Cheney: ‘People Fed Up’; Lieberman: ‘Promises Kept’

“We have the highest level of taxation now [than] we’ve had since World War II. The average American family is paying about 40% in federal, state and local taxes. We think it is appropriate to return [taxes] to the American people...”-- Dick Cheney

*

”...Al Gore and I are committed to balancing the budget every year... to paying off the debt by the year 2012, when, by our calculation, our opponents’ economic plan still leaves America $2.8 trillion in debt.” -- Joseph I. Lieberman

*

HERE ARE EXCERPTS, provided by the Federal News Service, from the vice presidential debate between Republican Dick Cheney and Democrat Joseph I. Lieberman. Bernard Shaw of CNN served as moderator. To read a complete transcript, or to see video, of the 90-minute debate, visit The Times’ Web site at https://www.latimes.com/debates. Text and video of Tuesday’s presidential debate between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore also are available on the site.

*

Tax Cuts

(To a question about education, the candidates segued into a discussion of the tickets’ tax proposals.)

LIEBERMAN: I think both of us agree that, leaving aside the Social Security and Medicare surpluses, there’s $1.8 trillion in surplus available to spend over the next 10 years. . . . We’re taking $300 billion off the top to put into a reserve fund. The rest of it we’re going to use for middle-class tax cuts and investments in programs like education.

Now, there’s a big difference here between these two tickets. Our opponents are going to spend $1.6 trillion of the $1.8 trillion surplus projected on that big tax cut that Al Gore talked about the other night so effectively. We’re saving money to invest in education. You cannot reform education and improve it in this country without spending some money.

Al Gore and I have committed $170 billion for that purpose--to recruit 100,000 new teachers, to reduce the size of classrooms, to help local school districts build new buildings so our children are not learning in crumbling classrooms, and we’re not just going to stop at high school.

We’re going to go on and give the middle class the ability to deduct up to $10,000 a year in the cost of college tuition. Now that’s a tremendous life-saving change, which will help people carry on their education and allow them to develop the kinds of skills that will help them succeed in the high-tech economy of today.

*

CHENEY: Let’s talk about this question of the surplus, because it really drives a lot of what we’re talking about here, Joe. And if you look at our proposal, we take half of the projected surplus and set it aside for Social Security--over $2.4 trillion. We take roughly a fourth of it for other urgent priorities, such as Medicare reform and education, several of these other key programs we want to support. And we take roughly one-fourth of it and return it in the form of a tax cut to the American taxpayer. We think it is extraordinarily important to do that, but it is a fundamental difference between our two . . . approaches. . . .

The fact is that the program that we put together, we think, is very responsible. The suggestion that somehow all of it is going for tax cuts isn’t true. Another way to look at it is that, over the course of the next 10 years, we’ll collect roughly $25 trillion in revenue. We want to take about 5% of that and return that to the American taxpayer in the form of tax relief. . . . We think this is a totally reasonable approach.

Military Readiness

SHAW: Your question, Mr. Secretary. You and Gov. Bush charge that the Clinton-Gore administration have presided over the deterioration and overextension of America’s armed forces. Should U.S. military personnel be deployed as warriors or peacekeepers?

CHENEY: My preference is to deploy them as warriors. There may be occasion when it’s appropriate to use them in a peacekeeping role, but I think that role ought to be limited. I think there ought to be a time limit on it. . . . The reason we have a military is to be able to fight and win wars, and to maintain it with sufficient strength so that would-be adversaries are deterred from ever launching a war in the first place.

I think that the administration has in fact in this area failed in a major responsibility. We’ve seen a reduction in our forces far beyond anything that was justified by the end of the Cold War. At the same time, we’ve seen a rapid expansion of our commitments around the world, as troops have been sent hither and yon. . . .

SHAW: Senator, you’re shaking your head in disagreement.

LIEBERMAN: Well, I am, Bernie, and most important, I want to assure the American people that the American military is the best-trained, best-equipped, most powerful force in the world, and that Al Gore and I will do whatever it takes to keep them that way.

It’s not right, and it’s not good for our military to run them down, essentially, in the midst of a partisan political debate. The fact is that you’ve got to judge the military by what the military leaders say. And [Defense] Secretary Bill Cohen, a good Republican, [Army] Gen. [Henry H.] Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both will tell you that the American military is ready to meet any threat we may face in the world today. . . .

In fact, this administration has turned around the drop in spending on the military that began in the mid-’80s and went right through the Bush-Cheney administration and the early years of the Clinton administration, but now that’s stopped. In fact, we passed the largest pay increase in a generation for our military.

