National Public Radio Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Transcript - Part 1

National Public Radio Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Transcript
January 6, 2004 Tuesday

HEADLINE: Democratic presidential candidates debate

ANCHORS: NEAL CONAN

BODY:
NEAL CONAN, host:

NPR News and the WOI Radio Group welcome you to a Democratic presidential candidates debate. I'm Neal Conan, and this is an NPR News special.

We're broadcasting live from the downtown Des Moines campus of Iowa State University. It's a cold and sunny day with a dusting of snow on the ground. Six Democrats who hope to challenge President George W. Bush next fall are here, seated at a U-shaped table in front of me. Starting at my left, former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, Congressman Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and former Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois. Wesley Clark declined our invitation. Senator John Edwards and Reverend Al Sharpton accepted but changed their plans.

This is a radio-only debate, so for the first time in this campaign there are no TV cameras and there's no audience. Before we begin, some obligatory language about the ground rules. I'll be asking specific questions to specific candidates, many of them selected from the thousands of e-mails sent in by NPR listeners. Because of time constraints, we ask that you hold your questions to one minute. There will be opportunities for follow-ups and rebuttals at my discretion, and we'll take short breaks every 15 minutes or so.

We have two hours, so we'll talk about Iraq and terrorism, about deficits and taxes. But we also want to step back from the news to ask about some broader issues: about your views of America and its place in the world, about the proper role of government, about who you are and how you think.

The first question is for Governor Dean. Forty years ago in his State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson declared an unconditional war on poverty. Both Democrats and Republicans have controlled the White House and Congress since then. Why are so many Americans still living in poverty?

Dr. HOWARD DEAN (Democratic Presidential Candidate): I think a lot of it has to do with the extraordinary corporate alliances and rapaciousness that this president has encouraged since he's been president. Medicare prescription benefits bill's a perfect example. Four hundred billion dollars charged to our grandchildren. Who are the beneficiaries? Not seniors. No, a hundred billion dollars goes to the pharmaceutical industry, $85 billion goes to HMOs and insurance companies, and the seniors get left holding the bag.

I was in North Dakota yesterday. Farmers up there are being forced off their land by big corporations who are buying up all the hog lot operations and the beef operations. This is a country which is a great country and business has been great for America, but business has responsibility, too, and this president believes that he is the president for the corporation, by the corporation and of the corporation. I think we need a president who's going to introduce programs like Lyndon Johnson did-Medicare, Head Start-that affect ordinary people and help them get ahead in life instead of catering to corporations whose chief executives are giving him $2,000 a whack to improve his campaign coffers.

CONAN: Congressman Gephardt, here's an e-mail we got from Henry Abbott(ph) in Flemington, New Jersey. He writes, 'Many Americans feel jaded about the political process and powerless to influence it, which is not the way this democracy was supposed to work. Why do you think that is? And what can we do to fix it?'

Representative RICHARD GEPHARDT (Democratic Presidential Candidate): Well, I think it goes to the question of the way we operate campaigns. We need campaign reform, and I'm proud to have led the effort in the House a year ago to get the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill through the Congress. I actually brought John McCain to my office, and we together made phone calls to members of Congress to get them to vote for the bill. We got well over 200 Democrats, we got 15 or so Republicans. That's kind of the normal ratio on a question of reform in campaigns. And we got it done, and I'm proud we got it done.

There's more that we need to get done. People have given up on this system. They think that everybody is bought. They think that the special interests are running amok in the Capitol. And, you know, the Republican Party is selling the government to the highest bidder. We've got to change that perception and reality, and when I'm president we'll get more campaign reform.

CONAN: That was Congressman Gephardt. Senator Kerry, do you think there is any issue so important right now that it needs a constitutional amendment?

Senator JOHN KERRY (Democratic Presidential Candidate): I think it may be possible that in order to deal with the campaign contribution system, you may have to have a constitutional amendment. I think that the single greatest problem in America today with respect to why people are voiceless, why so many people can't have their agenda addressed is campaign funding. I have personally refused in all four elections to the United States Senate-I have voluntarily never taken political action committee money because I wanted to prove you can do it. Paul Wellstone and I together wrote the clean elections law, and I wrote and passed legislation in the 1980s and '90s that actually had partial public funding.

What's happened is the corporations across this country, whether it's Medicare, the energy bill--$50 billion of oil and gas subsidies for the energy companies at the expense of $18 billion added to the deficit. It's inexcusable. We're witnessing the greatest period of crony capitalism in the modern history of the country and we have to end it with campaign finance reform.

CONAN: But just let me follow up, Senator Kerry. Is there anything besides the money wrong with our political system? Redistricting, for example?

Sen. KERRY: Sure. Absolutely. There are a lot of things that are wrong besides that. But the biggest single reason why the voices of Americans, the average American, is not heard is because so much money flows into Washington. The lobbyists are parading through the halls of Congress. They actually wrote the Medicare bill. They were paid $139 million and they turned it into a $139 billion drug company benefit. It's one of the greatest modern examples of a feeding frenzy at the congressional trough that we've seen in any time that I've been there. And everyone in America understands what's wrong. George Bush is feeding that. We have to stop it.

And as president-you know, I've fought these interests all my life, Neal. I fought against Gingrich's efforts to cut the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. I led the fight to stop the drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. We have to stand up to these interests. I've done it, and I will.

CONAN: Congressman Kucinich, 50 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, America is resegregating in the schools and, according to the census, in our communities. How as president would you address that problem?

