Fox News "Fox News Sunday" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLOOMBERG: But -- yes, but the public is a lot greater number of people and gives a lot more money than just the unions. That's -- that's a bogus issue.

It is true the unions are a pressure group. they work for their interest, but so do industries, so do lots of different groups work for their interest and they try to influence the elected officials and say this is what I need --

WALLACE: So what are you saying? Stand up to the unions?

BLOOMBERG: That's exactly what we should do.

A union leader's job is to get the most money for -- in the -- with the best working conditions they possibly can. That's what they're hired for.

The government's job is to represent the people and get -- be wiling to pay what we need to have a good workforce, a great workforce, with work rules that make some sense so that the public, whether it's the kids or the -- the streets where the -- where the cops work and the sanitation work and the workers, where the people who need help in emergency, for firefighters and ambulance drivers and whatever. Our job is to make sure that the work rules enhance those causes rather than get in the way.

WALLACE: But don't take away their collective bargaining rights?

BLOOMBERG: I don't have a problem with collective bargaining. In the country, if you want to get together as a group and be represented, why should you not? That's the essence of democracy.

WALLACE: Finally, a little politics. You consider -- I don't know how much you considered it, but there was talk about it -- running for president in 2008 as an independent.

BLOOMBERG: I kept saying I wasn't going to run, and I didn't.

WALLACE: Well, I know, but there was a --

BLOOMBERG: What do you mean you know? The facts --

(CROSSTALK)

BLOOMBERG: The facts are the facts.

WALLACE: Have you given up on that idea? And -- and when you look in the mirror, do you not see a president?

BLOOMBERG: Chris, I said back then I wasn't running, and I meant it. It's very flattering that some people suggest that you run.

Last night I was at dinner in Brooklyn and somebody said, "You'd make a great president." "Thank you very much, but I have a job."I promised the public that I would fill out four years if they elected me. I have 981 days left, but who's counting? I have the greatest job in the world. I'm going to stay mayor. I'm going to do the best job I can.

Hopefully the public will like it, but even if they don't I've got to look in the mirror. What I see in the mirror is somebody, I hope, that has the courage to do what's right, not what is politic. And, afterwards, people will look back and say whether or not he was a good mayor or a bad mayor.

You have don't have -- your -- your polls that depend on last night's story or this morning's story in the paper aren't what matter. It's when people look at the totality of what you've done.

New York City is safer than it's ever been before. Our school system is better than it's ever been before. Our economy is bigger than it's ever been before. Our population's at a record -- go down the list. Those are the things that matter and those are the things that I'll be judged on, and that's what I want to do.

WALLACE: But no run for president?

BLOOMBERG: I have no plans to run for president, period.

WALLACE: Well, you know, that "no plans," that leaves something open.

BLOOMBERG: I'm not running for president. Will that -- is that explicit enough?

WALLACE: Yes. OK.

BLOOMBERG: I'm not running for president.

WALLACE: For Easter Sunday, that's explicit enough.

BLOOMBERG: And -- thank you very much. Happy Easter. Happy Passover.

WALLACE: Mayor Bloomberg, thank you very much. Thank you for coming in. Please come back, sir.

BLOOMBERG: Have us back. Invite us, we'll come.

WALLACE: Good.

Up next, as the race for the Republican presidential nomination heats up, we'll talk with one potential contender who's running hard on social issues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Joining us now in studio is former Republican senator and likely GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum. And Senator, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, R-PA.: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: You support the House Republican budget, which would turn Medicare from an open-ended entitlement to a plan where the government would help seniors pay for private insurance, and you said recently we shouldn't wait 10 years to start this with people who are now under 55.In fact, you said this. Let's put it up on the screen. "Seniors are looking at this, saying, hey, we're part of the problem, and we should be part of the solution."

Question, would you change Medicare right away?

WALLACE: Would you change it for seniors who are now in the program and make them pay more for their health care?

SANTORUM: Well, it's not making them pay more. What it does is change it from an open-ended entitlement. I mean, imagine, giving someone a credit card and saying here, you know, spend whatever you want.

I always ask this question on the road -- how much money are we going to spend next year on Medicare? Before anyone answers, don't answer it, because you'd be lying because nobody knows. We spend as much as seniors spend. That is irresponsibly way of budgeting.

WALLACE: But, Senator, the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency, has looked at the numbers and says if you give what in effect is a voucher, help with private premium support that over time, that the seniors are going to end up paying more out-of- pocket, out of their own personal pocket for health care.

So -- but the point is, so, you're saying let's not wait 10 years, let's start doing it now.

SANTORUM: Here's the point, is it's over time and it's a very small amount over time. But that very small amount compounded over the years means a lot. And so, for seniors today, what we're talking about is a fairly small amount, a pretty insubstantial amount for seniors today.

And here's the difference: seniors are going to be able to go out and get the policy that they want. Not one that the folks here in Washington design for them. But, in fact, the policy that very well may meet their needs better than what we have today.

