(5 of 7)
CONRAD: I have made a hundred presentations in my state. I show charts that illustrate the dimensions of the problem. It actually rivets people. But it's not the only way. It isn't just entitlements or defense or revenue or domestic programs. This thing is so big, everything has got to be on the plate, and when you explain that, it leads people to interesting conclusions.
WEBER: I had a reporter ask me the other day if I wasn't optimistic on the budget problem, because more and more candidates are talking about restraining entitlement growth. And I said, "Maybe in a very small way, but, unfortunately, that's what the candidates say -- 'entitlement growth.' " When they speak at the Chamber of Commerce and the Kiwanis, very few of them translate those abstract words into "freezing Social Security" or "restricting Medicare eligibility." In Congress we don't get to vote on the abstraction. We have to vote for or against actual programs.
I still don't think there is agreement on the economic impact of the deficit. But we have come to the point where we can see that the one debilitating effect is that it has absolutely hamstrung our government.
WIRTH: There are some very interesting debates that should be conducted on this subject. One is, What do you use tax policy for -- growth or fairness? It's an enormously important question, but we never get to it. Another thing we should be debating is, What are we going to tax? We now tax investment and production. We tax labor, we tax capital. But the world out there is changing, and we probably should be looking at a value-added tax or a consumption tax. We ought to be looking at taxing environmental evils -- a carbon tax or something like that. But because we say, "Read my lips, no new taxes," you don't get into any of this, either. And such things are the stuff of government. We decide what's important to us by putting programs in the budget and raising taxes -- these steps reflect our values. But we never talk about these things.
WEBER: Part of the reason these issues are so hypersensitive is the underlying assumption that nothing will happen. You can give a speech about freezing Social Security benefits, and be convinced it's a good thing, and be fully aware that it's going to cost you a lot politically. But then you realize, Gee, we've got a Republican President and a Democratic Congress; it's not going to happen anyway. So should I go out and put myself at political risk to do something good for the country even when it's not even going to happen? It's the same for Democrats on raising taxes. Why campaign for an increase when the President will veto it?
Q. Would we be better off with a parliamentary system?
WEBER: I think some things need to be changed, but we can't and probably shouldn't go to a full-fledged parliamentary system. We set up this system of checks and balances and separation of powers partially to protect against the growth of government. But we now have a big government. So that argument is settled. The question is, Can we change our very large government that affects people in so many ways? We're preventing government from getting more responsive because we can't change the institutions that we built up over 200 years.