|
Full
Transcript of Interview with Representative Dennis Kucinich by Link TV
Political Correspondent Mark Hertsgaard
Conducted December 16, 2003
(Background on Link TV's PEOPLE'S VOICE series at end)
Mark Hertsgaard:
Welcome to the People’s Voice: Election 2004. I’m Mark Hertsgaard in
San Francisco. With me is Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the
former mayor of Cleveland, now serving his fourth term in the U.S. House
of Representatives from Ohio.
Welcome, Congressman Kucinich.
Rep. Kucinich:
Thank you very much, Mark. Good to be here with you.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Happy to have you. And you’ve recently had cause to complain about the
mainstream media’s tendency to focus on polls and endorsements and
fundraising instead of focusing on the real concerns of the American
people. And it does sometimes seem that our colleagues want to decide
who can win this election before voters have a chance to vote or even
get to know you as candidates. So I promise you that this program is
going to be very different from that. We’re calling this program the
People’s Voice because our goal is to listen to you and your questions
and see if we can get some answers from each of the 2004 Presidential
candidates. We hope to put you, the American people, back into the
political process, so we’re inviting leading citizen groups to help us
conduct these interviews, and they’ll join me in questioning
Representative Kucinich. Throughout the program at the bottom of your
screen we’ll show you information on how to get further involved in
this election. It’s your democracy but democracy is not a spectator
sport. Now, let’s get started. Congressman, you’ve been a strong
critic of the Bush Administration’s war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein has
now been captured, how does
that effect your view of what the United States should be doing in Iraq.
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, this is the moment we need to seize and go to the world community
in the cause of international cooperation, take to the U.N. a new
resolution where the United States would give up control of the oil, any
hopes to privatize the Iraq economy, hand over to the U.N. the
contracting process and the responsibility for developing a new
constitution and a governance in Iraq that would enable us to establish
a context where we could get U.N. peacekeepers in and get the United
States out. We must end the occupation and we much bring our troops
home, and seize the moment and take a new direction.
Mark Hertsgaard:
You said you want U.S. troops out by the end of the year and to replace
them with U.N. troops as you just said. But [Koffi Anan], the General
Secretary of the U.N., has said recently we’re not going to go back
in. Many other foreign nations, as you know, were strong critics of this
war, very unlikely to send their troops there. If the U.N. and other
nations will not send peacekeeping troops to Iraq, do you still believe
that the U.S. should pull out?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, first of all my plan, which is on my Web site at Kucinich.us and
has been there for two months, calls for U.N. peacekeepers to come in
before the United States would leave and there would have to be 90 days
after the U.N. would approve such a resolution would be the point at
which I would like to see the pull out completed. However, you’re
correct. At this moment,
the U.N. has no interest. Now we have to ask why the U.N. has no
interest, because at this point the United States is still trying to
hold control of the oil, is trying to privatize the Iraq economy, is
engaged in a, in a contracting process that is less than honorable and
is trying to set up a government in Iraq which they can run by remote
control from Washington. Under those circumstances, the U.N. has no
compelling interest to try to endorse what is a United States policy
which a good number of our former, of our allies have found to be
objectionable. So, what I’m suggesting is we take a new approach,
which embraces the world community, which step away from unilateralism
and pre-emption and which enables us to confirm that only international
cooperation will, will enable the stabilization of Iraq and will enable
America to be more effective in our effort to meet the challenge of
terrorism around the world.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Well, with Bush having captured Saddam, doesn’t that strengthen his
hand in such a way that he won’t likely do that?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, I think it would be a folly to proceed with that assumption
because the fact of the matter is that the insurgency still remains a
major challenge, that elements that have promoted the insurgency are not
necessarily connected to Saddam Hussein, that there’s a whole range of
reasons why our troops are still under attack in Iraq and why the
violence will not be quelled. I think it’s fair to say that the United
States’ presence in Iraq is in and of itself a destabilizing factor
and for that reason it is urgent that we seize this moment to reach out
to the world community so that we can find a means of extricating
ourselves from this so that we don’t have greater causalities, so that
we don’t have more innocent people killed and we don’t have a
greater loss of tax dollars which American people need to fund programs
for health and housing and education here at home.
Mark Hertsgaard:
You’ve criticized
President Bush on the war, repeatedly. Accused him of lying about
Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, about his ties to al-Quaeda,
you’ve called for
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s removal.
Do you believe that President Bush’s lies warrant him being
impeached for lying about a war that has now killed hundreds of
Americans, wounded thousands, killed untold numbers of Iraqis, should George Bush be impeached for this?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, I’m going to answer the question this way. First of all let’s
review the misstatements, mischaracterizations and lies that were told to the American people. Saddam Hussein
had nothing to do with 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with al-Quaeda’s
role in 9-11, with the Anthrax attack upon this country, they did not
have weapons of mass destruction. They had neither the intention or the
capability of attacking this country. We’re trying to get
weapons from [Niger]. So what were we doing with this invasion? We attacked a country which did not attack us. Now
having said that, I don’t think an impeachment at this point would be
productive for this country. First of all, as a matter of practical
politics, there’s not going to be the votes in the House to be able to
deliver any articles. Secondly, there won’t be the votes in the Senate
to deliver a conviction. And I think that third, why go through the exercise when we’re right at the verge of a
presidential election. Let the people of this country decide, not 535 of
the Congress of the United States. So I’d say that such talk is
really misdirected and not productive and we that we need to stay
focused on this election campaign and not get into what I think are the,
are the issues that relate to the veracity of this administration in the
context of an impeachment discussion. I’m not interested in that at
all. I’m running for President to give the American people a real
choice and let the American people be the judge of whether or not this
administration has been truthful with them.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s hear a question from a member of the American people. I believe
it’s from Mr. John Gould in Strausberg, PA, a bureau of LinkTV.
Q: Hello, my name is John Gould, a professor of chemistry at East
Strausberg University in northeastern Pennsylvania. My question would be
the following: When I was young, President Kennedy committed the country
to sending a man to the moon by the decades end which at that time was a
seemingly impossible task, but our country committed enormous resources,
both human and financial, to do so and was successful. My question is
would you be willing to make a similar commitment of the country’s
talents and resources and actually put a date to the end of our
dependence on petroleum and thereby bring true security by the available
of renewable and clean energy for our country and our world?
Rep. Kucinich:
Thank you, Professor, for that question. And you’re right, President
Kennedy showed what positive leadership can do in setting goals and an
expanded vision for America. I intend to do the same thing with respect
to achieving energy independence. The path we take must be one towards
sustainability and the only way that we can achieve sustainability is to
promote the development of renewable energy, and we already know that we
have the potential of solar, wind, green hydrogen, geo-thermal, biomass
and other forms of energy that we can rely on to take us on a path
towards a 20% renewal energy portfolio by the year 2010.
Furthermore, we have to [incentivize] the development of such
technologies and provide disincentives for the development of coal, oil
and nuclear energy. So my administration will sound the kind of
[clarion] call which President Kennedy gave to put someone on the moon
to help us achieve the energy independence through renewable energy,
sustainability and through energy conservation, and that’s something I
would involved the American people in right in their homes. Thank you.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s talk a little bit about green jobs. You’ve talked about
wanting a green jobs program, not just fixing the environment but using
that to fix our economy.
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, we have to realize that the progressive business persons of the
future see that pollution going up the smokestacks as lost profits. That
it is the innovative technologies which will enable businesses to
conserve their resources and their materials and to convert might be
pollution in one era into a product in another era. And I think it’s
that new thinking which doesn’t create the dichotomy between the
environment and, and economic progress which sees environmental progress
and, and the protection of the environment as being mutually inclusion.
