well, Julianne and Ramesh, did anyone hear any clues of bipartisanship there between our two congresspeople? It's like they love to talk about how bipartisanship they are, and then they retreat to their opposite corners.
[Malveaux:] You know, what you've got from this administration Mr. Bush has certainly lowered the temperature on vituperativeness. As J.C. Watts said, he's invited Democrats, African-Americans people who didn't vote him into the White House. But after I eat your food if you, you know, kick me in my behind, that's not bipartisanship; and frankly, that's what's been happening. He has all the veneer of, let's all get along, but it's his way or the highway, even after we've all sat down and talked.
[Battista:] Ramesh.
[Ponnuru:] Well, I don't know if that's a fair statement. I mean, you know, if you look at Bush's education plan, for instance, a lot of Democrats have said, you know, that's essentially a democratic plan. I mean, that's a Democratic Leadership Council plan with, you know, one or two modifications on it. Bush has been quite open to democratic ideas; he's been talking to Democrats. It's not the case you know, he's never promised that everything he proposes is going to have the backing of Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, but that's not same thing.
[Malveaux:] But to shove this tax plan down the American people's throats, to rush it without having a budget there that's not only not bipartisanship, that's also not democratic.
[Ponnuru:] With a small "D," that is. The tax cut has been debated substantially in its current form for a year and a half now. When, you know, when one of the arguments for the tax cut is that you have economic difficulty and you need to pass the bill quickly, I'm not sure that there's an argument for continued delay and, you know, just dragging this progress out.
[Malveaux:] Ramesh, I'm not...
[Ponnuru:] The problem here is you know, the Democrats have been complaining they haven't had a chance to really talk about their alternatives. It's taken them forever to come up with their alternative. Until basically last week all they had was a vague plan where they said, 13 on new spending3 on this, 13 on the other thing but that wasn't a bill. And that's not Bush's fault, that they took so long to get together.
[Malveaux:] There have been several alternatives that have been proposed, including one that says, give every working person $400 it would still cost $900 billion; it's not cheap, but it would be much more progressive, small "P." It would be much more egalitarian; it would give poor people and middle income people a lot more money. There are alternatives out there. This Bush thing has only been introduced within a couple of weeks as well. So I don't think it's reasonable for you to say the Democrats don't have a plan.
[Ponnuru:] Well, let's also keep clear that this isn't the end of the process. I mean, you have to have the Senate pass it; you'll have a conference; it will be passed again by the full Congress in its final form. You know, it's just not the case that we're going to pass a tax cut this week...
[Malveaux:] So why not start out with... ... why shove it down people's throats?
[Ponnuru:] There will be further opportunities for debate; it isn't being shoved down anybody's throat.
[Malveaux:] But Ramesh, they're trying to circumvent the usual legislative process.
[Battista:] It is going to hit quite a slowdown when it gets to the Senate I think; but, you know, how much of this is sour grapes because the opposite party is not in the majority any more? And, I mean, there is a certain amount of whining that goes along with being the minority party, I mean, is that true?
[Ponnuru:] Bipartisanship in Washington is a partisan subject. I mean, the charge that the other side isn't being bipartisan and that you're being bipartisan is a partisan weapon. That's, you know, that's just the way Washington works.
[Malveaux:] At the same time, I don't Bobbie, I wouldn't concede democratic whining just yet. I think that people have gone out of their way in any number of ways to be open to Mr. Bush. I mean, I thought it was remarkable that the Congressional Black Caucus sat down with him, given that 90 percent of the African-American community voted against the man. People do want to work with the administration, but they don't want to feel as if their voices don't count at all. You're right, this will slow down the Senate. Democrats have a much better presence and more power in the Senate; but I still am not clear about the ways that the process is being circumvented, and I wouldn't call complaints about that whining.
[Battista:] I meant that in a loving way.
[Malveaux:] I know.
[Battista:] Go ahead Ramesh.
