2/22/2009 6:00:00 AM McCain fields questions from Miner, Part 1
Senator John McCain
During his visit to Mohave County, Arizona Sen. John McCain sat down with the Kingman Daily Miner Editorial Board to discuss a number of issues. The senator answered questions about the economic stimulus package, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, education and other issues. The following is part of the discussion the board had with the senator on Thursday.
MINER: I know you've gotten a lot of questions on the stimulus package ... I know you didn't support the one that originally came through. What do you think of it now that it's been passed and the president has signed it?
MCCAIN: I think it's an act of generational theft - $1.2 trillion dollars of debt that we'll slave off on to our kids and grandkids.
But first let me say, I've been involved in bipartisan agreements and legislation throughout my career, whether it be on immigration reform, campaign finance reform and a host of other pieces of legislation, and I know what bipartisanship is and how it's done. You sit down across the table. The much-maligned George Bush sat down across the table from Ted Kennedy, and they got No Child Left Behind. You can argue that No Child Left Behind needs to be fixed, but I think it was a good beginning, and I think it was truly bipartisan. Ted Kennedy and I sat across the table with the administration, and we came up with campaign finance reform.
This (stimulus) legislation began, and in the immortal words of the speaker of the House, "We won. get out the bill." You don't have to say anything more than that - they wrote the bill.
So, there was no sitting down at the table and negotiating. The president, to his credit, came over and talked to us; that's nice - I always like to hear from presidents - but the point is, it was not bipartisan, nor was it a stimulus, and we are binding our children's futures.
Now we've got other issues coming up, including the speech the president gave yesterday, which I think has a lot of good elements for trying to address what's really the cause of this conflagration we're in, which is the housing crisis. I think he came up with some pretty good ideas yesterday, and I intend to support those.
So, three Republicans in all of Congress voted for the bill. And the repercussions will reverberate for a long time. We already had a $10 trillion debt. We're now going to add another trillion into this; $700 billion in TARP; the president announced $275 billion toward this housing machine. As soon as we get back, we'll do another $400 billion to keep the agencies and branches of government all in one package, not in separate appropriations committees.
I hope that this time they will sit down in true negotiation. We have a provision; we've got 44 votes - we've got two Democrat votes along with the Republican votes - that said after two quarters of economic growth, we would stop the spending and embark on a path to a balanced budget. There's no provision in that because the philosophical differences between me and other Republicans, and the Democrats, is they want to keep spending. They aren't willing to vote for a provision that would stop the spending once the economy recovers. That's on record as far as the votes are concerned.
I've been around a long time, and I've never seen anything like it. Policy changes, imposition of Davis-Bacon; everybody knows what Davis-Bacon is - it's going to increase costs dramatically because you're going to have to pay your people the same wages as if you were in New York City. A provision that requires a new approach to welfare - now if someone has a relative who's ill, they can quit their job and get unemployment benefits. That's a good idea; I think that's a great idea, super idea. Why the hell is it in the stimulus package? What's it got to do with stimulating jobs in America?
And there's other policy changes about health care and other things. So they loaded it up; as they said, "We want it; we wrote it." And the Republicans did that to Democrats in previous years. We paid the price for it; we let spending get out of control; we let corruption creep into what we did, and we paid a price for it. We lost the elections in 2006 and 2008.
The president campaigned on change. He campaigned that we would sit down and work together. Maybe we couldn't; maybe we were just too philosophically different. But there wasn't a single attempt made. I know bipartisanship; I know how bipartisanship works. This wasn't it.
So, we will be seeking fair and transparent use of the money. I believe that Arizona can compete with any other state or locality to get the much-needed money. Already we're seeing a good example. There was $2 billion in the Senate bill of the stimulus package for light rail; there was zero in the House. It came out of conference - only Democrats, no Republicans in the room - with $8 billion for light rail. And guess where it's going to go? A light rail between Las Vegas and L.A. Everybody knows that.
Could we have competed for that money? Maybe so. So it's business as usual in Washington, and I think that Americans are generally very disappointed. Sorry for the long answer.
MINER: So what can be done now? Are we going to have four years of this fighting back and forth in Washington? I know you're disappointed, you expected a little more bipartisanship. Do you have a solution for this?
MCCAIN: I not only expected it, but I promised it and the president promised it. I have a record of bipartisan work within the Senate; he does not.
I cannot speak for the Senate. I will work with Democrat friends of mine as we address specific issues, like I always have ... Byron Dorgan on Indian Affairs, Carl Levin on Armed Services, we've already proposed legislation on it - Defense Acquisition Merger.
We'll continue to work on a bipartisan basis. We've built up those relationships for years. But the present needs in this next round of TARP - and they say there's going to be another round of TARP in addition to the $700 billion we've already spent - are we going to do it sitting down together addressing a way to get to a common goal? Or are they going to say, "We want it. We know what to do." It's up to them, not up to me. I stand ready.