Representative DENNIS KUCINICH (Democratic Presidential Candidate): It's a great tragedy when you consider that resegregation carries with it an increasing divide in terms of not just educational opportunities, but after the fact, job opportunities. The first thing we must do is to start paying attention to our inner-city schools. Inner-city school systems are wanting for capital, they're wanting for resources.

We need smaller classroom sizes. We need better-paid teachers. We need to have a universal pre-kindergarten program. This will go a long way towards helping children age three, four and five be able to get five-day-a-week day care, which would include reading skills, educational and social skills. It would include nutrition. We need to start early. And we also need to have a fully paid universal college education so that young people will have the chance when they graduate from high school to be able to go on and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. This is all about a public educational system that works from age three all the way through to college.

CONAN: Thank you, Congressman Kucinich.

And here's an e-mail from Jeff Baris(ph) in Washington, DC, for Senator Lieberman. 'You've said in the past that separation of church and state means freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. How do atheists and secularists fit into that vision of American spirituality?'

Senator JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (Democratic Presidential Candidate): Yeah. Thanks very much for asking that question. This is a difference between individual behavior and the public square. And the great point of the First Amendment is that it protects every individual's right to worship or not worship as they choose. I always thought it was a remarkable, a brilliant act of principle when in the Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote and the others signed that those self-evident truths-that we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an endowment from our Creator. And one of those rights in America is not to believe in the Creator if you don't want to.

What I meant about freedom of religion in that sense and not freedom from religion is that there's been too much of an attempt, and too often from members of my party, to feel uncomfortable talking about faith or to try to exclude faith or expressions of it from the public square. The fact is, in America we're the most religiously observant in our individual lives nation probably in the whole world and we are the most religiously tolerant. Faith, in my opinion, is a source of strength and unity, and when we try to conceal it, we diminish our strength and divide ourselves.

CONAN: Senator Lieberman. And in the last election, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Here's an e-mail for you, Ambassador Moseley Braun. It's from Charlotte Connely(ph) in Dallas. 'Would you support abandoning the Electoral College and electing our president by popular vote?'

Ambassador CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN (Democratic Presidential Candidate): Yes. The fact is that the Constitution-when our Constitution was written, the only federal office that was directly elected was the Congress. The Senate was elected by the state legislatures and, of course, the Electoral Congress elected the president. And so this was changed in 1918 for the Senate. I believe we're past time when the Electoral College needs to go and we have direct election. I was not here for that last election. I was in New Zealand serving as ambassador. You can imagine trying to explain what was going on back here at home to Kiwis who just didn't know we didn't have direct democracy in this country.

But I want to get to an earlier question. You asked a number of the candidates about campaign finance and the like. The real issue is, how do we keep our democracy alive? How do we make this a living Constitution? How do we invigorate our democracy? The fact of the matter is that as the non-traditional candidate in this race-I'm female, African-American-I've had the hardest time navigating the fund-raising milieu, I've had the hardest time dealing with the rules that seem to be calculated just to inspire those corporate contributions that Howard was talking about and lock out people at the grassroots level. I think getting the grassroots energized and giving them faith again that this process can work for everybody should be our number one goal.

CONAN: Ambassador Moseley Braun. Here's an e-mail question for Congressman Gephardt from Mike Harner(ph) in Rockford, Illinois. He writes, 'We hear all the time about waste in the federal government. Can you name a federal government spending program that you would cut completely-not decrease the rate of growth, not downsize, but actually eliminate?'

Rep. GEPHARDT: There are a number of programs that we have cut back on and eliminated when we led the fight-I led the fight for the Clinton economic program in 1993. We made cutbacks in a number of programs. One program that I would definitely cut out is the effort this administration is making to develop tactical nuclear weapons. I think it makes no sense. We should be trying to figure out how to get rid of nuclear weapons. I also would not launch into this Star Wars program that they're continuing to do. We should do research, as Clinton allowed us to do, but to go ahead with this program without any valid test that this is going to work does not make good sense.

So look, the way you get the budget straightened out is the way we did it in '93. You've got to get the economy to function. You've got to build jobs. You've got to get people back to work with good-paying jobs. That's what my plans will do.

CONAN: Governor Dean, Craig Graziano(ph) from right here in Des Moines, Iowa, has this e-mail question for you: 'The United Nations was founded in the middle of the last century. Are there changes that could now be made that would help it achieve its goal of world peace?' In other words, does the UN need reform?

Dr. DEAN: I think the UN has gone through a big period of reform. Could it use some more? Yes. I think that, for example, the election of Syria or Libya as the head of the Human Rights Commission in the United Nations is probably a sign that still further reforms are necessary.

Having said that, however, I think this president made an enormous mistake bypassing the United Nations on his way into Iraq. We are not going to give the United Nations veto power over our foreign policy, but the president's father showed that building coalitions is far more successful and will retain our moral leadership in the world, which this president has forfeited by humiliating not only our enemies but our friends.

So I view the UN as a very positive institution, a group of nations that we should work with, a place to resolve disputes, a place where diplomacy is always favored over violence, which I think is in general the right direction for the United States to follow. It's not perfect. I'm sure there are some additional reforms, such as qualifications for the Human Rights Commission, but I do believe that this president has misused the United Nations or not used it at all, and under a Dean presidency you could expect to see a significant increase in the role of the United Nations in world diplomacy.

CONAN: Congressman Kucinich, we just have about a minute left, so if you could keep this one a little bit shorter than normal. But I did want to follow up on the domestic spending cuts issue that I raised earlier. Is there a program that you would eliminate?