The second thing I'd say is that this policy of what Paul Ryan has put together, this premium support model, is identical to what the president argues for in Obamacare. Obamacare is a voucher system for those who do not have insurance. It sets the amount of money that those recipients get. And it ties the increase to the consumer price index, all of which is what Ryan does.

Now, when Obama does it, it is seen as a great wonderful thing for folks. When Ryan does it for Medicare, we're cruel and horrible to seniors. You have can't have it both ways.

WALLACE: But even Ryan says, look, the people that are currently in the system and even the people who are close to the system, who are either 65 down to 55 -- they have made plans, they have saved money -- expecting the old plan, the old Medicare is not fair to change it for 'em right now.

SANTORUM: Well, first off, the Medicare Advantage program is almost exactly what the Ryan plan is. Medicare Advantage program, which Barack Obama is phasing out, because he's cutting support to it, was a program that voucherized Medicare. And, by the way --

WALLACE: But that was an advantage. That was an add-on. That was not the basic --

SANTORUM: It was not an add-on.

WALLACE: -- Medicare plan.

SANTORUM: No, no. It was the basic Medicare plan. It was a substitute. You could either take the Medicare Advantage program or --

WALLACE: You had a choice.

SANTORUM: You had a choice. And so -- but the choice was being taken by seniors, about 25 percent. And it was growing every year --

WALLACE: Because it will offer more.

SANTORUM: Well, because it allowed seniors to go out and choose the plan that they wanted. That's the key. Instead of having a government top-down program run by folks here in Washington, D.C., you had the private sector going out and designing programs that seniors wanted. That's what would happen under this program.

WALLACE: But you're saying, start it now.

SANTORUM: What I'd say is, at least give seniors the option to do it now. I think we can -- we can move forward on it. Yes. I think it's a good idea with the huge deficit that we have, that we need to start making some of these changes sooner rather than later.

WALLACE: OK. You say in the battle of the budget that Republicans should draw the line on policy, not about arguing over a few billion dollars.

SANTORUM: Well, particularly arguing over billions of dollars that the folks in our side don't think is enough anyway. So, why put your stake in ground over a number that the folks that support don't think is enough to begin with?

WALLACE: OK. So, you say that the GOP should refuse to raise the debt limit until the other side agrees to take all the funding out of Obamacare, which is roughly $105 billion that is tucked inside Obamacare. Given the fact -- you know as a political realist -- the president would never accept that, are you willing to let the country go into default?

SANTORUM: Well, is the president willing to let this country go into default, to support a program that has been found unconstitutional by a couple of courts --

WALLACE: And has been found constitutional by a couple of courts.

SANTORUM: Again, but has been found unconstitutional by a couple of courts, has also -- has widely unpopular -- 60 percent negative across the country, is already increasing the cost of health care, is already causing job losses because of the complexity and taxes that are being put into place. This is a program that if the president wants to defend it, he should stand up and say the 2012 election is about Obamacare. We'll put it this on hold and we'll make it a referendum on Obama.

WALLACE: OK. But that's one thing, the 2012 election. You're saying you'd let the country go into default on this issue?

SANTORUM: No, I think the president would let this go into default on this issue.

WALLACE: But you would make that a condition, you'd make that the price?

SANTORUM: Absolutely.

WALLACE: Now, didn't you contribute to the deficit problem when you were in Congress? Back in 2003, you voted to create a new prescription drug, Medicare prescription drug benefit, but you didn't provide any funding. And according to most estimates, it's adding $60 billion a year to the deficit.

SANTORUM: Yes, I would say that that was a mistake. That one of the -- we did two things that were wrong in that bill. Number one, we made it universal. In other words, we had a problem that was about 15 percent of seniors didn't have prescription drugs. And we -- and the president compromised with the Democrats, President Bush, to provide a universal benefit.

I was against that. I spoke against it. I worked against it. But we lost.

And so, now, we have -- we have a situation --

WALLACE: And you voted for it.

SANTORUM: I voted for it for a lot of reasons beyond the Medicare prescription drugs, for example, Medicare Advantage.

WALLACE: OK. But the point is you created a vast new entitlement without paying for it.

SANTORUM: I agree. And I think we should have -- the second thing, we should have paid for it. Again, that was not an option on the table at the time that we were voting for it. We did have a program that was substantially less money than what the Democrats were proposing and we did have substantial reforms of Medicare as well as health savings accounts, which was a reform in the private sector also in this bill.

So, I said at the time, it was a 51/49 vote. In retrospect, it was probably 51/49 the other way.

WALLACE: You are campaigning hard on social issues. In fact, you're known as kind of a culture warrior. You oppose gay marriage.

SANTORUM: I'm campaigning on all the issues.

WALLACE: I understand. But we've spent the last five minutes talking about that.

SANTORUM: Right. But I think it's important because I know when I go on interviews, people said, well, you're the social conservative. Yes, I'm very much --

WALLACE: I just talked about -- great length about the budget.

SANTORUM: I understand. I just want to make sure that we're clear. That's all.