[Ponnuru:] That's another example of partisanship. I mean, Julianne, you're saying that it's not real bipartisanship when Bush meets with the Congressional Black Caucus, but it is bipartisanship when the Congressional Black Caucus meets with Bush. I mean, it's a ludicrous, partisan double standard.
[Malveaux:] You can call it a double standard if you want to; what I'm saying here is that he clearly is in a cat-bird seat. I did give credit, if you listened, but I don't think you did because you didn't want to hear me give Mr. Bush the credit that I gave him at the beginning for lowering the temperature. I maintain I'll give him credit for that. I think his speech, you know, the other week was well-delivered; I think that he throws the softballs and he makes people feel good about being American people. I do concede that. At the same time, you can make me feel as good as you want, but if you put a shiv between my ribs with the taxation and with any number of other things, I mean I'm not going to end up feeling that good. I'm not going to walk away whole.
[Battista:] Let me go to the audience quickly, here Ron.
[Ron:] Just had a comment about what is the purpose behind the tax cut? Are we trying to alleviate a perceived burden on poor folks or middle income folks, or are we trying to jump-start the economy? And I think if it's the later, then Ramesh's comments about going ahead and getting it down may have a little more weight.
[Malveaux:] Well, when the economy was expanding during the campaign, the issue was not at all about expanding or jump-starting the economy; the issue, in Mr. Bush's mind, as he put it out there, was giving people some money back. The fact is, now the focus has shifted and people are looking at what's going on with the economy since growth has slowed so much, and to see what we can do with that. But the fact is that a tax cut that favors the upper income does not kick-start the economy. If you put money in little people's hands if you give somebody, you know, $40,000 they're not necessarily going to go out and buy a car, but if you give a working person $200, they are going to put it on food or something else. So that's how you kick-start the economy. Consumer spending is 23 of our economy.
[Battista:] Let me ask you this: this fast-track that the president's pursuing with this tax plan and the ergonomics bill and all these various things is there going to be a price to pay for that down the line? Is Congress going to dig in Democrats going do dig in their heels and we'll see just a total return to gridlock and...
[Malveaux:] You know, I mean, I think that people will sell a lot of wolf tickets, but practically speaking, both parties are going to be judged by what gets done. So people can say that people will be alienated by this fast-tracking, but if things come up if education comes up next, Ramesh is right. There are people on both sides who care about education. Nobody's going to get anything if they say, "Well, we're going to dig our heels in on education because we're mad about the tax cut." That's just not going to work.
[Battista:] Ramesh?
[Ponnuru:] Well, I mean, there's a whether there is gridlock or not is going to depend on the strategic calculations of the party. I mean, if, for instance, the Democrats decide that their best ticket in 2002 is to prevent Bush and the Republicans from accomplishing anything, then they are going to try as hard as they can to hold the line and make sure nothing passes. And, at the same time, if they do that, Republicans are going to try to make sure that they get blamed for it. But I I don't think it's going to be a matter of sort of tit for tat on what's happened on the tax cuts. It's going to be a cold-blooded calculation.
[Battista:] Let me go to a couple e-mails. Reader from Louisiana says: "This is the time for the Democrats to show some cooperation. The tax plan is a good one but since the Democrats didn't write it, they're going to try to destroy it." Clayton says: "I say let President Bush and the Republicans have the tax cut. If after four years we're back to deficit spending and our safety-net programs are in trouble, out go the Republicans and in go the Democrats." Meredith, from the audience.
[Meredith:] Yeah, I don't believe that this tax cut is being shoved down anybody's throat. In fact, there was a democratic representative on here early who was actually talking about a different form of the tax cut, but the Republicans and Democrats are both presenting a tax cut, period. And I don't believe that it's being shoved down anyone's throat.