Rep. KUCINICH: I would say that the programs that I would cut would include a 15 percent reduction in Pentagon spending. The Pentagon budget is bloated for some of the same reasons that Dick Gephardt mentioned. But I think that what we need here is a program to challenge poverty, and my program to go from poverty to prosperity would include a living wage, creation of jobs through a new WPA-type program, universal health care for all, universal pre-kindergarten, universal college education for all, development of high-tech with energy and the environment, and canceling the relationship between the United States and the WTO and NAFTA. That would help us move in the direction of repairing our economy.

CONAN: Congressman Kucinich.

We're in Des Moines, Iowa, with the Democratic presidential candidates. I'm Neal Conan. This is an NPR News special.

(Soundbite of music)

CONAN: This is an NPR News special. I'm Neal Conan in Des Moines with Democratic candidates Carol Moseley Braun, Joe Lieberman, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, Richard Gephardt and Howard Dean.

Congressman Kucinich, you've called to get all US troops out of Iraq in 90 days. How will you convince the international community to step in and fill the void? Right now, the United Nations doesn't have so much as an office in Baghdad.

Rep. KUCINICH: Well, we understand clearly why the UN isn't involved right now, because the US spurned their involvement in inspections. And we know the UN doesn't have any incentives. What I'm talking about is providing the UN with an incentive, and that incentive would be that the United States would give up ambitions to control the oil, turn that over to the UN so the UN would handle that on an interim basis on behalf of the Iraqi people until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

The second part of my plan is that the United States would turn over to the UN the contracting process so that UN-there'll be no more Halliburton sweetheart deals. There'll be transparency in contracting, no more contracts going to administration favorites. And the UN would handle that on behalf of the Iraqi people until the Iraqi people were able to take over.

The next thing we would do is have the United States renounce any interest in privatization. That would go a long way to getting confidence of the world community.

And the final thing we have to do to get an agreement is to have the United Nations handle the cause of governance in Iraq, the construction of a new constitution and elections.

These are the preconditions which would enable UN peacekeepers to come in and bring our troops home. And I'm the only one in this campaign who is calling for the UN to come in and the US to get out. And that would happen within 90 days of the approval of my plan.

CONAN: Governor Dean, the target date for an American hand-over in Iraq is looming. This administration seems determined to make the July 1st deadline. How stable do the government and security in Iraq need to be for the United States to hand over?

Dr. DEAN: Certainly more stable than they are right now. I have grave concerns that, once again, political motives are overcoming common sense. I didn't want to go into Iraq in the first place. I thought it was a mistake and I thought that Saddam Hussein did not pose the kind of danger to the United States that, say, the Soviet Union did. But now that we're there, if we pull out precipitously, we may end up with a much greater danger. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before, but they are now, almost certainly. And if we pull out precipitously or if we turn over the Iraqi government to the Iraqis precipitously and al-Qaeda establishes a foothold in Iraq, we have a much more serious problem in terms of our defense than we did before.

So I think the first thing we need is elections. The Iraqi Council needs to represent Iraqi people. Many of the people are good people on the Iraqi Council, but some of them are not. And if they're going to write a new constitution, they're going to have to feel that the Iraqis-the Iraqi people are going to have to feel that constitution is written by Iraqis, for Iraqis and, because they were sent to write a constitution, on behalf of Iraqis.

So I think first elections, then hand-over. And I think the timetable for July 1st, the idea they're going to have a constitution ready by July 1st, is an idea that I think is unlikely and mostly driven by Karl Rove's political advice, which I don't think is particularly good in foreign policy.

CONAN: So what would your timetable be?

Dr. DEAN: You don't have a timetable in something like this. You leave when you can. I'm with Dennis. I don't believe we can pull out in 90 days. I believe we should pull out as soon as we can, but I can't give you-it's not responsible to give you a deadline because there's work to be done, and until the work is done, we can't leave.

CONAN: Congressman Gephardt, you said this spring that you felt sure the United States would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You, of course, were not alone in saying that. But you've also said you did not feel misled when the head of the CIA assured you about WMDs. Why not?

Rep. GEPHARDT: Well, I didn't just listen to George Bush. I talked to many people at the CIA, including the director. I talked to people that had been in the Clinton administration in the security apparatus, and they all shared the same view: that they were very, very likely that Saddam Hussein neither had weapons or components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons. So on that basis, I made the decision I made, and I made it because I thought it was the right thing to do. I've said from the beginning you can't pull politics into this, you've got to do what it takes to keep the people safe.

Now if weapons are never found, or components are never found, or the capacity to make them is never found, then we need to examine why the intelligence was wrong, if it was wrong. And it's why I've called for an outside blue-ribbon commission to do this so that we can improve our intelligence capacity for the future. I think that's a very essential part of this whole deal.

CONAN: Ambassador Moseley Braun, does it matter if the weapons of mass destruction are found at this point? What are the implications both for American credibility and for wherever those weapons may be?

Amb. BRAUN: I don't think this administration has any credibility when it comes to this issue. They have pandered to fear and, frankly, just missed the point altogether from the beginning in regards to an appropriate response to the tragedy of September 11th.

Instead of continuing to search out bin Laden, instead of continuing to go after al-Qaeda, instead of doing those things that would make the American people safe on the ground, helping the first responders to put an infrastructure in police and fire and hospitals and the like-instead of doing those things, instead we got duct tape and plastic sheeting and terror alerts at the bottom of our screen and a misadventure going into Iraq based on intelligence that at the time I have a hard time believing anybody really, really believed in.