WALLACE: Now, I want to get into this. You opposed gay marriage.

SANTORUM: I do.

WALLACE: You oppose civil unions. You want to reinstate "don't ask, don't tell." Do you think gays have any rights, should have any access to benefits as partners?

SANTORUM: Well, sure. I mean, there's all sorts of contractual benefits that they can -- anybody can contract for. But the question is, whether we should institutionalize that in public policy.

And my feeling is that people can live their lives however they want to live it. The question is: what are you going to do to try to impact public policy to recognize particular relationships? And I -- my feeling is, the relationship that should be recognized in public policy that provides exceptional benefit, unusual unique benefits to society is marriage -- marriage between a man and a woman who are there to join together for the purpose of continuing society, which is having children and raising those children in a home with a mom and a dad.

WALLACE: But you wouldn't give them any rights as a matter of public policy?

SANTORUM: Well, it depends what you mean by "rights." I mean, are you talking benefits as far as rights? I mean, they have the right to be able to -- you know, employment. I mean, I don't know what you mean by rights.

What I'm talking about are privileges. Pure privileges of marriage, privileges of government benefits is a different thing than basic right to be able to live their lives as they well should and can as free Americans.

WALLACE: Final question: Gallup came out with a poll of possible GOP hopefuls this week. I want to put it up on the screen. Huckabee, Trump and Romney led the field. And back in 10th place, with 2 percent support, very good looking fellow, Rick Santorum.

SANTORUM: Well, thank you for that.

WALLACE: Given that when you ran for re-election in Pennsylvania in 2006, you got beat by 18 points. Why should we take your candidacy seriously?

SANTORUM: Well, because I think we have a great record, I have a great track record here in Washington, D.C. of doing two things.

Number one -- upsetting the apple cart. The Washington Post the other day ran a story that Rick Santorum was the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. I stood up over here for conservative principles, I fought and I've led across the board on every issue. And I have been able to win a couple tough elections.

Yes, I loss a tough election in 2006, but I defeated incumbent when I ran for the House. I forced out a second incumbent when I ran for election. I defeated a third Democratic incumbent when I ran for the United States Senate. I carried Pennsylvania in 2000 when George Bush lost it by five points. I won it by five.

So, yes, in a very bad election year as member of the Republican leadership when George Bush was at 35 percent in the state of Pennsylvania, I didn't win. I don't think 2006 is going to look anything like 2012. And if you look at the record, the record is one of accomplishment, of conservative principles and the ability to articulate that and get votes across the aisle.

WALLACE: We got less than 30 seconds. When -- you formed an exploratory committee. When will you decide whether to get in the race?

SANTORUM: In the next few weeks. I mean, we'll be deciding this, you know, like I said, in the next few weeks.

WALLACE: And it's basically money? If you got enough money, you'll go?

SANTORUM: Yes. RickSantorum.com -- do you have it at the bottom?RickSantorum.com, make sure -- if you want to encourage -- if you like what you hear, send it away.

WALLACE: Senator Santorum, thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: That's fine. Thank you for coming in. Happy Easter. And we'll follow you on the campaign trail.

SANTORUM: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: Thank you.

Up next -- our Sunday group on the uncertain way forward in Libya and growing protests in Syria turned deadly.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: If we can make a modest contribution with these armed Predators, we'll do it. But I don't see it. I don't think any of us see that as the mission.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: I believe that we should be much more involved and engaged in the air campaign than we have been.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

WALLACE: Defense Secretary Gates and Senator John McCain differing over how much help the U.S. should provide the rebels in Libya.

And it's time now for our Sunday group -- Brit Hume, Fox News senior political analyst; Mara Liasson of National Public Radio; Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard; and Fox news political analyst Juan Williams.

Well, President Obama did agree this week to put two unmanned Predator drones in the skies over Libya. But in a visit to Benghazi, Senator McCain called the rebels heroes and, as you just heard, said we've got to get much more deeply involved in this war if we are going to be able to topple Qaddafi.

Brit, where are we headed in Libya?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Chris, there is an article just out today in The New Yorker by a friendly correspondent toward the Obama administration about the evolution of the Obama policy. And in this article, at the end, in the summation, an aide to the president describes the president's approach as leading from behind, which I don't know how well that's going to resonate, but it may well be accurate.

I think what we are seeing here is the president is kind of making it up as he goes along, as he confronts this chaotic and either hopeful or not so hopeful situation in the Middle East. And I think in terms of Libya, he really kind of doesn't know what to do next. And what I think and what I hope he is learning is the indispensability of American leadership. We quickly were able to establish the no-fly zone. We seem to be -- the military action seems to be effective. But, of course, he quickly withdrew America from the lead role, and the situation has been much more mixed ever since.

I don't think the addition -- I agree with Secretary Gates. I don't think the addition of the Predator drone attacks is going to make more than a marginal difference there. I hope it does better than that. But I don't think the president really clearly knows what to do, and I think he is content here to have failure be an option.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source