[Malveaux:] Well, Nita Lowey talked about a different kind of tax cut. People are in favor of cutting taxes. They are not in favor of a tax cut that will primarily go to people who are earning over $100,000 a year. We're also not in favor, most people are not in favor of a tax cut that's going to cut Social Security, going to erode the you know, the efficiency of the Social Security system or Medicare. So those are the issues.
[Ponnuru:] That's just a scare tactic.
[Malveaux:] It's not a scare tactic at all.
[Ponnuru:] Nobody could credibly shown that it's going to harm Social Security or Medicare.
[Malveaux:] He's taking money that ought to be going into the Social Security fund with that tax cut. And you know it.
[Ponnuru:] Social Security surplus is completely protected and you know that, Julianne.
[Battista:] I have to take a break. We'll be back in just a minute. More e-mails Jeanne in Michigan says, "My income tax refund out of this plan is a joke. Of course, if I had an income of $100,000 a year, I'd be delighted." Jerry in Illinois says, "When I did my taxes this year I don't remember saying if there's anything left over, just keep the change." Let me go to a senior citizen, Earl, is in the state of Texas. Earl, on the phone with us.
[Caller:] Hi, Bobbie.
[Battista:] Hi, Earl. Go ahead.
[Caller:] I have a serious question about the prescription drugs. If senior citizens don't have the money to pay their drugs buy their drugs, they can get sick end up sick or maybe even die. If you take the money and buy their food I mean, their medicine with it, they don't have the food, they can get sick, end up in the hospital and die. I want to know why this is not even on a slow track, but the tax cuts are on a fast track. Now, I'm not against tax cuts, but if they're going to put money in the fat cat's hands first, why aren't they going to put the prescription drugs in the senior's hands?
[Battista:] Right.
[Caller:] And I want to know...
[Battista:] You're asking whether this plan is going to help folks like you.
[Malveaux:] Well, Bobbie, he's actually raised up a question that Nita Lowey raised earlier: why not have a budget first? The gentleman is talking about something that many, many seniors feel is terribly important: this whole issue of a prescription drug benefit. There are several plans for it, a Democrat plan, a Republican plan there are differences in the cost. That has budget implications. If you make some budget decisions you might be freer to make certain kinds of tax decisions. That's why you do a budget first. You don't go, in your personal life, and say: Gee, I think I want a new car so I'm going to buy one, and then I'm going to figure out if I can afford to may my mortgage. That's backwards and that's what we're doing this time around.
[Battista:] Ramesh?
[Ponnuru:] Well, the thing is, I mean, if you look at what Congress does when it's got a pile of money that hasn't already been hasn't already been sent back in form of tax cuts, it spends it. I mean, the last six months of last year, Congress spent $561 billion new dollars because it had the money. There wasn't any huge deliberation: should we do this? It just sort of happened because the money was there and the different spending committees just went at it. If you don't cut taxes beforehand, you're not going to have any spending control. So in that in this case, in the case if the way Congress acts, it actually is important to do the tax cut first.
[Malveaux:] Ramesh, you know, who did that spending? You you had a Republican Senate, you had a Republican Congress. I think you're making my argument. Let's do what we need to do... Let's make sure we have a budget first.
[Ponnuru:] The incentives for Congress if the money's on the table, is to spend it. That's why you've got to cut the tax first. And you're right, a lot of it is the Republicans. But that's they're responding to the incentives, the way Congress acts, the way Washington is set up to act.
[Malveaux:] I fiscal common sense says: let's see what we need to do. You've got an education plan that's going to cost money. You heard the president talk about raises. Raise this, raise this. He also talked about cutting very critical departments, and you've got economic slowdown, unemployment nudging up, and you're going to cut the Labor Department? I don't think so. Let's do a budget, then let's talk about tax cuts.
[Battista:] Are we putting Washington and fiscal common sense in the same sentence?
[Malveaux:] Actually, no, but I just thought I might try that.
[Battista:] OK. Tom, in the audience, go ahead.