Be that as it may, you know, it's done, and so the question now is, where do we go from here? I think that we need to come out as soon as we can. Whether they find weapons of mass destruction now or not I don't think will make all that much difference because we've got our young men and women in harm's way. But come out as soon as we can, but do it in a way that allows for the re-establishment of civil society in Iraq.

CONAN: Senator Kerry, Pakistani officials are accused of trading nuclear weapons technology to other countries, including Iran, North Korea and, as we heard today, possibly to Libya as well. Pakistan is also an essential American ally in the war on terrorism and, look at the map, it's crucial to any continuing operations in Afghanistan. How do you balance those two issues?

Sen. KERRY: It's complicated, but-excuse me-you have to balance them, and it's even more complicated than that. There have been two attempts on the life of President Musharraf. The specter of an Islamic radical state with nuclear weapons is unacceptable for the world, and that is what is at risk in Pakistan today. Pakistan has, frankly, misled the United States and the world with respect to its proliferation responsibilities for years. I remember meeting in Washington with President Zia and he lied to my face about what they were doing with respect to nuclear weapons. And that's when we put sanctions in place on Pakistan as a consequence.

I believe that you have to walk a very fine line, but I am convinced we can be tougher with Pakistan. There are steps that we could take now to deal with the northwest component, where Osama bin Laden is. We know he's up there. We have not pushed hard enough. And I think there are combinations of initiatives we could take with India that would also help us resolve the tensions in that area.

CONAN: Some follows. Ambassador Braun.

Amb. BRAUN: Senator Kerry is exactly right. When Benazir Bhutto was president, she swore directly to us that there was no nuclear rising going on, and we saw the O-rings on the Chinese boat in Karachi's harbor. The fact of the matter is Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government there. We have to work with the Pakistanis but be very clear about the fact that our interests and their interests may not be coherent. There are rumors even that bin Laden is hanging out in the northwest territories there. So the fact of the matter is we have to, you know, take advantage of our-we have to relationship-build even with bad people. But at the same time, we have to be very clear about who it is we're dealing with.

CONAN: And, Governor Dean, you wanted to get in on this.

Dr. DEAN: I just wanted to bring up one other point about this. As we sit here, the president of the United States is refusing to have bilateral negotiations with the North Koreans, who almost certainly have a bomb already. This president is about to allow North Korea to become a nuclear power. The danger in that is not that the North Koreans will immediately attack us. The real danger is that they will do what Pakistan is accused of. They'll sell that weaponry to terrorists or to other countries like Libya or Pakistan for hard currency-a major national security threat. And this president is not defending this country the way he ought to be by refusing to engage in those kinds of deliberations because the hard-liners in this administration believe somehow North Korea's going to fall. Well, if they don't fall of their own accord and they end up with nuclear weapons, that's a pretty serious security risk for the United States of America.

CONAN: Congressman Kucinich.

Rep. KUCINICH: We have to consider the implications of this administration's policy of nuclear first strike and of developing new nuclear weapons, which was enunciated in their Nuclear Posture Review. Once the administration took that position, it lost credibility with the world community to ask any nation to disarm. As president of the United States, I would lead the way towards reasserting the primacy of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which calls for the United States and all nuclear nations to get rid of their nuclear weapons and for the non-nuclear nations not to develop them. That's how we can regain credibility. That's how we can help secure the world.

CONAN: And, Congressman Gephardt.

Rep. GEPHARDT: Back on Pakistan, I think this administration has failed a lot in doing something to stop the Saudi support for madrassas schools in especially Pakistan that is producing young terrorists coming forward. You've now had two attacks on Musharraf's life. This is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. They have nuclear power. This president is not doing enough to see to it that we don't face the imposition of nuclear weapons from other countries like Pakistan to the terrorists and finding their way into the United States.

CONAN: And I'll get to you just in a second, Senator Lieberman, but I did want to follow up with Congressman Gephardt. You and others have criticized the institutions of the madrassas, which you say are teaching anti-Western values. Where do we get off telling other countries how to run their schools?

Rep. GEPHARDT: When you're teaching people to be terrorists, when you're advocating behavior which is really terrorism, I think the whole world has a stake in changing that educational system. This is putting lives at stake all over the world. This is a manufacturing facility of terrorism, and the whole world has to take a stand against this, and it's being funded in large part by some members of the Saudi society, and we have to take a hard stand against it and get it to change, get it to move.

CONAN: And now, Senator Lieberman.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Yeah, thanks. Who would have guessed that Pakistan would have brought forth each of us to offer a comment? Let me make two points about this. The first is that the most significant threat we face to American security in American lives in the coming period of history is from fanatical Islamic terrorism. They attacked us brutally on September 11th, 2001, but Osama bin Laden in his most insane moments does not contemplate conquering the United States of America. More likely targets are Islamabad, Pakistan and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. So working with General Musharraf-not perfect-is very important to our security.

Secondly, finally, this administration has been woefully disengaged from playing the kind of constructive mediating role we should be playing between Pakistan and India to resolve and mediate those conflicts which will be in everybody's interests.

CONAN: Senator Kerry. Then we'll move on to another part of the world.

Sen. KERRY: Well, at the end of my comment when I ran out of time, I raised the India issue. The United States, this administration, has been negligent, absent from the effort to put on the global agenda proliferation as a whole. We should have purchased all of the loose nuclear material, fissionable material in Russia today. We should have taken the initiative long ago, recognizing the Islamic realities in Pakistan to have worked with India to create a nuclear oversight capacity so that if there were an assassination or there were an overthrow, we know that the nuclear weapons can't fall in the hands of terrorists. This is one of the most glaring weaknesses in this administration's entire foreign policy, and they have left the world at much greater risk, including, obviously, the United States of America.

