Former House Majority Leader and presidential candidate Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) ate lunch with Tufts students in an ExCollege class yesterday. But first, he sat down with the Daily on a day when national lawmakers reached an impasse while debating a bailout for foundering financial companies. Gephardt answered our questions about the economy and the battle between Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
Gephardt led the House of Representatives' Democratic majority from 1989 to 1995 and continued as minority leader from 1995 to 2003. He represented Missouri's third congressional district from 1977 to 2005 and is now a consultant for the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. He ran twice for the Democratic nomination for president in 1988 and in 2004, and he was considered as a possible running mate for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) four years ago.
Listen to the interview here:
Transcript:
Michael Del Moro: Do you support the $700-billion bailout plan and, if you were a lawmaker today, what sort of stipulations would you have to go with it?
Rep. Dick Gephardt: Well, I do think they need to pass some plan and I do think this is the right plan. I think time is of the essence because of the situation we're in. The markets are falling apart … I think the amendments they're making to it are good ones: trying to have oversight over the way the thing is operated; Trying to get taxpayers equity in some of these companies so that they can make money out of these assets — the taxpayers get the benefit of that …
I think it is reasonable to ask for a restriction on executive pay of the companies that have failed and gotten into these problems. It doesn't make sense to anybody to pay people big amounts of money if they've led a corporation that's failed. Whether it's their direct fault or not, they were the leader, the buck stops on their desk.
So I think those are good changes and hopefully with those changes they can get it passed. I understand the angst of voters who see [that] this is an enormous amount of money, and after the war in Iraq and the deficit we already have, people are really getting restive about where the federal government's headed. But we are where we are and it doesn't make any sense to have the economy get worse, a lot worse, which I think it would if nothing passes. So I think this is the best of bad choices.
MDM: What do you think of the position that John McCain has taken in terms of calling for a suspension of his campaign and a delay of the debate? What do you think his motivation is?
DG: Well, there's all kinds of speculation about why he's done this. I think it was the right thing to do; I think it's the right thing for both the candidates to go back. This is an overarching issue … I think Warren Buffet called it a financial Pearl Harbor event. So, if Pearl Harbor had happened during a campaign, you can bet people would stop campaigning and go back and try to figure out what to do …
You're six weeks from an election. All the House members are up for election, a third of the senators are up for election and of course these two candidates are up for election. And if either of the two major candidates for president are against this package, it's not going to pass the Congress, that's just the reality of the situation. So it makes sense for them to get involved …
MDM: What direct effects do you think this will have on working-class Americans?
DG: Well, the best-case scenario would be if the bill passes and the markets stabilize and banks start making loans again for autos and houses and to business and all that. Then I think you might even, under a best-case scenario, be able to avoid a recession entirely, or a bad recession.
It also could not solve the problem as quickly as we think, the housing market could keep going down and we could go into a recession. And that means loss of jobs, loss of economic activity, GNP goes negative for at least two quarters — that's how you define a recession.
And I guess worst-case scenario is if they don't pass the bill and the market falls completely apart worldwide and we have a depression where, you know, 25 percent of our people are out of work and people are getting foreclosed on their homes and retirement is lost and kids can't go to college, I mean the whole nine yards could really happen as it did in the '30s.
MDM: So the consequences of not passing this bill would be catastrophic?
DG: Could be. It may not be, but I think the chances are better than not that if we just do nothing and watch this thing unravel that you could have a really bad consequence. And that's a risk that I don't think anybody needs to take.
MDM: What is your opinion on John McCain's running-mate choice? And do you think that John McCain's decision to choose Sarah Palin reflects badly on him as a decision maker?
DG: Well, I think the voters will figure this out. First of all, she's an impressive speaker and makes a good presentation. And, you know, her experience level is not what I would want in someone who was a heartbeat away from the presidency, but, you know, you could make an argument that being a mayor and being a governor — because we've had many of them in the presidency — is not the worst set of qualifications to be president.
I just think she's got to answer questions, she's got to participate in debates, and we can all figure out from that … whether or not she's got enough experience and enough common sense and enough human characteristics to be a good president. I doubt that's the case, and I think at that point people will think Joe Biden does have [the] experience that's needed in a very difficult time that we're in, internationally and internally, and they're going to want to vote for experience. That's what I think the voters will decide …
MDM: What do you think Barack Obama needs to do from now until Election Day in order to secure victory in November? Do you think suburban whites in your home state of Missouri and other important Midwestern states, which are all turning out to be swing states this year, could be swayed by appeals to unspoken racism?
DG: There is still racism in our country, it's not nearly as much as it was even five, 10 years ago, but I'm sure it still exists, in some quarters. I think the best way for him to run is the way he's running, [which] is to be out every day, especially in important swing states, talking directly to voters about what he wants to do when he's president, how he wants to solve the economic problem, which is the main thing that people are worried about today, how he wants to solve education and health care and energy and environment … and just speak in simple kitchen-table terms to people that they can understand.
If he does that, they'll be less and less concerned about the color of his skin or the color of his eyes or the way he looks or any of that and they'll be more [likely to look] at what kind of a president he will be. And I think he's very impressive and I think he'll win voters over if he just does that with discipline, which he's doing today.
