SEIB: Brian, let's continue the Iraq line with Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham, because for you it's not a hypothetical. Where do you come down on the $87 billion? Your colleagues have suggested paying for it at least in part by rolling by the top Bush tax cuts. Is that the way to go? Should the wealthy pay for Iraq and Afghanistan?
GRAHAM: I will support whatever is required for the troops in Iraq. I will not support a dime for the profits of Halliburton.
We have two clear issues: one, support of the troops. I believe that should be done by eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans and using that to pay the cost of occupation of Iraq.
For the rebuilding of Iraq, I believe that we should look to the Iraqi oil source in the same way that in the 1990s we looked to the Mexican oil source in order to finance the bail-out plan that we had for them.
The policy that the administration is following in Iraq is typical of their policies elsewhere. It is disrespectful of other nations. We need to be inviting in to participate in this occupation. And it is anti-patriotic at the core, because it's asking only one group of Americans, those soldiers in Iraq and their families, to pay the price of this occupation.
WILLIAMS: I want to turn into taxes for a little bit here. There's a lot of talk, as you all know, in Washington about deferring tax cuts, rolling back tax cuts. But let's talk about the guarantee not to raise taxes, perhaps.
And, Senator Graham, why don't I begin with you? Are you willing to say here and now those famous words, in a Graham presidency there would be no new taxes?
GRAHAM: No, and you don't have to watch my lips saying that word.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
I believe it's irresponsible, particularly a candidate for the president of the United States, to make an announcement in advance that they would never seek to increase federal revenue or reallocate the responsibility for paying the cost to the federal government.
In the first year of President Bush's administration, this country, this city was struck with a horrendous terrorist attack which has resulted in billions of unanticipated new responsibilities for the federal government.
What we are doing now, is we are asking our children and our grandchildren to pay for these costs. We're writing a deficit bill the likes of which we've never seen, which we're not going to assume responsibility for, but ask our children.
SEIB: I'd like to turn this question of job loss to Senator Graham, if I could.
What would you do as president, if anything, to either discourage of maybe even punish American companies that take jobs overseas? Or to deal with allies such as Mexico that have lower labor, environmental standards, that make them attractive places for American factories?
GRAHAM: I am the jobs candidate. And I'm not only talking about what I will do, but what I have done.
While I was governor of Florida, when the state had a population of approximately 12 million people, I presided over the creation of 1.4 million new jobs in Florida, new jobs that resulted in, for the first time in our state's history, the per-capita income in Florida being above the national average; resulted in Florida for three years in a row being recognized as the state that had the best climate for economic development.
I also am the candidate who has the most comprehensive economic plan, Opportunity For All, which lays out the pillars of creating new jobs in America: balancing the budget; making our tax program more fair and progressive; third, investing in America by rebuilding America. If we can afford to rebuild the bridges, the roads, the schools and electric system of Iraq, we can afford to invest in rebuilding America.
BORGER: Again on jobs to Senator Graham and Reverend Sharpton, one way you both want to create jobs is by–through public works projects. You spoke about that just a moment ago.
But what's the evidence that you have that Washington spending our tax dollars is going to do a better job of creating those jobs than private employers could do hanging on to those same tax dollars?
GRAHAM: Gloria, I believe in the rather radical idea that if you want to create jobs, you create jobs, and you use those jobs to build a stronger economy.
Would anyone here question the fact that we are in a nation where our basic systems that support not only our lifestyle but also our economy, from the electric grid to our transportation systems to the enormous water and sewer needs across America, are all in serious distress?
What better way to add to the economic strength of America, not only today, through the 3 million people who will be employed in this great state/federal partnership patterned on President Eisenhower's interstate highway system, where the state and the federal government working together will create a new America, a stronger America and 3 million jobs?
SEIB: Senator Graham, any conversation about health care in this country these days turns to the price of prescription drugs. The average price of a prescription rose 4 percent in 2002, 10 percent of 2001, 9.2 percent before that; all well above the rate of inflation.
As president, do you think the government should and would it under your leadership impose any kind of price controls on prescription drugs?
GRAHAM: Well, I can tell you this: There will be nothing done about the price of prescription drugs as long as George W. Bush is president. He is literally in bed with pharmaceutical companies and has made a pact to even avoid in the proposed new federal expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs anything that can be construed as holding down prices.
I think what we need to do is, first, we need to open up competition in the pharmaceutical area through things like making it easier to get generic drugs to market, a reasonable reimportation plan. We need to also have a plan that will assure that access to life-saving drugs are available to all Americans.
And we can do that, among other things, by relieving the states from some of the pressure of prescription drugs for their older citizens, rather than the Republican plan, which is to stick it to the states first.
INSANA: Senator Graham, the energy problems in this country don't extend only to petroleum and petroleum production. On August 14th of this year, this area of the country and much of the rest of the East Coast suffered an enormous power blackout.
The Bush administration wants to give more control of the electrical grid to the states. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would like to see the federal government solve the problem.
Two questions: Who do you think should solve the problem, or has jurisdiction, if you will; and how should the problem be solved?
GRAHAM: This is another example that one of the recurring themes of the Bush administration, is to divide Americans, not bring us together.
We've just been talking about the issue, the future of Social Security; that's a division between generations in America.
The issue of who's going to pay for the cost of rebuilding our electric system is a regional conflict within America. We need to be looking at ways to solve problems as Americans, not as subgroups of Americans.
The way we ought to deal with this electric grid program is through a combination of the companies, and their customers, and the federal government and the state.
In the plan that we have presented, Opportunity For All, we provide the funds for the federal share of a massive rebuilding of not only our electric system but also our other critical transportation and urban systems upon which we and our economy are sustained.
SEIB: Senator Graham, we're talking about trade agreements, but the underlying issue is really labor.
Simply put, is the Democratic Party too beholden to Big Labor?
GRAHAM: No. The Democratic Party is a big tent. Labor is a very important occupant of a portion of that big tent.
I think there are two questions in the discussion of trade that are paramount.
One is, of course, we have to have a playing field which is as level for the competition of free enterprise to take place as possible. And I agree with my friends on the stage that that includes taking into account the context of trade, such as labor and environmental policies.
The second aspect is how is America going to win on that level playing field? We are going to win by making an investment in our people, to have the best trained, the best educated workforce in the world with the ability to retrain periodically throughout the work life.
We Americans have had a great tradition of being able to accomplish what we set out to do. We are Americans. The only question is not whether we can do it; it's whether we have the will to do it.
What in office, as president, would be the least popular, most right thing you would do? Again, 30 seconds each.
Senator Graham, we'll go around the horn.
GRAHAM: I would begin the process of rebuilding America's relationship with the world. And I would do what this president has been unwilling to do, and that is to recognize that if we are going to have the respect for the world, we must allow the world to participate in important decisions, such as who's going to control the occupation of Iraq.
We seem to be elevating the commercial interest of those American firms like Halliburton, which are getting the no-bid contracts, above the patriotic interest of getting more countries involved, less American casualties, less American cost.
WILLIAMS: That's all the time we have.
The transcript of the entire debate can be found here: September 25 Debate