And so we should, you know, this is a time for such new thinking. And
there are people already in industries and in businesses across this
country who are capitalizing on this idea of including sustainability
with economic growth.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Talk a little bit, if you will, about how exactly that would happen,
because I’ve heard George W. Bush say, we know now that the
environment and the economy don’t have to be enemies, and that’s
certainly not the policy that he’s followed. How would it be different
under a Kucinich administration?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, we’d enforce the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. That’s number
one. We have an Environmental Protection Agency. We would make sure that
the country was put on a path towards sustainable energy. We would have
our international policies reflective of that as well. We’d make sure
our trade agreements reflective respect for and adherence to
environmental quality principles. Right now NAFTA and the WTO do not
have, as basic underlying principles, the protection of the environment.
As a matter of fact, environmental laws are seen, are seen to be
barriers to trade. So we need to cancel NAFTA and the WTO and go back to
bilateral trade which would be conditioned on worker’s rights, human
rights and the environment. And our responsibility then to the global
environment will be a more effectively enhanced.
Furthermore, I expect the United States, and as president, will sign the
Kyoto Climate Change Treaty. That must go hand in hand with a move
towards renewable energy and for sustainability.
Mark Hertsgaard:
And how does that create jobs?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, it creates jobs by putting America on a track towards, towards
creating the new technologies. Where the economic growth is going to be,
in the next 10-20 years, is going to be in creating jobs that are based
on new energy technologies which promote sustainability and renewable
energy. We can’t even imagine some of these technologies now, that’s
why what I want to do is to [incentivize] the production of new
technologies through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
They’re been responsible for a marvelous number of spin-offs in
telecommunications, in propulsions and materials, in medicine, and if we
ocus this inventive genius of the kind that the Professor related to in
his question on our capacity to develop new solutions to the challenges
of our time which relate to the damage to the environment, we can grow
the economy and improve the environment at the same time and that’s
what we need to be looking at.
Again, this idea of separating ourselves from nature is very dangerous,
because what we’re doing, we’re ruining the planet, we’re ruining
the context in which we need to, to live. And so my administration will
be about the, what [Thomas Berry] called “the great work.”
Reconciling ourselves with nature and doing it in a way that can be
productive of not only our survival as a species, but can be productive
of unfolding the beauty of this world and economy progress as well. We
can have it bo, we can have it all.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s talk a little more about jobs, because that’s always a big
issue when American’s are choosing a president. I went on your Web
site, looked at your green jobs programs. It talks about creating two
million jobs, which is a lot, but as you know the official unemployment
now in this country is nine million people who are not able to find
work. As president, in addition to government programs, like a green
jobs program, what would you do to encourage the private sector and the
private economy to create jobs for those millions of people who are
still are out of work?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, there’s a number of areas we can work in. First of all, I
mentioned earlier, again, energy technologies, that’s where the big
growth is going to come over the next 10-20 years. I’m for providing
incentives to do that, for the development of solar, green, you know,
green hydrogen, geo-thermal, wind, biomass. We can provide incentives
for that. I’m also for using the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to create the alpha stage
technologies so
that they can...
Mark Hertsgaard:
What is an “alpha stage” technology?
Rep. Kucinich:
It’s the first, it’s the first research level. It’s the
development. It’s where, it’s the incubator. NASA can serve as an
incubator, and it does in small pilot projects. NASA can serve as an
incubator for new technologies, and we can then go to the private sector
and offer them, for, for to either license or to sell them to the
private sector, so they can create new industries. I mean, that’s how
we can, we can provide incentives for creating the jobs of the future
and inspire new growth in our economy. Now there’s another side to the
loss of jobs that we have to think about. As corporations have grown
more and more powerful they have tended to improve their stock position
by shedding thousands of employees. What we need to do is to have more
competition in our economy and that’s going to mean enforcement of the
Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts, as well as the work of the Federal
Trade Commission in studying vertical and horizontal integration in
various market segments, so that we can make it possible for there to be
real competition in the economy and not the kind of contraction of the
economy that’s happening through monopolization.
Mark Hertsgaard:
So, you’d stop corporations from getting bigger?
Rep. Kucinich:
Oh, yes. Absolutely. And we need to do that. Because what we’re
finding is that as corporations keep getting bigger and bigger there’s
less accountability to the public and there’s a lot of jobs being lost
and it’s not necessarily improving in any way the economic condition
of this country, although it might be enhancing the narrow economic
concerns of corporations.
Government has a vital role to play in regulating the activity of
corporations. Take, for example, Enron. Just think if we had been more
effective in regulating the affairs of Enron, you wouldn’t have had
the State of California being in such financial trouble, having to
borrow money to cover the cost of increases of wholesale power. You
wouldn’t have so many people losing their investments and losing their
futures because they put their faith in the, in the management of Enron.
I mean, so what I’m saying is there’s a new role for government here
and it’s one of being an active participant in the management of, and
the cooperative management of the economy.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s take another question from one of our viewers. This is John
Kinsman from the National Family Farm Coalition. We’ll take his
question now.
Q: Hello. I am John Kinsman. I am a family dairy farmer from
southcentral Wisconsin. In the past few years a whole wave of mergers
and acquisitions have concentrated the power of food or the control over
the food system in the hands of just a few. This brings much lower
prices to me as a farmer and higher prices for consumers. We dairy
farmers are in particular suffering. Our work economic crisis since the
Great Depression. So, with that in mind would you as President be
willing to enforce some of the laws that are already on the books in
Congress that would assure fair prices for farmers and, also, which
would bring fair prices for consumers.
Rep. Kucinich:
Mr. Kinsman, as I’ve travelled across this country and met with
farmers they’ve said the exact same thing that you have said. Farmers
want to be able to get a fair price and they want to be able to get
their product to market. And the major impediment to that is the
monopolization of markets in terms of agricultural products we’ve
seen, from seed to shelf, markets have been tied up and its enabled, it
has actually crushed a lot of small and medium sized family farms in
this country. As President of the United States, I will break up the
monopolies in agriculture, those monopolies which control so many
segments of our agricultural economy have to be broken up and we have to
enforce the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts, and have the Federal
Trade Commission involved in studying the market segments. I want to
make sure that you can survive, but you’re not going to do that unless
you have a president who’s willing to use the power of the Justice
Department to take the side of family farmers, and I fully intend to do
that.
Mark Hertsgaard:
They’re not going to like that very much on the monopolists side.
You’ve had experience in your political career back as the mayor of
Cleveland tangling with big business. As president, how will you fight
those anti-trust battles and survive?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, first of all, it’s correct, I do have experience in these
matters. Twenty-five years
ago I saved a municipal electrical system from a takeover by a private
utility monopoly whose banking partner tried to force me to sell the
system in exchange for the city’s credit. I took a stand for the
public interest and was vindicated in Cleveland as a mayor who stood up
for the people. A president must stand up for the people, too. It’s
not only about agriculture, which Mr. Kinsman very clearly understands
the import of, but it’s also about health insurance. Insurance
companies are defeating the interests of the American people for health
care. They were basically rationing health care based on ability to pay.
It’s about the pharmaceutical companies who are increasingly charging
a price for prescription drugs that is creating desperation among senior
citizens. I’ll be the president who takes up the challenge of defining
the public interest, through the office of the presidency, and saying
that we must transit from a system of for-profit health care to a
not-for-profit health care. Medicare for all. HR 676 is the bill that I
worked on with John [Counters] to achieve that. So, whether it’s,
it’s challenging the power of the pharmaceutical companies, of the
health insurance companies, of big ag, of the energy companies,
Americans want a president who can represent them and that’s where I
come from. I mean, I, I there’s no strings attached here. There’s
not a key in my back that somebody turns in the morning and winds me up
and sends me in a direction according to a certain interest group.
People want a president they can call their own, they’re going to vote
for me.