Dr. DEAN: Well...

Sen. KERRY: They are not making America safer, Neal, and I believe I bring to this race the deepest level of foreign policy experience and an involvement in arms control that can help to deal with these issues so that we, in fact, fight a legitimate war on terror.

CONAN: Governor Dean wanted to get in there.

Dr. DEAN: I want to make one quick point about this, since we're talking about Islamic terrorists. There is a civil war going on, but it's not between the West and Islam. It's inside Islam between the radicals and the moderates, and this administration continually acts to strengthen the radicals inadvertently. I think, in response to Dick's answer about the schools, everybody, including moderate Muslims, has an interest in making sure that the radicals are not teaching small children to hate Americans, Christians, Jews and moderate Muslims, and that is the place that we have to start. I totally agree with the comments that have been made about the Saudis. We cannot afford to have them teaching hate to the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists.

CONAN: How do you convince them not to teach hate to the-how do you convince them to do that? How?

Dr. DEAN: We have to make it economically not worth their while to continue to do what they're doing. We have...

CONAN: Stop buying their oil?

Dr. DEAN: Well, that would be...

Unidentified Panelist: Yeah.

Dr. DEAN: Actually, you know what? That would be a terrific start. A renewable energy policy would go a long way to defending the United States of America. This president doesn't seem to think renewable energy exists.

CONAN: Ambassador Moseley Braun.

Ms. BRAUN: Well, some of us have a little foreign policy experience also, John, but the point needs to be made that it has happened before that we have intervened. You've asked the question about how can you teach people what to teach their children in their schools? Well, after World War II, we did as much for Germany as well as Japan to try to...

CONAN: After conquering those countries.

Ms. BRAUN: Well, but the point is we engaged to make certain that the kind of militarism that happened at that level was ended. And I think that that argues well for our ability to use our diplomacy in a variety of ways to create another kind of culture in the sense of America in these parts of the world.

CONAN: Congressman Kucinich.

Rep. KUCINICH: What credibility do we have as a nation trying to teach peace when we're involved in a war against Iraq at this very moment and the ongoing occupation, in trying to control the oil and privatize the country? The way that we teach peace is through example. We need to set aside policies of unilateralism and pre-emption. We need to set aside policies of nuclear first strike. And we need to engage the world, fearlessly and confidently, once again, not the America of duct tape and plastic, but the America of Francis Scott Key's land of the free, home of the brave.

CONAN: And I promise this will be the last one, Senator Lieberman.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: OK. I wanted to speak about Saudi Arabia. How do we convince them to stop supporting the madrassas? Because it's in their interests, because, you know, this is a classic case. You try to ride the back of the tiger, he's going to eat you up. If they don't stop the spread of radical Islam, they're going to be overthrown. The great victory that we will win in the war against terrorism is not just to capture and kill bin Laden, but it is to empower the great majority of Muslims to live better, freer lives, and we can only do that if the leadership, too often despotic, often sitting on top of gravely impoverished people, will allow us to help them open up. I proposed an international Marshall Plan for the Muslim world, very different from the 'do nothing' approach of the Bush administration.

CONAN: Senator Kerry, I did want to move on to another part of the world. Taiwan has scheduled what some are describing as a provocative referendum as a sign of restiveness, and some fear that it could lead them toward a policy of independence. When it comes down to it, will you stand with the rambunctious democrats in Taipei or with the autocrats in Beijing?

Sen. KERRY: You're asking me?

CONAN: Yes, sir.

Sen. KERRY: The United States has always had a one-China policy, notwithstanding how terrible we may understand their regime to be. And that has been a Republican president, Democrat president policy alike. I think it is the right policy.

At the same time, no president could possibly allow Taiwan to slip backwards from the democracy that it has achieved, and what we have succeeded in doing through the years is maintaining a balance, sort of what people have called a purposeful, constructive ambiguity where we've left it uncertain as to precisely what steps we'd take, but we've made it clear we will not tolerate any kind of invasion, any kind of effort to move backwards. I think now it's time for us to also be strong with Taiwan and make it clear that while we are supportive of the democracy and while we recognize the society they've built and a capitalist society, we are not going to permit them to declare independence, that that would be unacceptable. And I think the way we resolve it is to continue to push, as we did with Hong Kong, Macau and other places for a one China, two systems, and work through over the course of the future.

CONAN: Senator Lieberman.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: America is always strongest in the world when we stand by our principles, and the bedrock principle is freedom and democracy. So, yes, China's big. We have to work to manage our relations with them. Taiwan is small, but China is not a democracy. Taiwan is. And we have to stand with that rambunctious democracy. I was startled when the Bush administration-because the president of Taiwan, in the midst of a political campaign, when we know here, people sometimes do unusual things, called for a referendum on whether the Chinese missiles pointed from the mainland toward Taiwan should be removed. In response to that...

Sen. KERRY: But, Joe...

Sen. LIEBERMAN: ...the president turned his back on Taiwan. That was an outrageously unprincipled position for a president of the United States to take.

Sen. KERRY: But, Joe...

CONAN: Senator Kerry wanted to get back in.

Sen. KERRY: Well, just, Joe, surely, you would agree with me that they should not be encouraged or allowed to declare independence.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: No. I-yes. And because that's...

Sen. KERRY: You do agree with me.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: That's the nuance, but this was not a declaration of independence by the Taiwanese. This was a call for a referendum on whether the Chinese should remove the missiles from across the Taiwan Straits, and for the president, when China griped about it, to knuckle under, that's not what the leader of the greatest democracy in the world does.

