SEIB: Turning on Iraq to Congressman Kucinich and Reverend Sharpton, you've both been outspoken critics of the war and have said, in fact, you'd bring the troops home. But the fact is that as of now the troops are there, the United States is committed.
Would you vote–will you vote yes or no on the $87 billion? And if the answer is no, what's the message you would send to the troops who are there today?
SHARPTON: Well, first of all, as the only New Yorker, I want to welcome General Clark to New York and I want to welcome him to our list of candidates.
And don't be defensive about just joining the party. Welcome to the party. It's better to be a new Democrat that's a real Democrat, than a lot of old Democrats up here that have been acting like Republicans all along.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
In terms of your question, I would unequivocally vote no, because I think to continue to invest in a flawed and failed policy is not wise or prudent. It is really to try and chase bad investment with bad investment. The signal it would sent the troops is that we really do love them. Real patriots don't put troops in harm's way on a flawed policy.
We would send a signal that we're not going to ask you to fight for health care for the children of our Iraq when you don't have it for the children in South Carolina or New York.
That's the signal. That's real patriotism.
BORGER: Reverend Sharpton and Ambassador Moseley Braun, many of you here around this table were talking today about tax cut for the middle class versus tax cuts for the wealthy. This leads me to ask a very basic question of you and that is how do you define rich in this country?
SHARPTON: Well, I think that, clearly, rich are those that are above a certain income bracket that are able to, without any concern, pay for their livelihood and their family.
I think what we're hearing here, though, is something that is particularly disturbing to me. I think that we're not talking tax cuts, we're talking tax shifts.
And what President Bush has offered and some are supporting, is to give us $300 at the end of the day, when we bring about an economy where interest rates go too high, where mortgage lending can't happen for people right here in Queens.
My two daughters are here tonight. Would I rather give them $300 that, if they buy a pair of sneakers apiece, the $300 is gone, or would I rather them be able to buy a home and have interest rates where they can have a home mortgage?
If you talk to the American people like that, they will understand the fallacy of that.
And that's not about reading lips, because we've read Bush's lips; they lied. He said that there are no tax cuts, yet he caused a shift where state tax, sale tax and property taxes went up. That's a tax hike…
WILLIAMS: Reverend. Reverend.
SHARPTON: … where I come from.
WILLIAMS: Reverend. Reverend, thank you.
SEIB: Senator Edwards and Reverend Sharpton, on this question of job loss, you've both had a fairly tough line.
I think, Senator Edwards, you've talked about withholding tax credits from companies that move jobs overseas.
Reverend Sharpton, you've talked about punishing companies that move overseas to dodge American taxes.
Isn't that, though, a message that builds walls between the U.S. and the rest of the world economy on which our own prosperity has become so dependent?
Reverend Sharpton?
SHARPTON: No. When I say that we should punish companies that go and have offshore corporations to duck taxes, that doesn't affect our standing with any other country. That affects people like Enron, that had 3,000 offshore companies deduct taxes. That doesn't hurt other countries, in terms of our enforcement.
I think what we should say to other countries is the way that we can develop them in proper relationships is to, first, have a strong country here.
We're on an island right now that, one side trades trillions on Wall Street; the other side, you have people in Harlem and Washington Heights trying to choose between rent and prescription drugs. We have a responsibility to those citizens and we need to make that responsibility our priority before we try and help to accommodate companies that don't want to stand up for their responsibilities.
We're told the responsible thing to do is serve the country. But if you're a multi-billionaire, the responsible thing to do is to duck taxes and to try to down-size employment. That's ridiculous.
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?
SHARPTON: Not only did Eisenhower, but Roosevelt had a public works program.
What I've proposed is a five-year, $250 billion infrastructure redevelopment plan. $50 billion a year rebuilding highways, roadways, tunnels, bridges and, in the name of homeland security, ports. If you look at the ports in this country, we are in disrepair.
Not only does it create jobs, it does what is needed because we need to deal with the infrastructural decay. And if we do not create jobs, we can have all of the recovery we want in production, we are not going to have consumers to buy it.
We are going from a threat of inflation to a threat of deflation. And unless we have someone to deal with these times–President Clinton did a good job, but we had a technology boom then. We don't have that now.
I mean, I know that within the next hour we'll say that Bill Clinton walked on water. The fact is there was a reason the economy was strong then.
We don't have that reason now. We must invest in job development. That's how you bring the economy back.
BORGER: This is for Reverend Sharpton.