Mark Hertsgaard:
And how do you win those fights in Congress? As you know, you serve in
Congress, pharmaceutical industry, big agriculture, they shower campaign
contributions on people there and a lot of wonderful ideas die [a
borning] in Congress. How do you actually take your rhetoric and turn it
into reality as president?
Rep. Kucinich:
In 1932 this country was faced with serious economic problems with
millions of people out of work, with people having lost their
investments in their businesses, and Franklin Roosevelt as a candidate
for president went to the American people and asked them to give him a
Congress that would make it possible to enact broad reforms, and the
American people responded magnificently. They elected 88 new members of
the House and 13 new members of the Senate, which created the basis for
the New Deal. My candidacy will work to inspire the American people, to
ask them to give this country a Congress which will give people health
care for all, jobs for all, education for all, affordable housing for
all, peace. To create a new context for this nation. That’s what an
election ought to be about. It ought to be about an encompassing vision
of what a nation can be that resonates with the hopes of our founders in
the preamble of the Constitution when they talked about the, our tasks
in order to create a more perfect union. So we must ever be about that
idea of trying to perfect this, this union of states.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let me ask you a little bit of a devil’s advocate question here. A
group in Washington called the Center for Public Integrity is going to
publish a book next month called “The Buying on the President 2004.”
Looks at all of you candidates. Traces who have been your biggest
campaign contributors throughout your political career, not just in this
race but over your time in public life. The book lists your ten biggest
contributors. Nine of the ten are labor unions. As president, will you
be beholden to labor unions and will you also be able to work with
business in a cooperative way.
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, first of all, there was some disclosure needed here. I’m not a
missionary to labor. I come from the house of labor, and I fully intend
to have worker’s rights enshrined in a worker’s White House: the
right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to
strike, the right to decent wages and benefits, the right to a safe
workplace, the right to a secure retirement, the right to participate in
a political process. Now do I come by that because my father was a truck
driver? It helps. But I also come by it because, you know, I happen to
be a member of the AFL-CIO, a member of the cameramen’s union, thank
you, and someone who understands the aspirations of working men and
women. When I worked at the Plain Dealer, years ago, I was a member of
the American Newspaper Guild. When I worked at Channel 8 in Cleveland, I
was a member of the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists.
And now I’m a member of the IATSE. I think that worker’s rights are
human rights and they connect us to the grand purposes of government in
trying to sustain the quality of life for all people. So, I would have
no trouble whatsoever in working with business as long as business
understands that it has a responsibility to pay people a living wage, as
long as business understands that it has the responsibility to make sure
that people when they’re on the job have certain rights, as long as
business understands that it needs to create a safe workplace, we’ll
have a marvelous working relationship with business. But business needs
to know that there’ll be an American president who has no hesitation
to defend the rights of workers. That’s what my Labor Department will
be about, that’s what the National Labor Relations board will be
about, that’s what the policies of this administration will be about
with respect to trade agreements, and, and frankly I think it’s time
that we really live Lincoln’s prayer of a government of the people, by
the people and for the people. And it’s quite possible that includes a
president from the people.
Mark Hertsgaard:
And can you imagine any time then, when the interests of labor or
working people might be different than the interests of the nation?
Rep. Kucinich:
No. Actually the job of a president is to balance and to harmonize the
concerns of the entire country. And I’m very independent politically.
But the reason why working men and women have supported my campaign is
because I’ve supported them. And the rights of workers ought to be of
paramount concern. Let’s look what’s happened in this economy: 250
corporations had to restate their earnings last year; we had massive
fraud on Wall St. with respect to mutual funds; we had the Enrons and
the Worldcoms and the Global Crossings and all of these corporations
that have not been true to their stockholders. I’m going to be a
president that makes sure that Wall St. works for people, that there’s
enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission laws, that when
somebody gives a stockholder or an investor a statement that it better
be true. There’s going to be real accountability. So I will work to
make sure that the engines of our economy are real, that they’re
running in a way that’s finely tuned, that, that there’s not any
misrepresentation going on, because that’s what hurts this country,
that’s what makes people lose face, faith in an economic system which
ought to be working. But if the government walks off from its
responsibility, it’s like a cop walking off the beat. We need to be
there to make sure that these, that these big corporations are saying
and doing what they, what they aver. And I’m, as president, will make
sure we protect investors, that, will provide for a much healthier
business climate frankly than we have right now.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s turn now from another question from a LinkTV viewer, Kim
McMillan here in California.
Q: Hi, my name is Kim McMillan and I’m from Merced, CA. I would like
to know will my vote count? After the voting irregularities that took
place in Florida in the 2000 election do you believe that current voting
machines are the answer?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, we have a responsibility to make sure that your vote counts. And
after the experience in Florida there are many Americans who are
wondering whether or not we have the ability to run an election right.
The new technologies which you speak of are technologies that need to be
monitored. I co-sponsored a bill with Congressman Russ Holt of New
Jersey to, to look at the issues of making sure the public interest in
protected in new election technologies. I think we have to have a source
code which is created not by corporate interests, that the government
must be involved in with, under transparent conditions.
Mark Hertsgaard:
What is a source code?
Rep. Kucinich:
Source code is what you would use to write the program.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Um-huh.
Rep. Kucinich:
And the program...
Mark Hertsgaard:
For electronic voting?
Rep. Kucinich:
For electronic voting. And it, that source code must be created under
transparent conditions. You just can’t have any corporate decide that
it’s going to provide the program for an election without any
accountability or any transparency. We need to make sure and people are
concerned that no election will, will proceed where the results are
preprogrammed.
We want to make sure that there’s an audit trail, a paper trail.
People have to have the confidence in the electoral process, and it’s
particularly important in light of what happened in Florida in 2000. We
set up on our Web site at Kucinich.us, it’s in development actually,
a, a planned, what we called the national elections board, which is a, a
system by which we create a checklist for people to check at their local
boards of elections, ask about what kind of technology is being used,
when was it purchased, who was it purchased from, issues of
transparency, can you see how it works, has it been tested, have there
been any flaws? So we’re going to create some information sharing
around the country so people will know the questions to ask long and,
you know, far in advance of any election.
But the security of the ballot is, is essential. Those questions have to
be raised but they have to be raised really on a county by county basis
so we know the kinds of technologies that are being used and what kind
of safeguards must be put in place.
Mark Hertsgaard:
But do citizens themselves have to go around raising it county by
county...?
Rep. Kucinich:
Oh, absolutely. Are you kidding? I mean, after what happened in Florida
in 2000? We can’t take this, our
franchise for granted. Only through...
Mark Hertsgaard:
But I mean, does it have to be actual citizens doing it? Shouldn’t
this be the job of, of the
government to make sure that our elections are fair and safe?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, you would think, you would think. But I, we’re calling this
project a national elections
board which is really about public activists who are concerned getting
some guidance as to the
direction they can take to insure that the integrity of the elections in
their own communities will be
assured.
Mark Hertsgaard:
What about this company out of, I believe, your home state of Ohio,
DeBold, that ah...? What can you tell us
about them? They are, I understand, are involved with doing
a lot of this electronic voting and yet, the head of the company is a
big contributor to President
Bush
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, that’s one of the concerns that has been raised. In addition to
that, students at Swarthmore
released some memos that related to the possibility that certain
technical deficiencies in this
system were covered up. This is something...