CONAN: You're listening to NPR's radio-only debate with six Democratic presidential candidates. More of the issues and more of your e-mails after the break.

I'm Neal Conan in Des Moines. This is an NPR NEWS SPECIAL.

(Announcements)

CONAN: This is an NPR NEWS SPECIAL. I'm Neal Conan.

With just two weeks of campaigning before the Iowa caucuses, we're joined here in Des Moines, Iowa, by six Democratic presidential contenders: Senator Kerry, Congressman Gephardt, Governor Dean, Ambassador Moseley Braun, Senator Lieberman and Congressman Kucinich.

We're going to switch subjects now and then talk a little bit about the economy and taxes. And, Governor Dean, Peter Farrian(ph) of Manchester, New Hampshire, e-mailed this question for you. 'You're proposing the elimination of President Bush's tax cuts, including the child tax credit. I'm the father of three children. My wife stays at home with them, and we have made great sacrifices to raise our family on one paycheck. How can you justify taking this money from us?'

Dr. DEAN: Ultimately, we will have a program of tax fairness for middle-class people, but the truth is the Bush tax cuts gave people who make a million dollars an average of a hundred and twelve thousand dollar tax cut. Sixty percent of Americans got a $304 tax cut. Now I grant you, some of this-caller, I'm sure, did get more than $304. The fact is we've got to balance the budget. I want health insurance for every single American. I have promised to fund special education, and there's some higher education programs that we want. If we're going to have jobs in America, we've got to balance the budget. If we're going to have a decent America joined with every other industrialized country in the world to have basic needs taken care of, we're going to have to do something about education, and we're going to have to do something about health care.

The truth was there was no middle-class tax cut for most people. For this individual, yes. But most people's tuitions have gone up more than $304. Their health-care premiums have gone up more than $304 because the president pushed costs down to local people. Their property taxes have gone up more than $304 because he didn't fund No Child Left Behind, and he didn't fund special education. So in the balance, while individuals like the caller will have higher taxes, the fact is that if I believe that if we were all paying the same taxes we paid when Bill Clinton was president, we could have the same kind of economy we had when Bill Clinton was president, and I think we cannot keep telling people we're going to give them all the programs they want and then there's not going to be any sacrifice of any kind.

CONAN: Joe Lieberman, you wanted to get in on this.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. I mean, Howard and I have a disagreement on that. I don't know what he means when he says ultimately, we're going to have a tax reform program. We're running for president now. We have to tell people what we want to do. He would repeal the middle-class tax cuts. That would cost middle-class families in New Hampshire, average family, $2,000 a year that they work so hard for. He would take it back. They need it to pay health insurance increases and education and child care increases. I'm going to step beyond that. I'm the only one who's proposed a new middle-class tax cut for 98 percent of the income tax payers. It's fair, not just because the middle class is stressed, but because if you look at who's paying for government, less and less is being paid by the rich and corporations and more and more by the middle class. They need a break. I'm going to give it to them.

CONAN: Everybody wants to get in on this. Senator Kerry, I think you were next.

Sen. KERRY: Well, Howard Dean's and Dick Gephardt's proposal to get rid of the tax cut raises taxes in several different ways, and his argument that he just made doesn't make sense. If their property tax went up and if other taxes have gone up mainly because of the tax cuts of the wealthy, nothing that Howard is proposing lowers that burden. In fact, he's going to add to it, because the person with the child credit loses their child credit. You lose the 10 percent bracket and you're taxed at 15 percent instead of 10 percent, and he reinstates the marriage penalty.

So Howard Dean has a program to raise people's taxes beyond the increases they've already paid in tuition, because he's not lowering the tuitions, beyond their health-care costs-those are up. And so he's going to increase the burden on middle-class America.

CONAN: I think we have to give Governor Dean an opportunity to respond.

Dr. DEAN: I'll take that, and then I hope Dick response because we're on the same side on this one as well. I think, respectfully, what John just said is hogwash. The reason the taxes have gone down is because George Bush cut $304 of taxes for 60 percent of Americans. In return, they got higher college tuitions; in Iowa, $816 increase in the last year; higher health-care premiums and higher property taxes. If I do this the way I want to do, everybody's going to have health insurance in America. That's exactly the middle-class person that wrote in about their kids. They're going to have health insurance they can afford. Those three kids are going to be able to afford college, which they can't do not. I think my way of running the tax program and making sure that all middle-class people can send their kids to college, can have adequate health insurance and will reduce their property taxes because we'll fully fund special education.

Sen. KERRY: Now Howard just suggested...

Dr. DEAN: Middle-class people get a better deal from President Dean.

CONAN: Excuse me, Governor Dean, yeah.

Sen. KERRY: Howard just suggested it was hogwash. It's not. Angela Runkel(ph) lives right here in Des Moines. She's a reservist and a nurse. She earns $55,000 a year with her husband. She has five kids. She already has health care. She's not going to be helped. She's going to pay an additional $2,200 of taxes. April Baylog(ph)--she's a coder over here at the hospital. She's going to pay an additional $1,900. These people can't afford Howard Dean's increase in taxes.

CONAN: Let's get some other voices in. That was Senator John Kerry. Dennis Kucinich.