CHENEY: . . . The facts are dramatically different. I’m not attacking the military, Joe. I have enormous regard for the men and women of the U.S. military. I had the great privilege of working with them for the four years I was secretary of Defense, and no one has a higher regard than I do for them. But it’s irresponsible to suggest that we should not have this debate in a presidential campaign, that we should somehow ignore what is a major, major concern.

. . . There is no more important responsibility for a president of the United States than his role as commander-in-chief and the obligation that he undertakes on behalf of all of us to decide when to send our young men and women to war. When we send them without the right kind of training, when we send them poorly equipped or with equipment that’s old and broken down, we put their lives at risk. We will suffer more casualties [in] the next conflict if we don’t look to those basic fundamental problems now. . . . This administration has a bad track record in this regard.

LIEBERMAN: . . . Of course, it’s an important debate to have as part of this campaign, but I don’t want either the military to feel uneasy or the American people to feel insecure.

Saddam Hussein

SHAW: This question is for you, Mr. Secretary. If Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, were found to be developing weapons of mass destruction, Gov. Bush has said he would, quote, “take him out.” Would you agree with such a deadly policy?

CHENEY: We might have no other choice. We’ll have to see if that happens. The thing about Iraq, of course, was at the end of the war, we had pretty well decimated their military. We had put them back in the box, so to speak. We had a strong international coalition arrayed against them, effective economic sanctions and a very robust inspection regime that was in place. . . . Unfortunately, now we find ourselves in a situation where that’s started to fray on us, where the--the coalition now no longer is tied tightly together. . . . If in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to either rebuild nuclear capability or weapons of mass destruction, you’d have to give very serious consideration to military action to stop that activity.

LIEBERMAN: . . . It would, of course, be a very serious situation if we had evidence, credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. But I must say I don’t think a political campaign is the occasion to declare exactly what we would do in that case. I think that’s a matter of such critical national security importance that it ought to be left to those, the commander-in-chief, the leaders of the military, the secretary of State, to make that kind of decision without the heat of a political campaign.

The fact is that we will not enjoy real stability in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein is gone. The Gulf War was a great victory . . . but the war did not end with a total victory, and Saddam Hussein remained there.

Discourse

SHAW: . . . Washington is a caldron of political bickering and partisanship. . . . How would you elevate political discourse and purpose?

CHENEY: . . . People are fed up. They’ve had enough with the bickering and the partisanship that seems to characterize the debate that goes on in the nation’s capital. I’ve seen it done differently though. I’ve seen it done differently in Texas. I’ve watched George Bush. And one of the reasons I was eager to sign on when he asked me to become his running mate is because I’ve been so tremendously impressed with what he’s done as the governor of Texas. . . .

It is possible to change the tone . . . but I think it’s going to take new leadership.

I don’t think you can do it, with all due respect to Al Gore, with somebody who’s spent all the last 24 years in that Washington environment, and who campaigns on the basis of castigating others, of pointing the finger of blame at others in terms of blaming business or various and sundry groups for our failings.

LIEBERMAN: . . . I have tried very hard in my career to call them as I see them, and work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get things done. And I’m proud of my record in that regard, and I certainly think that would be an asset that I could bring to the vice presidency, should I be fortunate enough to be elected. I mean, in my Senate career I have worked with Bob Dole, for instance, on Bosnia. And I worked with John McCain on cultural values. I worked with Connie Mack on foreign policy. I worked with Don Nickles on the International Religious Freedom Act. . . .

And let me say a word about Al Gore. In his years in the House and the Senate, he formed similar bipartisan partnerships. If you look back over the last eight years, the most significant accomplishments of this administration, in which Al Gore was centrally involved, were the result, most of them, of bipartisan agreements.

CHENEY: . . . With all due respect, Joe, there is just an awful lot of evidence that there has not been any bipartisan leadership out of this administration or out of Al Gore. And the fact is, the Medicare problems have not been addressed. We’ve had eight years of promises on prescription drugs with no action. The Social Security problem has not been addressed. Now, we’ve had eight years of talk and no action. The educational problem has not been addressed. We’ve had eight years of talk and no action. Now, they have been in a position of responsibility in the White House, the powerful interests, if you will, in Washington, D.C., and they’ve been unable to work with others.

LIEBERMAN: . . . Bernie, Dick Cheney must be one of the few people in America who thinks that nothing has been accomplished in the last eight years. I mean, the fact is that promises were made and promises were kept. I mean, has Al Gore--did Al Gore make promises in 1992? Absolutely. Did he deliver? Big time; if I may put it that way. And that’s the record.

Look at the--look at the 22 million new jobs. Look at the 4 million new businesses. Look at the lower interest rates, low rate of inflation high rate of growth. I think if you asked most people in America today that famous question that Ronald Reagan asked, “Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?” most people would say yes.

And I’m pleased to say--see Dick, from the newspapers, that you’re better off than you were eight years ago too. (Laughter.)