[Tom:] Yes. Before you make a budget, you have to realize how much money you have to spend, the same as you would your personal budget. The government has to know what they need to do with their money and how much money they have and everything before they can make those decisions.
[Battista:] Why does the government get to operate differently though?
[Ponnuru:] What you said was exactly right. I mean, you have to have the tax cut in order to put...
[Malveaux:] You don't have to have a tax cut at all, Ramesh. You know, you don't have to. Bobbie, one of reasons the government does operate differently is because much of this so-called surplus that people are already spending is something that's being projected over a 10-year period. So we part of the projections that have come from the Congressional Budget Office are based on a set of assumptions that are, as Nita Lowey said, possibly as faulty as the weatherman assumption about how you get 24 inches of snow. I think that many people feel confident about the budget assumptions to the next three, four years. I don't think you do 10- year weather projections or 10-year budget projections to try to figure out what's going on. It makes sense to go slow on this.
[Ponnuru:] But the cost of the tax cut is being done on a 10-year basis, too. I mean, if you want to talk about it on a five-year basis, then you're talking about a tax cut that isn't, you know, one point six trillion, or two trillion, or whatever the democratic scare number is these days.
[Malveaux:] Scare number? This is the number it's the number that your president put out... Your president put out these numbers it's these are not democratic scare numbers, these are numbers that are coming directly from the Republicans! Don't blame tax cut... ... implications on the Democrats.
[Ponnuru:] You are not listening to me, Julianne. Let me know when are you done.
[Malveaux:] I was listening, but I didn't like what I heard. I say it's absolutely wrong.
[Battista:] You know what, Tom in the audience wants to respond too, but I have to take a quick break, so Ramesh, we will come back to you and Tom after this. Let's take a quick check of our poll here. The question was: what do you think of the president's tax proposal too big, too small, just right? Fifty-one percent are saying "too big," 12 percent are saying "too small," 37 percent are saying "just right." Ramesh, I interrupted you as we went to break.
[Ponnuru:] Well, I was just making the point that, you know, people complain that the surplus is based on a 10-year projection, but so is the projection of the cost of the tax cut. I mean, you can't say on the one hand, oh, it's too big, because it costs $1.6 trillion or even higher and then say, well, we can't trust these surplus projections. It's the same set of numbers we're talking about. I mean and by any stretch of the imagination, when you've got again, based on these same projections, you got $22.3 trillion of revenue coming in over the next 10 years, and you're saying you can't take even 5 to 6 percent of that, and give it back to the taxpayers? I just don't think that's credible.
[Malveaux:] Ramesh, you are repeating J.C. Watts' line...
[Ponnuru:] Well, because it happens to be true.
[Malveaux:] No, it doesn't happen to be true. It's the talking point that the Republicans are putting out there. The fact is this: we don't know what the numbers are. Even if you look at some of the projections, I reject the notion you're cutting it in half. Look at the declines in the tax rate. You see them going at a rate that's not at a 50 percent slant rate. So, you're wrong about that. You are just wrong about that.
[Battista:] Tom, quickly. What do you want to get in there?
[Tom:] Sounds to me like they are saying that, you know, I want to have a new car so all my friends will like me, so I buy the new car and worry about how I am going to pay for it later. You are going to have to manage your money about what you got coming in, and what responsibilities you have to match it up to.
[Battista:] All right, Julianne...
[Malveaux:] Absolutely, Tom!
[Battista:] Julianne Malveaux and Ramesh Ponnuru, thank you both very much for joining us.
[Malveux:] Oh, it was a pleasure, Bobbie.
[Ponnuru:] Thanks.
[Battista:] By the way, you can find out how the president's tax cut plan would effect you on "BURDEN OF PROOF." E-mail Greta and Roger at burdenofproof@cnn.com tomorrow at 12:30 Eastern. Then join us at TALKBACK LIVE for this week's edition of Friday free-for-all. We will see you then.