Rep. KUCINICH: First of all, we have to recognize that the Bush tax cut removed much of the progressivity from our tax system. It placed the Treasury in record deficits and it was part of anti-growth economic policies, and together with the war, it has made a shambles of our economy. As president of the United States, what I would do is to move forward with a progressive tax act of 2005, which would ensure an equal tax burden on all taxpayers. It would provide tax relief for workers and families. It would provide for a $2,000 simplified family credit. It would close the corporate loopholes, and it would eliminate the Bush tax cuts that went to the people in the top bracket. That, together with a single-payer universal health-care system, can help restore our economy.

CONAN: We'll go first to Ambassador Moseley Braun and then to Congressman Gephardt.

Ms. BRAUN: Well, first to Dennis, thank you, Dennis, because you're exactly right. Dennis is exactly right. And part of the dirty little secret in all of this is that the conversation about the income tax misses the point that 80 percent of the American people pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And so for the average working person, the burden on their payroll tax has gone up because of the health-care costs, because of the tide of the workplace, and their costs have gone up because of the shifting from the national government to state and local governments. So that income tax refund that you may have gotten, you've seen your fees and charges and license plate fees and everything else has gone up, and that is part of the end of the progressivity that Dennis talks about that we have to redress and get some balance.

CONAN: Congressman Gephardt.

Rep. GEPHARDT: I want to respond directly to Senator Kerry's basic argument. I think that we need to help everybody with health-care insurance. That's what my plan does. And to go against your argument, I'm going to give $3,000 to the average family in economic benefits instead of the five or $700 that they get under the Bush tax cuts. Further than the...

Sen. KERRY: But ...(unintelligible) health care...

Rep. GEPHARDT: Let me finish. Let me finish. Further than that, you have a proposal that you've put out to have a holiday from people paying their Social Security tax and companies from paying the tax. I think that's a risky proposal. I don't see how we beat George Bush if we're going to undermine the Social Security system as part of our tax system.

CONAN: I think now Senator Kerry gets a chance to respond.

Sen. KERRY: That was a proposal that was put out when we were first talking about the tax cuts, because 20 million Americans don't pay income tax. That's what Carol Moseley Braun was talking about. And the only way to get them a benefit, so they actually got some money back in their pocket and could pay their bills, was to give them a refundable payroll tax credit on a one-year basis check. It does nothing to undermine Social Security; in fact, it strengthened the purchasing power in the economy.

But coming back to this issue that you and Howard are doing, look, here's the reality. Here in Iowa, tuitions have gone up $1,800. Health care has gone up about $800 out of pocket expenses. You're going to add to those people's burden the-taking away the child credit, taking away the 10 percent bracket. Everybody in Iowa will pay additional taxes at 15 percent, and the marriage penalty be reinstated. Now there's a terrific message.

Unidentified Panelist: All right.

CONAN: Senator Kerry, I'm afraid...

Sen. KERRY: Democrats in America, if you get married, you ought to pay more taxes. I think it's wrong.

CONAN: We'll go to Senator Lieberman and then to Governor Dean.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: There is something that all of us agree on. We want to deny George Bush a second term and give America a fresh start. I don't know of a case where a Democratic candidate for president has been elected who called for a massive increase in taxes on the middle class. These are our people. This is what America is all about. They are hurting more today than I have ever seen them hurting in my adult life; health insurance premiums choking them, child care impossible to pay for, education, the cost of living generally. They need the tax cut that we fought for over the last three years, and frankly, they need more. And again, that's why I'm proposing an additional tax cut; $2,700 more under my plan in the pocket of the average family of four in New Hampshire than Howard Dean would leave there. They worked hard for it. They ought to be able to keep it.

CONAN: Governor Dean.

Dr. DEAN: Let me make two points briefly. First, I don't know Angela Runkel, but if she has five kids, she's going to have to send them to college, and under my plan, she's a whole lot better off than she is under Senator Kerry's plan.

Sen. KERRY: Under what plan?

Dr. DEAN: Secondly...

Sen. KERRY: Wait, wait, wait. What...

Dr. DEAN: Under the plan I have to help people with $10,000 a year per kid for four years to help them get through college. And that...

Sen. KERRY: Well, I have a plan to get through college, too, Howard.

Dr. DEAN: But...

CONAN: If you would let him finish, sir, please.

Dr. DEAN: And that is...

Sen. KERRY: The issue is what about their tax burden now?

CONAN: Senator Kerry, if you would let Governor Dean finish.

Dr. DEAN: No, the issue is that there are too many politicians who've run for president over the years who have promised everybody everything and then say, 'But we've got to balance the budget.' And that's what we're seeing right here. I want to balance this budget. I balance budgets. That's what governors do. If we don't balance the budget in this country, we're not going to have jobs. We're not going to have prosperity. You cannot promise people tax cuts, college education, health care and whatever else you want and say, 'Oh, it'll all be fine.' That's what George Bush is doing. I want fiscal responsibility in this country, but I want to help middle-class people send their kids to college. You cannot have tax cuts and help people send their kids to college at the same time.

CONAN: If you'll allow me, I'll take the follow on this. Governor Dean, you have made the following campaign promises: new health-care plan, more money for education, more money for police officers, homeland security, the fight against AIDS. You think the United States should buy back the entire uranium stockpile held by the former Soviet Union. Even if you do repeal the Bush tax cuts, surely, that's not going to be enough to pay for all that.

Dr. DEAN: Well, as a matter of fact, it is. The Bush tax cut is $3 trillion, 2.4 trillion in money taken out of the Social Security Trust Fund and put into the deficit and $600 billion of additional interest costs. Three trillion dollars not only does all those things that I talked about, but it also leaves enough money to begin to start the process of balancing the budget.

CONAN: Congressman...

Sen. KERRY: Can I respond?