Governor Dean has called this prescription drug plan that is now pending in Congress, quote, “a political trap for Democrats.” He says that it could make the Democrats look bad if they vote against a bill that they really view is a bad plan.
Would no bill getting out of Congress be better for senior citizens than the prescription drug bill that is now pending?
SHARPTON: I think that we must–again, this process is about what we are going to say to the public we stand for. And I think that we've got to quit the compromising on the principles that the party should stand for.
So in this particular case, I agree with Governor Dean. I have supported single-payer plan. I think the only way you're going to solve these problems is you've got to have a national single-payer plan for everyone.
I think that we've got to stop going with half a loaf. I would rather have no bill and fight for something real than to continue to give people something that I think is a diluted version of what we need to have.
Plus, I don't think that the bill in any way covers the areas that we need, in terms of giving relief to the senior citizens that we would try to address this to.
So in this case, I think he's right, I think that we've got to stop acting as though everyone in the party agrees. We must define policy, and this is one of those areas we must define it.
WILLIAMS: Reverend Sharpton, you were wanting in here (talking about retirement age), I'm going to allow you a 30-second rebuttal.
SHARPTON: Again, I think that we can only solve this if there's a commitment to health care, generally, under a single-payer plan. And I think that the danger of all of these programs is that it doesn't cover all of us.
And you can get on my Web site, Al2004.com. I'm a different Al than you hung out with before, Joe, but I'm going to win.
(LAUGHTER)
But the other thing is, I agree. I hope we don't, in our distinguishing, make George Bush the winner tonight. I think all of us have disagreed. I think clearly we need to make sure we don't give George Bush the night by getting too personal, Hilda (ph) Howard.
INSANA: Reverend Sharpton, you've been critical of President Bush's trade policies, when, in fact, it was Bill Clinton who signed more free trade deals than almost any other president in history.
So why are you picking on President Bush in that regard when his predecessor's responsible for some of the things we're talking about today?
SHARPTON: Well, I picked on President Clinton when he was in, I disagreed…
(LAUGHTER)
… I disagreed with NAFTA when Clinton was in, and I think that we have come to see that that disagreement was correct.
I think that we cannot have trade policy that overlooks labor, overlooks workers' rights, overlooks environmental concerns. We can't act like just because something is trade, that also that makes it right.
African-Americans are here on a bad trade policy…
(LAUGHTER)
We're talking about where we are near, we are near an African burial ground. I'm here on a bad trade policy. So just because it's trade, doesn't mean that it is good and it is something that we should support.
Democrats ought to always say that we support human rights, environmental rights and protection, not just making money.
And we need to walk over to the African burial ground here and understand what bad trade policy–non-ethical trade policy has led to in the history of this country.
Let's talk about corporate responsibility for a moment. Reverend Sharpton, a lot of populist talk in the last campaign for president. Lot of Democrats figured post-Enron and now post-$140 million salaries here on Wall Street there may be traction in it for them as an issue going into this next election. Do you agree with that?
SHARPTON: I absolutely agree. I think that anytime you've seen, from Enron where thousands of people's life earnings gone, to now in the midst of record unemployment, the vulgarity of what happened here on Wall Street with $130 million salaries, that that is something the American people need to understand came from deregulation. It came from a social policy set in Washington.
When you have non-bid contractors rebuilding Iraq, if any Democrat holding office in this country had given away those non-bid contracts, they would be in front of a grand jury, probably in court as a defendant.
If any Democrat holding office in this country had given away those nonbid contracts, they would be in front of a grand jury, probably in court as a defendant.
This is an absolute issue that should be raised before the American people. Greed and runaway deregulation I think has added to the deficit. And I think George Bush should have to face that in this next election–that combined with the fact that where they can count so many billions and can't count enough votes to elect him to office, that will defeat him in 2004.
What in office, as president, would be the least popular, most right thing you would do? Again, 30 seconds each.
SHARPTON: I think two things. I would take a critical review of our defense budget. I would not do anything that would jeopardize America. But I think things like F-11 bombers and other unnecessary military equipment, we need to take the money away.
And we need to have an honest discussion about what still separates us in America. Today is Thursday. If you read the Wall Street Journal and the Amsterdam News, you wouldn't know you were in the same town. We need to really talk about that in America.
And a lot of people don't want to do that because it's politically risky.
Tonight we have eight career politicians, an officer and a gentleman–this is the Democratic Party.
The transcript of the entire debate can be found here: September 25 Debate