Mark Hertsgaard:
But how do we make sure that that’s fix before November?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, first of all you call it to public attention. And the more people
are involved in asking the
questions in a community by community basis, the better the opportunity
there will be that the elections going to
be run in a fair way. But if we don’t know, if people don’t
know what kind of technology’s out there, if people are not aware who
the vendors are, if people are
not aware of the problems, then election day is too late to find out. So
we have some time here in
various states to be able to raise the right questions and that’s what
our national election board,
ah, effort on our Web site is about.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s stay with domestic policy here for a little bit. You were
talking before about
corporations and their responsibility to be good corporate citizens. As
you know, U.S. corporations
are supposed to pay 35% tax to the federal government on any profits
they make. And yet, in recent
years, about 250 of our largest and most profitable corporations have
actually paid only 20%, not 35%, 20%. And
among the biggest tax evaders have been big name companies
like General Motors, Texaco, Pepsi, J.P. Morgan. Now you said, I believe
on your Web site, that any
corporation that shifts profits off-shore, that is to Bermuda or some
place so that they don’t
have to pay taxes to the United States Government, that they should not
be allowed to operate in the
United States. So my question to you is could you really shut down
companies like Pepsi, like General
Motors, if you were president and they engaged in that activity?
Rep.
Kucinich:
Could you shut them down?
Mark Hertsgaard:
Or not allow them to operate in the United States?
Rep. Kucinich:
Yeah, I think that you can sign an executive order that would make it
very difficult for them to get
government contracts. I think you can make it very difficult for them to
get government approval for all kind of
things they need with respect to trade agreements. I think
that it’s important to us to enter into a new era of corporate
accountability. Corporations must
be accountable to the public interest. They cannot operate apart from
this, this country. They
cannot try to have an impact on a political process in America and then
expatriate their profits,
sending them off-shore. I would...
Mark Hertsgaard:
So you would sign those kind, that kind of executive order?
Rep. Kucinich:
I would not hesitate to do what it took to take a position on behalf of
the economic interest of the
American people. Corporations have a responsibility. They make
money. They ought to pay the taxes. You
know, we, they expect their workers to pay taxes. I mean,
we have a responsibility here. Why is it that workers are the ones who
are, who are told over and
over you better pay your taxes and then the corporations find a way to
evade them. I mean, that’s
not fair. And it’s not patriotic, by the way. It’s not patriotic to
America. You know, if you
support this country, you do business in this country, you make money in
this country, then you should
pay taxes in this country. And these corporations who set up off-shore
and they try to have it both
way, they try to influence our political process here and they don’t
pay any taxes at all, they
need to be exposed and they need to be told that all, the power of the
federal government is going to
insist that they pay their taxes, that they pay their fair share, that
they not try to find a way to
dodge their taxes. Enron’s a good example. They set up so many
different subsidiaries out of
the country, they found a way to avoid paying taxes. Well, they had
great influence in our
government. That’s not going to happen under my administration.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Is there any way, you mentioned Enron, it seems to me one of the great
tragedies of our nation’s recent
history is the way so many retirees and families saving for college,
their nest eggs disappeared in the stock market crash...
Rep. Kucinich:
Absolutely right.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Is there anything now, after the fact, that you as president could do,
practically,
to get those people their money back?
Rep.
Kucinich:
Well, yeah, the...
Mark Hertsgaard:
Or is that gone forever?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, first of all, we have a pension benefit guarantee corporation
which is designed to assure
that pensioners will, will get something if their company goes down.
It’s not adequate, but we
have to recognize what’s going on here. What’s going on is that
corporations are looking
actively for ways to jettison their pension obligations anyway they can.
If it’s bankruptcy court
we’re talking about, I want to see a change in bankruptcy law where
pensioners are put on an equal
footing with the banks. You know, banks go to bankruptcy court, they
want to grab their money
first. You know what, if pensioners are on an equal footing then maybe
these companies will think
twice about going bankrupt, or the banks will tell them wait, we better
work something else out. I want to make
sure that, that we look at, at the legal issues in these corporations
where executives are taking golden parachutes while at the same time
their pensioners are losing
their, the assets that they worked a lifetime over a lifetime of work to
help accumulate. And I want to
make sure that, that we provide more protections for pensioners.
People are losing their life
savings because of the way the, the, because of the conduct of major
corporations. But they look at...
Mark Hertsgaard:
But people who’ve lost it. Can they get it back or are you talking
about moving forward from
here, that we won’t let that happen again?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, they should, if there’s a course of action legally, if fraud is
involved, for example, I would
imagine they’d have recovery if they had a Justice Department who was
ready to take the side of the people. And
that’s what I would do, I would put the Justice Department
on the side of pensioners who are being cheated out of their, or who
have been cheated out of their
retirement savings. You know, we need to make sure the government works
for the people. And these corporations
who are increasingly looking for ways to be able to, to shed
their responsibilities to their workers. We’ll be accountable and
we’ll find whatever means we
have to under law, whether it’s, whether it’s looking at the
possibility of fraud and enforcing criminal
prosecution or using the Justice Department to file civil law suits to
recover assets. No corporation
is going to, on one hand, be able to, to cheat pensioners out of their
retirement money and then turn
around and set up under another name, and try to reorganize their
business activities and
continue to do the work that they were doing before. You know, I’m
fully aware of the games that
are played, that corporations use to try to shaft their workers, and let
me tell you, when I talk about
having a worker’s White House, I mean it. I mean that worker’s
retirement security is going
to be paramount.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s take a question again from one of our viewers. Very happy to
have this question from our
partners at Wiretap, the young zine. Linda Wang in Collegeville, PA.
Q: Hi. My name is Linda Wang.
I’m a student at [Perkeman] Valley High School and a reader
of Wiretap Youth Magazine. My question to you is as a member of my high
school’s chapter Amnesty
International, I’m concerned about the Patriot Act’s violations of
the civil rights and liberties
of Americans. What would you do as president to make sure that Americans
are not stripped of their
rights and privacy and that our national security is preserved?
Rep. Kucinich:
When the Patriot Act was first brought to the House of Representatives I
went to the floor of the House and spoke
against it, I voted against it. This past year I’ve introduced
legislation to repeal the Patriot Act.
Mark Hertsgaard:
You’re the only presidential candidate, I believe, who has voted
against the Patriot Act.
Rep. Kucinich:
That’s correct. I’m the only presidential candidate who voted
against the Patriot Act and
who voted against the war in, in Iraq. With respect to the Patriot Act,
as President of the United
States, I will instruct the Justice Department to go to Federal Court
and seek to overturn the
Patriot Act as being unconstitutional. I see it as a violation of
numerous provisions of our
Bill of Rights, including our right to free speech, our right to freedom
of assembly, our right to be
free in our persons from unreasonable search and seizure, our right to a
fair trial. All of these things are being
used by the government, all of these provisions
of the Patriot
Act are being used by the government in such a way that creates a
destructive undermining
of our democracy. You know, right now, Mark, where we are is that
the Patriot Act has been a
cause for government to be able to grab people’s reading lists. The
government could go in and
find out the videos that you watch, to get your financial and health
information. When you think
about a government that becomes more powerful where the people of the
country are reduced to fear
and become less powerful, that’s not a definition of a democracy. And
I think we need to remember
where we’ve come from. Benjamin Franklin said that, something to the
effect that those who would
give up their liberties for a measure of security deserve neither. And
in this country, we must
remember where we come from. When we look at the Star Spangled
Banner, Francis Scott Key raised the
question, does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o’er the
land of the free and home of the brave?
He made the connection between freedom and bravery, between
courage and democracy. So these are times that I will call on the
courage of American people,
and my election will mean the end of fear and the beginning of hope in
America, so we can re-embrace
the world community in a way that is effective in meeting the challenge
of terrorism but in no way
give up any of our basic rights. In effect, you could say that the
terrorist win when we give up
our basic rights in a democratic society. And my presidency will be
about reclaiming those rights
and working with the world to meet the challenge of terrorism.
Mark Hertsgaard:
You, in fact, have introduced a, I know you’ve mentioned, I think
it’s called the Ben Franklin
True Patriot Act.
Rep. Kucinich:
Oh, yes, it’s called that.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Tell us a little bit about that. You’ve said that the Patriot Act, if
I’m correct, rescinds the
first amendment, fourth amendment, fifth amendment, sixth and eighth
amendments. Does your Ben Franklin True
Patriot Act, what does it do about that?