CONAN: Well, let's get Congressman Kucinich. We've not heard from him for a bit, and then we'll go to Senator Kerry and then to Congressman Gephardt.

Rep. KUCINICH: It's interesting...

CONAN: Go back over to that side of the table, too.

Rep. KUCINICH: It's interesting to hear Governor Dean's assertion about how he will try to balance the budget when he refuses to admit that there needs to be cuts in the bloated Pentagon budget. I don't see how in the world, when you have something that, at this point, takes up about 50 percent of the discretionary budget of this country...

CONAN: Congressman Kucinich is holding up a pie chart which is not truly effective on the radio.

Rep. KUCINICH: Fifty perce-well, it's effective if Howard can see it. Fifty percent of the budget's taken up by defense. How are you going to balance the budget if you refuse to cut the bloated Pentagon budget?

CONAN: Governor Dean?

Dr. DEAN: Actually, the reason I don't think we can afford to cut the Pentagon budget is we're not safe enough. I'm with Dick Gephardt.

Rep. KUCINICH: So would you increase it?

Dr. DEAN: As I was about to say, I'm with Dick Gephardt. I don't believe we ought to build a tactical battle field of nuclear weapons because they're not effective against terrorists. I don't think we should build out "Star Wars" because it's failed too many tests. But our soldiers aren't getting paid enough. We don't have adequate intelligence, either human intelligence or cyberintelligence. We don't have adequate special ops forces, which is the the forces we really need to attack terrorism is. So I don't think that you can say you're going to cut the defense budget and still defend the United States of America. I don't want to build some of the programs that you don't want to build, but their needs are there, and I don't think we're going to have a net cut in the defense budget.

CONAN: Senator Lieberman.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Somebody made the point about paying for the tax cuts. It's a good point. Look, George Bush just passed these tax cuts and didn't pay for them. That's why we have the largest deficit in our history that people are going to pay hundreds of billions of dollars for for years and generations to come. The additional tax cut that I'm proposing for 98 percent of the income tax payers in America, the broad middle class, I'm asking the top 2 percent to pay for it. It's fiscally responsible.

Secondly, when you repeal all the tax cuts of the last three years, you also repeal some tax cuts and incentives for small businesses to make the kinds of investments that'll help us create some of the jobs, millions of jobs, that have been lost under George W. Bush.

CONAN: Ambassador Moseley Braun and then Senator Kerry.

Ms. BRAUN: You know, to ask the old-what used to be called the Ronald Reagan question, are you better off now than you were four years ago? The fact of the matter is under the last Democratic president, we had an economy that was working and beginning to work better than ever for all of the American people. Now because of the trickle-down economics of this administration, they passed this tax cut. Frankly, the permanent parts of it will go to benefit the people who need it the least. Dennis' point is well-taken. It's a matter of progressivity and fairness, and we do not have tax fairness. We don't have tax fairness at the national level, and the tax shifting to state and locals is absolutely reprehensible. So getting a balanced budget, having some fiscal responsibility, making certain that our tax code and our economy works for every American is the goal that those of us who are running to replace George Bush want to achieve.

CONAN: Ambassador Moseley Braun. Senator Kerry.

Sen. KERRY: Neal, Angela Runkel and millions of other people in this country are not going to be better off tomorrow, next year, the year after under Howard Dean's and Dick Gephardt's plan, because they're going to pay additional taxes now on top of the health-care costs, on top of the tuition costs, other life costs they have today. But here's the more important thing. In balancing the budget, Howard Dean has just said he wants to balance it. He said four years, he said five years. He wants to balance the budget in a shorter period of time than Bill Clinton did. We balanced the budget with Bill Clinton, but we learned we don't have to take it out of the hides of the middle class. I believe that we can balance the budget, cut the deficit in half in four years, but close loopholes for these corporations that go to Bermuda, one of which incidentally was in Ver-many of which were in Vermont, where Howard Dean gave up tax revenue...

CONAN: Senator Kerry.

Sen. KERRY: ...to create a snowy Bermuda in the fields of Vermont. It's wrong.

CONAN: I wanted to get back to Congressman Gephardt on this question. Go back to the original e-mail question we got from Peter Farrian in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Rep. GEPHARDT: Peter caused a lot of trouble here today. yeah.

CONAN: He certainly did. He's got a lot to answer for, but you said in the candidates' debate two days ago here in Des Moines that you are ready to tell the country if they like the Bush tax cuts, vote for Bush. Are you telling Mr. Farrian of Manchester, New Hampshire, that he should vote for George Bush?

Rep. GEPHARDT: I put it in a comparison. I say if you like the Bush tax cuts, you think that's the best as it gets, then vote for George Bush. But if you want health care that can never be taken away from you, vote for me, because I have the best plan on health care. But I want to go back to some of the points that have been made here. If we're going to beat George Bush, we've got to take him on on questions like Social Security and Medicare. I think John's proposal on what I think will undermine the Social Security Trust Fund will not allow us to beat George Bush. The Republicans have wanted to get rid of Social Security and privatize it, and I've said many times that I think Howard's position on Medicare is one that won't allow us to defeat George Bush. Howard was with the Republicans in the mid-'90s when they were for a $270 billion cut in Medicare, which would have devastated the program. He said Medicare was the worst federal program ever, the worst thing that ever happened. I don't see how we can beat George Bush with that position.

CONAN: And there, I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it for now. You're listening to the NPR-WOI Democratic presidential debate from Des Moines, Iowa.

I'm Neal Conan. This is an NPR NEWS SPECIAL.