CHENEY: . . . And I--I can tell you, Joe, that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it. (Laughter.)

LIEBERMAN: . . . I can see my wife, and I think she’s thinking, “‘Gee, I wish he would go out into the private sector.” (Chuckles.)

CHENEY: Well, I’m going to try to help you do that, Joe. (Laughter, applause.)

LIEBERMAN: No. (Laughs.) No, I think you’ve done so well there, I want to keep you there.

Racial Profiling

SHAW: Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, you are black for this question. Imagine yourself an African American. You become the target of racial profiling either while walking or driving. African American Joseph Lieberman, what would you do about it?

LIEBERMAN: I’d be outraged. It is such an assault on the basic promise that America makes that--that the law will treat individuals as individuals, regardless of their status--that is to say their race, their nationality, their gender, their sexual orientation, etc., etc.

And the sad fact is that racial profiling occurs in this country. I have a few African American friends who have gone through this horror, and you know, it makes me want to kind of hit--hit the wall, because it is such an assault on their humanity and their citizenship. We can’t tolerate it anymore.

. . . The first civil rights act legislation we would send to Congress would be a national ban on racial profiling. It is just wrong. It is un-American, and to think that in the 21st century this kind of nonsense is still going on--we’ve got to stop it, and the only way to stop it is through the law. . . .

CHENEY: Well, Bernie, I’d like to answer your question to the best of my ability, but I don’t think I can understand fully what it would be like. I try hard to put myself in that position and imagine what it would have been like, but of course, I’ve always been part of the majority. I’ve never been part of a minority group, but it has to be a horrible experience.

It’s the sense of anger and frustration and rage that would go with knowing that the only reason you were stopped, the only reason you were arrested, was because of your color of your skin; it would make me extraordinarily angry. And I’m not sure how--how I would respond.

I think that we have to recognize that while we’ve made enormous progress in the U.S. in racial relations and we have come a very long way, we still have a long way to go. . . . As Martin Luther King said, we ought to judge people on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.

I would hope that we can continue to make progress in that regard in the years ahead.

Gay Rights

SHAW: Senator, sexual orientation. Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all--all--the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?

LIEBERMAN: . . . The question you pose is a difficult one for this reason: It confronts or challenges the traditional notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual couple, which I support. But I must say I’m thinking about this because I have friends who are in gay and lesbian partnerships who have said to me, “Isn’t it unfair that we don’t have similar legal rights to inheritance, to visitation when one of the partners is ill, to health care benefits?”

And that’s why I’m thinking about it, and my mind is open to taking some action that will address those elements of unfairness, while respecting the traditional religious and civil institution of marriage.

CHENEY: This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don’t get to choose, and shouldn’t be able to choose and say, “You get to live free, but you don’t.” And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s really no one else’s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.

The next step, then . . . is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That’s a tougher problem. That’s not a slam dunk.

I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. . . . I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can, and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe, I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships.

Hypocrisy

SHAW: To Secretary Cheney. Have you noticed a contradiction or hypocritical shift by your opponent on positions and issues since he was nominated?

CHENEY: . . . I do have a couple of concerns where I liked the old Joe Lieberman better than I do the new Joe Lieberman. Let me see if I can put it in those terms. Joe established, I thought, an outstanding record in his work on this whole question of violence in the media and the kinds of materials that were being peddled to our children, and many of us on the Republican side admired him for that. There is, I must say, the view now that, having joined with Al Gore on the ticket on the other side, that the depth of conviction that we had admired before isn’t quite as strong as it was, perhaps, in the past. . . .

We were especially disturbed, Joe, at a recent [entertainment industry] fund-raiser you attended where there was a comedian who got up and criticized George Bush’s religion. Now, I know you’re not responsible for having uttered any words of criticism of his religion, but to some extent, my concern would be, frankly, that you haven’t been as consistent as you had been in the past. . . .

LIEBERMAN: . . . First, let me talk about that joke about religion, which I found very distasteful and, believe me, if anybody has devoted his life to respecting the role of religion in American life and understands that Americans, from the beginning of our history, have turned to God for strength and purpose, it’s me. And, you know, any offense that was done I apologized for, and I thought that humor was unacceptable.

Let me come to the question of Hollywood. . . . Al Gore and I have felt for a long time, first as parents, and then only second as public officials, that we cannot let America’s parents stand alone in this competition that they feel they’re in with Hollywood to raise their own kids and give their kids the faith and the values that they want to give them. And I’ve been a consistent crusader on that behalf.

Upcoming debates

Two debates remain for Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. Both debates are set for 6-7:30 p.m. Pacific time.

WEDNESDAY, OCT. 11

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY

Winston-Salem, N.C.

TUESDAY, OCT. 17

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

St. Louis