Rep. Kucinich:
It repeals all the provisions of the Patriot Act with the exception of
those that provide for
compensation to families of victims of 9-11. And other than that we, we
basically wipe out the bill.
Mark Hertsgaard:
So you go back to the statue quo, before September 11th.
Rep. Kucinich:
Exactly right. But keep in mind. There are other, there are other rules
that the Justice Department
has promulgated that has given the government authority to, to reach
into people’s private lives
or to handle its operations, for example, at [Guantanimo] Bay that
needs, need to be looked at as
well.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s take another question from one of our viewers. This is from the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Rosa Garza from Arlington, VA.
Q: My name is Rosa Garza and I
work for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights on the grassroots
operation. As a first generation Filipino American, I have a question
concerning immigration reform.
I would like to know what your stance is on having state and local
police enforce federal
immigration laws. The reason I’m concerned about this is because I
feel that it criminalizes
immigrants and excludes them from police protection which they should be
guaranteed.
Rep. Kucinich:
I agree with you. It’s not an appropriate role for state and local
police to be enforcing
immigration laws. We have a larger question here, and the larger
question is why has America
now been less receptive to immigrants? I think we know the answer, part
of it’s because of fear.
This administration’s promoting fear. It’s so important for this
nation to remember where
we’ve come from. We are, in fact, a nation of immigrants. It’s
important to remember the
inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty, Emil Lazarus wrote
“Give me your tired, your
poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, the wretched refuse
of your teeming shores. Send
these. The homeless, the tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the
golden door.” That inscription is what
America is about in creating a hope for people to come here
from all over the world. We cannot turn our law enforcement agencies
into something that repulses
people from feeling that they can be full participants in this country.
We cannot let America become
less free because we fear those who come to this country in search of
freedom.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Where do you draw the balance, though, because I’m sure many
Americans do fear the fact that they look
at September 11th, they see that the terrorists who
struck there did come in through our
borders. How do you make sure that you keep, to oversimplify,
keep the bad guys out and invite the good people in?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, you know, Mark, it’s going to be interesting to see what the
investigation of 9-11 reveals. We don’t
know in fact whether or not our, our information that came
from law enforcement was obtained or successfully used. And this is
something, there’s an assumption.
Mark Hertsgaard:
What are you saying here?
Rep. Kucinich:
What I’m saying is there is an assumption that
the government didn’t know anything about the
fact that there were people trying to come into this country or planning
to attack this
country. That’s why we need this report released. You know, and so...
Mark Hertsgaard:
Which report?
Rep. Kucinich:
The
9-11 report. We need to know that, because then we can, we can
make a
determination as to whether or not the concerns that we have are
well-founded or if there’s a
concern we should have about the way that the information was used, if
information in fact was supplied.
I think that we need to certainly have proper police and intelligence
work available. But we
also need to make sure that we’re not misdirecting out angst. If our
fear is of the immigrant,
then we are directing this nation into a, into a place which, which may
be contrary to where,
what we stand for as a nation. We cannot wall off our nation. We cannot
separate ourselves
from the world. We have to ever be open to people coming to this
country.
At the same time,
you know, we have a responsibility to make sure that there’s not a
criminal element coming in
here. And that’s always been true. That’s always been true. But we
can’t use that concern to,
to dwarf the ambitions of, of freedom seeking people to come to America.
Otherwise we’ll
lose what this nation’s about. So the balance that has to be achieved
has to be done with
integrity and, and with veracity in order to have an authentic policy
of, of immigration which is neither
punitive nor lax.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Do you believe President Bush has told the truth about September 11th?
Rep. Kucinich:
I
think that President Bush is getting all kinds of information and I
think we have to, what
we, what President Bush needs to do is to provide all the information
for the American people.
You know, it’s, it’s... I think it’s a mistake to assert that the
President knew 9-11 was going to
happen and did nothing, because that’s a stretch, but I think it’s
important for the information to be
brought forward to the public, for a number of reasons.
Mark Hertsgaard:
The information
about?
Rep. Kucinich:
About 9-11. How 9-11 happened. What were the events that led to 9-11.
What’s all the
findings in this investigation that this task force has done.
Mark Hertsgaard:
The White House has admitted that it was warned that such attacks might
happened although
just the other day President Bush denied that he had been told that al-Quaeda
might hijack
planes. So the average American who’s reading the paper, how do they
know?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, that’s exactly the point. That’s why we need an open
discussion
about it [in the
next president.] I would bring about such an open discussion, just so
American
can, we can put
this behind us. Because all the questions that, that loom about 9-11 in
away
divert us from
being able to heal our nation. We had a great tragedy in our national
family. The
loss of lives and
the families who were effected and the heart of this country was, was
wounded.
When you have a
death in the family you, you bring the family together to talk about it.
You try
to see if
there’s any reason or rhyme to it, and then you try to find a way to
have some closure.
But you can only
do that by getting to the truth of the matter. This isn’t about blame.
This is
about reconnecting
with the purpose of our nation, not, not for the purpose recrimination
but for
the purpose of
continuing to unfold as to who we are and not be stuck, not be so
traumatized by
9-11 that we
can’t get off of it and we’re forced to start attacking other
nations and thinking that
somehow that’s
going to be the solution. We need to get to the deeper truths of 9-11
and as
president I’ll
help lead this country to the kind of healing that will enable us to get
to the truth,
have some closure
and move on to do the great things this nation is capable of in the
world.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s take another question. This from a member of the U.S.
Student’s
Association, Steven Alvarez in Santa
Cruz, CA.
Q: Hi, my name is
Steven Alvarez and I’m with the undergraduate student government at
the
University of
California, Santa Cruz. Based on the recent ruling about gay marriage in
Massachusetts, I
wanted to ask you would you support legislation for domestic partnership
and
would you include
the same benefits that heterosexual spouses are guaranteed?
Rep. Kucinich:
Yes. And I already support such an effort. Furthermore, as President of
the United States,
the matter of, of gay marriage needs to be addressed in a forthright
way. I
think, that the
protections of civil law ought to be made to everyone regardless of
race, color,
creed or sexual
orientation. We should not ask that, that this nation turn its back on
those who,
people who love
each other very much but happen to be of the same sex and that they
somehow
should be denied
the protections of over 1049 different civil laws that married couples
are able to
achieve. I think
that this is neither a liberal nor conservative issue. Because the
conservative
approach would say
that people who, who love each other ought to be together and ought to
stay
together and that
adds to a stable society. I think what we need to do is be openhearted
as a
nation and as
president, I will lead the nation in that direction. And furthermore as
a candidate
I’m fully
prepared to challenge the President if he feels that he can use this as
some kind of a
wedge issue to
divide the American people. I think only an American, only a Democratic
candidate who is
courageous and forthright in bringing this issue to the American people
can
touch the hearts
of the American people and, and turn this in a new direction, away from
polarization, away
from condemnation and towards tolerance and acceptance.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let me ask you a question off of issues for a second, because certainly
part
of what makes
Americans vote for president is where they stand on the issues, but part
of it also
their sense of the
person. I’m always struck as a reporter, those of you who run for
president, run
for public office,
it is an exhausting, exhausting process, I salute all of you about that.
My
question is when
is the last time that you had a genuine day off? I mean a day off. No
work.
And
what did you do that day, how did you spend it?
Rep.
Kucinich: Thanksgiving.
Mark
Hertsgaard: Thanksgiving?
Rep.
Kucinich: Yeah.
Mark
Hertsgaard: And how did you spend it?
Rep. Kucinich:
Thanksgiving. I spent it with friends, at Thanksgiving dinner, just you
know, spent some
time walking on a beach and had a great Thanksgiving dinner and it was
just
fantastic.