MINER: Senator, what's your idea about a good stimulus bill, since you don't like the one that came out?
MCCAIN: One that first of all creates jobs. Many of these policy changes I mentioned do not. Two, by creating jobs, it has a direct, stimulative effect on the economy. Three, once our economy recovers - and our economy will recover - we've been through bad times in history. And this is not the Great Depression. The Great Depression had 25 percent unemployment in this country. It's bad; it's terrible. But it's not the Great Depression ...
We had a $420 billion package which was more for construction. We had $60 billion; this bill has $30 billion for construction. And tax cuts. I strongly believe that small business needs relief from the payroll tax, and we should have tax cuts for businesses as well. We have the highest business tax in the world.
Those are just some of the elements of the provision that 40 Republicans voted for. Those votes were along party lines with the exception of three Republicans who had to call Congress on it.
Jobs ... jobs ... jobs. And try to do our best to not mortgage our kids' futures.
MINER: What about the foreclosures and what Obama wants to do with that? Do you agree with that?
MCCAIN: I agree that some of the provisions he addressed in his speech yesterday could be very helpful. It's the Bush Administration and (Nancy) Pelosi that started out asking for TARP, saying it would be directed at housing. Then it switched priorities every other day, it seemed, and got into financial institutions and all kinds of things rather than the housing issue.
I think that forcing people - forcing lenders who have done these adjustable rate mortgages, to do away with those - is very important. I think that would help a whole lot of people who can afford their mortgage payments at the present level, but cannot take this jump that was negotiated ... many people do not realize what they are signing, and even if they knew it, we should give them ... we should give people if we can, a mortgage at levels they can afford.
Down at the Board of Supervisors, a woman stood up and said, "We've been making our payments. Why should the guy who lives next door to us get a break?"
I tried to explain to her that I don't think it's fair, but if the guy next door throws the keys in the living room and leaves, then the value of her home goes down.
So I think it's important to give people in certain kinds of mortgages that they can afford to make payments on because this proposal is directly headed toward that as well. There's certain institutions that can be very helpful as well.
The one that I'm worried about is the "cram down" with where the judge, and, you know, decide on modifications to mortgage payments. I admire and respect judges; I appreciate them very much. I don't think they're experts in this line of work.
Mortgages have got to be re-negotiated, but I don't think it should be a judge that does it. I think it should be the homeowner and the lender, with impetus and reward from the federal government to do so.
So, I worry about that cram down issue. But overall, he gave a good speech and got some good proposals.
Posted: Friday, February 27, 2009
Article comment by:
used2bkingman
how many of McCain's 8 homes are in danger of foreclosure?
Posted: Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I quit caring what McLoser has to say a long, long time ago. And he earned that name from me long before he ran for president.
Posted: Monday, February 23, 2009
Article comment by:
newrepublicanleadership
Mccain is Mcsame, still either missinformed, or lying to people; and still he thinks he is in the campaign, just bashing on "automatic mode"
"So, we will be seeking fair and transparent use of the money. I believe that Arizona can compete with any other state or locality to get the much-needed money. Already we’re seeing a good example. There was $2 billion in the Senate bill of the stimulus package for light rail; there was zero in the House. It came out of conference - only Democrats, no Republicans in the room - with $8 billion for light rail. And guess where it’s going to go? A light rail between Las Vegas and L.A. Everybody knows that."
It can’t be the case that “everybody” knows that because it’s not true. The thing that John McCain wants where different states can compete for the high-speed rail money is what the bill already says. Except McCain has piled ignorance onto dishonesty by confusing high-speed rail (advanced passenger trains that run between cities) with light-rail (relatively low-capacity trains used for intra-city mass transit). They have a light rail system right in Phoenix so it’s not as if there’s no way he could have informed himself about these issues.
Then again, you don’t imagine that the McCain’s ever stoop to ride Phoenix’s light rail, do you?
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
McCain speaks with fork tongue. He said he was would stop the Mexican Invasion before he was elected then afterwards he said he was for for comprehensive immigration, a euphemism for legalizing the illegal's that are here. He, and the government are stalling off American's until the children of illegals can out vote us American's.
McCain can not be trusted, until he will be clearer on his thoughts.
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2009
Article comment by:
formerKingmanite
Proof that McCain lives in another universe than the rest of us. He probably has no idea how many millions are currently out of work. :(
Is McCain STILL honestly thinking more and more tax credits to the wealthy is the WAY TO SOLVE THIS MESS??? Is he out of his mind?
So glad he didn't win! He'd be sitting on his hands and watching us fall into deeper desperation and deeper depression, just like Bush did.
Every business owner I talk to says he wants CUSTOMERS, not a free check handout. If no body is in their stores buying goods, then they aren't going to be hiring no matter how many checks you send them.