I enjoyed it immensely.
Mark
Hertsgaard: No campaign calls.
Rep.
Kucinich: Oh, no, no, no.
Mark
Hertsgaard: Nothing.
Rep.
Kucinich: No.
Mark
Hertsgaard: Just friends and family or...
Rep.
Kucinich: Friends.
Mark Hertsgaard:
And I have to ask you, how’s the search for the future first lady
coming?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, you have to remember the context of this, Mark. The context is I
was asked a
question as were all the candidates what would be the role of, of a
first lady in, or
first mate, in
your administration? And by the time the question got around to me I
said, look,
I’m not married,
I can only fantasize about this but I’d want a woman who is passionate
about
health care and
working for peace and, and a full employment economy, and then I said
so, if
you’re out
there, call me. And I heard from a lot of women.
Mark Hertsgaard: The phone rang and
rang.
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, you know what it shows, though, it shows that American women
are, want to be
taken seriously about the role a first lady could have in an
administration. That
it’s not just
going to be as some kind of a prop. But that women are playing a vital
role in our
society and expect
to be taken seriously and, you know...
Mark Hertsgaard:
So how would the first lady function in a Kucinich administration?
Rep.
Kucinich: Would be a partner.
Mark
Hertsgaard: Um-huh.
Rep.
Kucinich: Someone who is an advisor.
Mark Hertsgaard:
In a way that, for example, Hillary Clinton was during the Clinton
years,
that kind of a
partner?
Rep. Kucinich: I
think that Hillary Clinton and you know, there have been other first
ladies that have I
think been very close to their husbands. You can go back through most of
the
first ladies in
one way or other have played a role in providing advice. They may not
have been
as high profiled
about it, but I think it’s important for a would be president to
acknowledge that
whoever the first
lady would be, or if we’re talking about in a case of a woman
candidate, the
first mate, would
be in a position to have some influence. You can’t ignore that, I
mean, we’re
all, the people
who are closed to us have some influence in our lives and I think it’s
important to
acknowledge that
our significant other or our spouse would have some impact on what’s
going
on in the country.
It’s inevitable. The question is, there are certain areas that I think
women in
particular have a
strong interest in and we want to make sure that, that, that is
acknowledge.
And the young lady
who actually won a contest that politics New Hampshire put up. I had a
chance to say
hello to her and we got together for breakfast the other day and she
really, I think,
her name’s
[Ginny Santore], and she in a sense is [emblemative] of women all over
this country
who, who are
serious about public policy and want a president to take their interest
in these
issues in a
serious way, and I, I do.
Mark Hertsgaard:
One question about that, abortion. A number of women that I talked to
preparing this
broadcast were concerned about you because of your position on abortion.
In the
past you were
pro-life, quite outspokenly so in your early career. Since then you’ve
come around
to being
pro-choice. Can you explain a little bit about that.
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, when you say outspokenly so, I actually [never] gave a speech on
the floor of the
House about it except recently in defense of a women’s right to
choose. I’ve had
a journey on this
issue and it’s not the kind of issue that you can just [snap] flip
like that. This
has been a product
of, of many years of discussion with women in my life and with members
of
Congress, women in
Congress and the Supreme Court made a ruling in a Nebraska case,
Sternberg v.
Carhardt, which said that the, the legislative body in Nebraska had to
take into
account or failed
to take into account a women’s health, her, the definition of the
procedure and
it, that it did
not meet their test of Roe v. Wade and that it imposed an undue burden
on a
woman. That was
with respect to a late term abortion bill. The Congress of the United
States
brought that
identical bill back and that was a moment for me to, to look at where
the issue was
going because...
Mark Hertsgaard: [That’s it.]
Rep. Kucinich:
That was the moment, it looked, yeah, I looked at it and I said, you
know,
they’re not even
concerned about a woman’s health? I mean, you know, we, we need to,
after the
Supreme Court has
stated that, that this is something that you must consider, it was just
like
swept aside. And
so when Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin offered an amendment to meet the
Constitutional
test, to say that it has to take into account a mother’s health, that
there has to be a
definition of
procedure and that it cannot constitute an undue burden, Congress
rejected that. So,
then for the first
time in my career I voted present on an issue that I had consistently
voted in, in
favor of and that
signaled a shift and then the women in the Congress and in my life
started to
talk to me some
more and say, this is not simply a matter of privacy, which it is,
it’s not simply a
matter of choice,
which it is, it’s a matter of whether a woman is going to have true
equality in
society. So I can
sit here and say that since that moment that I have consistently
supported a
women’s right to
choose. This is before I became a candidate for president.
Mark Hertsgaard: What year?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, this happened last year, but it was long, it was long before I
became
a candidate for
president. And that I, that I’ve supported a woman’s right to
choose, and in the
last bill that
came up I not only voted to, to defend a woman’s right to choose, I
spoke on the
floor of the
House, and for the fir, and actually for, you know, one of the first
times I’ve ever
spoken on the
issue because I felt that it’s important, you know, while we, while we
want to
make abortions
less necessary through sex education and birth control, we can only do
that in the
context of
protecting Roe v. Wade and a woman’s essential equality in society.
For those who
are interested in
trying to make abortions less necessary will also need to support
pre-natal care,
post-natal care,
childcare, a living wage, universal health care, and that way we can, we
can help
improve the
quality of life in our society. And Mark, because of my journey on this,
I may be
the only
presidential candidate who’s in a position to understand people’s
hearts, who’s in a
position to try to
balance what is really a, a very difficult issue for, for our American
community.
And to try to
reconcile people to get away from the judgement and the condemnation
that is so
afflicted this
consideration of this issue. And to try to create circumstances where
abortions are
less necessary but
only to affirming that a woman’s essential equality by protecting Roe
v. Wade.
And finally, as
President, I will ask anyone who wants to be appointed to the Supreme
Court to,
to commit to
protecting Roe v. Wade so that we don’t go back into this very
difficult national
debate which could
serve to undermine not only a woman’s right to choose but her
equality.
Mark Hertsgaard:
You mentioned health care. Let’s take another question from one of our
viewers. This is a
LinkTV viewer.
[Audio tape side A
ends/Side B begins]
Q: ...and it’s
even more important to put that idea into effect. Are you in favor of
national
health insurance
or a single payer plan, similar to that in Canada and if so, how would
you
implement such a
plan in view of the hostility of the health care industry and the high
probability
of a Republican
Congress?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, first of all, thank you for the compliment. It is laudable to be
for
universal, single
payer. And as a matter of fact, I have such a plan. I’ve introduced
legislature
with John
[Connors] of Michigan, HR 676, to create a universal, single payer
health care system,
a national health
plan, extended Medicare for all. Now the way that we would accomplish it
is
this. Currently
the United States pay $1.4 trillion for health care, that’s from
private resources
and from the
government. And all that money goes into, into paying for the health
care services
for this country,
except for one thing. Hundreds of billions of dollars of that $1.4
trillion go for
things like
corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising,
lobbying, marketing,
cost of paperwork
in the private sector is 15-30%. We’re already paying for a universal
standard
of health care but
we’re not getting it because of the allocation of dollars. My plan is
to take
America away from
a for-profit system where health care is rationed by according to
ability to
pay and create a
not-for-profit system where all the resources go into providing
Americans with
medical care for
all medically necessary procedures, with dental care, vision care,
mental health
care, long term
health care, a prescription drug benefit, alternative and complementary
medicine.
All that would be
covered. And we have the money to do it now. The question is do we have
the
political will and
leadership? And that’s where I come in. I intend to make this the
defining
domestic issue in
this election and by doing that I will demonstrate to the American
people that
if they will
follow the same lead that the people in 1932 gave this country when it
gave FDR a
mandate for
sweeping economic change by electing 88 new members of the House and 13
new
members of the
Senate to create the context of the New Deal, I will ask the American
people
give me a Congress
that will give you health care. That’s the way that we challenge the
insurance
industries who have a, a stranglehold on our political process. We can
make this an
issue in every
congressional district. And I’m ready, I’m prepared to do that. Now
there are some
candidates for
president, Mark, who have said, you know, if you want fundamental change
in the
system I’m not
your man. And one of those candidates is a doctor...
Mark Hertsgaard: Howard Dean is the
man you’re referring to.
Rep. Kucinich:
Frankly. And you know what, I think that it’s time to get a second
opinion
and a second
opinion would give the American people the understanding that you can
have a
not-for-profit
system. Now Governor Dean has said that you know, well, he wants
everyone to
have health
insurance, even though ten million people would be left out of his plan,
he wants
everyone to have
health insurance. We must look at that description. Health Insurance.
That
means you can have
health insurance but you’re still going to be stuck with an insurance
company that’s
going to raise your premiums, increase your co-pays, increase your
deductibles
and shrink you
area of coverage because insurance companies make money not providing
health
care. So, my plan
is to take it out of the hands of the private insurers and out of the
hands of the
pharmaceutical
companies, and create a not-for-profit public health care system where
everyone
is cared for. And
that’s a major difference between Governor Dean and I and I think
it’s going to
be
one of those defining issues in this election.
Mark
Hertsgaard: You’ve called it “Medicare for All.”
Rep.
Kucinich: Right.
Mark Hertsgaard:
And you’ve pointed out that the United States almost alone of advanced
industrial
countries, we’re the only country that does not have universal health
care.
Rep. Kucinich: Yes.
Mark Hertsgaard:
But I have to ask you, having spent time in Europe and other places,
what
do you say about
the people who say yes, they have universal care but they wait forever
to get to
a doctor, they
wait in long lines to get non-emergency procedures. Does that concern
you at all
about a public
health care program?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, there’s two answers to that. First of all, today many people
can’t get
any health care at
all. We have 43-45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance,
cause
they can’t
afford it. This market-based approach towards health care inevitably is
going to
exclude more and
more people, and inevitably it’s creating a kind of poverty in this
country
where you either
have the ability to pay or you don’t. And if you don’t have the
ability to pay
you’re out of
luck. There’s a lot of people experiencing bankruptcy because they
can’t afford
their doctor
bills. Now that’s a fact. This system is, is a system that is, is
becoming increasingly
corrupt because
it’s ignoring a basic concern of the American people for health care
because it’s
held by certain
financial interests. So, I’m going to break that hold. Now, the
question is will
you be able to
provide health care for all the people under this system and will they
have access
to it. The answer
is absolutely. We built in to the financial projections the, the, the
inevitability
of increased
utilization.
Mark Hertsgaard: What does that mean?
More and more people will use it.
Rep. Kucinich:
More and more people are going to use it, absolutely. And that what does
it mean is that
also we have to build out our health care infrastructure. We have to
create more
medical education
opportunities so more people will be able to go to medical school and
I’m
working with
someone, someone who’s, who’s an expert in this field, we’ll have
to be able to
have more
individuals going into nursing and other medical technologies so we can
create the
context for people
to be able to provide the support as the system grows. And we also will
have
an emphasis on
prevention. You know, so much of our health care costs today get driven
up
because the
emergency rooms end up being the health care of last resort when people
are in
serious condition
they end up going to emergency rooms when the ounce of prevention would
be
worth a pound of
cure. So the emphasis will be on preventative medicine and there will
also be
an emphasis on
maintenance of health care where people can get taken care of and they
don’t get
into the kind of
extreme expenses that come from not having your health taken care. It
will
mean a healthier
nation, a more productive nation, a nation which care feel a little bit
more
freedom [being
that] it’s not constrained by private health care companies. So, you
know, this is
really a, an all
encompassing issue in this country and I intend to, as I said, make it a
defining
issue in, in this
race for president.
Mark Hertsgaard: I
want to turn to foreign affairs in a second but first one more question
on
the domestic side.
Education is obviously another big issue. You’ve talked about giving,
and I’m
sure many parents
around the country will love to hear this, free college tuition. How
will you
provide free
college tuition to, and how many American would be available, eligible
for free
college tuition?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, right now, based on the fact that there are about 12 million
people
going to public
colleges and universities in this country and figuring that perhaps the
average
cost of it could
be between $5000-6000 a year. You know, you extrapolate that, you have
between $60 and 72
billion a year that would have to be set aside for tuition free
education at
public colleges
and universities. So the question would be where, where could that money
come
from.
Mark Hertsgaard: $72 billion.
Rep. Kucinich:
Right. Well, anywhere from 60-72. You know, the numbers keep getting
recalculated
because what’s happening is states are experiencing budget cuts and
are now passing
along the costs to
the students in terms of higher tuition. If we change our budgetary
practices
and take some of
the pressures off the states and, and you then have a little bit more
play where
there’s some
more resources. Well, we don’t have that right now. So let’s talk
about where our
government’s
resources are going right now. We have seen an administration that
provide tax
breaks to people
in the top bracket, people who weren’t asking for such breaks I might
add.
There’s been a
redistribution of the wealth upwards. It’s not healthy for this
country. I want to
see the tax breaks
that went to people in the top bracket canceled and put that money right
into a
fund for universal
college education, tuition free.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Could anyone then who wanted to go to college, who obviously passed the
scholastic part of
it, could they then be assured under a Kucinich administration money
will not
be an obstacle,
you will be able to go to college?
Rep. Kucinich:
That’s the direction we want to take the country, absolutely. Now keep
in
mind, this
administration has created a, a budget deficient from $276 billion
surplus in the year
2000 to an over
$500 billion deficient in this coming year. We have to be aware that
they’ve
created some
serious financial problems. But we can remedy some of those problems. We
can
remedy them by
getting the United States out of Iraq. We’re already into the war
there for $155
billion. The
continued occupation of Iraq will cost this country dearly, not only in
terms of our
national
reputation, and not only in terms of loss of lives of the men and women
who serve this
country, but it
will be a drain on America’s ability to be able to meet a domestic
agenda for
education, for
health care, for housing and all of, and a whole range of social
programs. So as
President of
United States, I would put a priority on education. There’s another
area here, too,
that speaks to the
use of our national resources. The Pentagon budget has been expanding
very
rapidly. I would
contend that it’s being driven by fear. One doesn’t look too much at
the
spending policies
inside the Pentagon, but actually that’s my job. I’m the ranking
member on a
sub-committee that
has jurisdiction over national security and we’ve held hearings on
spending
practices in the
Pentagon. We know, for example, that the Pentagon has over a trillion
dollars in
accounts it cannot
reconcile. We know about...
Mark Hertsgaard:
Because they’ve lost a trillion dollars through bookkeeping errors.
Rep. Kucinich:
Means they can’t, means they can’t track it down. You know, they
have
over a thousand
accounting systems. They can’t track it down and so we don’t know.
We also,
we also, what we
do know though is that for example, this missile system that they want
to put
up,
we know that that system...
Mark
Hertsgaard: The space weapons system? Yeah.
Rep.
Kucinich: The missile shield.
Mark
Hertsgaard: Oh.
Rep. Kucinich: We
know that that system, right from the beginning, as been fraught with
fraud. And that we
shouldn’t be spending money on it. So I’ll set that system aside.
I’ll set aside
the building of
new nuclear weapon. I’ll set aside the building of, putting weapons in
space,
creating a weapons
platform in space. We have so many weapon systems right now that are
being developed
when we haven’t even used the previous generation. There’s a
tremendous
amount of waste
that’s going on. I believe a 15% reduction in the Pentagon budget can
be
achieved without
any adverse impact on our national security whatsoever. As a matter of
fact,
we’ll have a
better enhanced national security because we won’t be wasting the tax
payers
money.
Mark Hertsgaard: Will they find the
trillion dollars then?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, you know what, we’ll find a way to straighten out the books. I
mean
this
is a nightmare for the taxpayers as well as for fiscal management.
Mark
Hertsgaard: A trillion dollars.
Rep.
Kucinich: That’s right.
Mark
Hertsgaard: That is a thousand billion, is that what that is?
Rep.
Kucinich: Well, yes.
Mark Hertsgaard:
As they say, that’s more money [TALKING OVER EACH OTHER]
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, right a billion here, a billion there, it starts to add up,
that’s what
they say.
Mark Hertsgaard: Yeah.
Rep. Kucinich: And
see, this, and I would further contend that our entire defense strategy
is outmoded. That
we’re fighting the last wars, that we need to encompass a view of the
world as
interconnected and
interdependent. That the challenges in the future are not nation states
against
nation states. The
challenge of the future are these non-state actors. And the only way you
meet
that challenge is
to organize with the world community. So, I’ll have a, a strong
defense but it
will be lean.
It’s not going to be wasting the tax payers dollars. And that means
that we’ll have
more money for a
domestic agenda. So, isn’t it, you know, what’s interesting? It
always just
[___] me when
people tell me well, you know we have money for education, you know, we
don’t
have money for
health care, but we have money for tax cuts for people in the top
brackets, we
have money for
war, we have money for an expanded Pentagon budget. We have money for
those things but
we don’t have money for the basic needs of the country. Wrong! As
president, I
will direct a
shift in priorities in America where we start taking care of the basic
needs of our
people here at
home, and that’s what government ought to be about. It ought to be
about meeting
people’s
practical aspirations. And we’re not doing that right now because
I’ll tell you, people
don’t aspire to
war. You know, this is like a riff on, on Marie Antoinette who said, you
know,
years ago, the
French, let them eat cake. Well, now we’re being told by
administration, let them
eat war.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Well, that is a perfect introduction to our next question. Here again
from
our young friends
at Wiretap, Eleanor [Polly] from Colorado.
Q: Hi. My name is
Eleanor. I’m calling from Colorado. I’m a Wiretap reader and a
member
of [Peace Jam].
I’m asking this question because I would like to see peace achieved in
my
lifetime but I am
confused by the irony of the practice around, trying to achieve peace
through
war. My question
is, do you have any new ideas for achieving peace?
Rep. Kucinich:
Yes, I do and you have a right to ask that because the future always
knows
when the place
that’s being prepared for it is threatened and the young people of
America today
are very aware
that our government is moving in a direction which threatens their
future. On
July the 11th,
2001, I introduced legislation now supported by 50 members of Congress
to create
a cabinet level
Department of Peace. That new idea will take America in a new direction,
which
connects us to the
work of Dr. Martin Luther King, to the vision of Mahatma Gandhi and
others
who’ve worked
for peace, so we can look at our own nation and the challenges we have
in our
own society,
challenges like domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, and
through
education, through
working with community groups and non-governmental organizations, we
create a whole new
context in our society to address those issues that have vexed our homes
and
our communities,
issues including gang violence, violence in the schools, racial
violence,
violence against,
violence gays, police/community relations challenges that keep
percolating.
These are things
we need direct programs to deal with, and we need an awareness in our
society.
We need it to
become the work of our society in addressing this, to teach children at
the earliest
age peace giving,
peace sharing, mutuality, reciprocity, looking at the other person as an
aspect
of oneself. We can
actually teach this. We can become a more peaceful society through,
through
dedicating our
society to do that. And, Mark, on an international level, the Department
of Peace,
will work with the
other nations of the world to make war itself archaic. We must believe
in our
capacity to
evolve. War is not inevitable unless we act on the belief that it is. If
you believe war
is inevitable, it
becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So my work as PREsident of the
United
States will be to
work with nations of the world to create a new structure for peace so we
can
make the work of
peace, that work in the everyday lives of nations around the world. And
you
know what’s
really interesting is that, and now a member of Parliament, John
McDonald, has
taken up this bill
that I’ve introduced in the House of Representatives and has
introduced it into
Parliament.
Mark Hertsgaard:
In Great Britain.
Rep. Kucinich: To
create the discussion in Great Britain. And I’m in touch with other
legislators from
around the world. And I think this idea is going to start catching on.
So we can
create peace and I
want, I want our young caller to know that you have a right to expect
that.
You have a right
to expect your leaders will take us away from war. War is not
inevitable. And
war is proving
increasingly, as we go into a complex society, to be a way that is
wasteful,
counterproductive
and we must proceed with what President Franklin Roosevelt called the
science of human
relations in finding a way to work together. As President Kennedy said,
you
know, we must
learn to live together as brothers and sisters or we’ll perish
together as fools.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Franklin Roosevelt though, of course, also fought and led American
forces
in World War II,
and I wonder if there aren’t sometimes when violence as unwanted as it
may be
is necessary. I
want to ask you about something quite specific here. In 1999, the War in
Kosovo, Clinton
administration intervened there to stop the ethnic cleansing of
Albanians. And
at the time you
opposed the U.S. intervention and at the time you told, or at least were
quoted in
the Cleveland
Plain Dealer as saying that people should instead pin their hopes for
peace “on
whatever source of
humanity remains” in [Slovidon Molosovich]. He, of course, was the
Yugoslav dictator,
who had spent the last eight years ethnically cleansing people
throughout the
Balkans. So, some
people might ask how can you in a situation like that, a man who has
shown,
Molosovich in this
case, who has shown an eagerness to direct the murder of thousands of
people. Isn’t it
necessary for the U.S. or some force to intervene to stop that evil?
Rep. Kucinich:
Well, it’s necessary for the world community to cooperate in a manner
that
can meet that kind
of challenge. Absolutely. However, let’s look at what happened. What
happened is that
the Dayton accords which were designed to create a workable framework
for
the settlement of
all of these issues in the Balkans actually ended up being nothing more
than a
papering over of
the differences that occurred. So that you had Molosovich, [Turdjesman
and
Isobegavich] walk
out of Dayton without a real hard and fast agreement about the direction
they
would go...
Mark Hertsgaard: These are the Balkan
leaders.
Rep. Kucinich:
That’s right. We just, what we did was basically shove this under the
carpet and call it
an agreement. The fact of the matter is that the violence continued to
percolate
and was not
addressed throughout the region. What happened with the Clinton
administration is
that there was a
meeting with, with the Serbian government at [Ramboiere] in which
Secretary
Albright gave them
a non-negotiable demand that basically said turn over your country and
that
set the stage for
the intransigence. Look, we, and then the bombing of Belgrade, which I
opposed. Look, we
can’t make any mistake about the fact that there are people in the
world who
want to engage in
a path of violence without restraint. That’s why it’s so important
to have a
strong United
Nations. That’s where the strength of the U.N. comes into play. You
have to
remember that with
this action against Serbia, what happened is that the North Ame, the
North
Atlantic Treaty
Organization took a new stance where they became an offensive
organization
instead of a
defensive organization. We really went around the process that could
have been, I
believe, effective
over a long period of time at the U.N. I have a strong belief that the
U.N.
process can work
if it’s funded. I met with [Koffi Anan] who told me the greatest
problem that
he had is he
didn’t have the funds to do the job. If the U.N. is funded we can work
through the
world community.
But what we need to do, Mark, we need to be wary of an administration
that
wants to proceed
on a [doctorate] of unilateralism and pre-emption to try to justify wars
anywhere. This
administration in Iraq attacked a country that did not attack us and
that we, we
could have worked
the U.N. procedures of weapons inspections to prove that there were no
weapons of mass
destruction. So it isn’t as though we’re fated to, to attack nations
whose leaders
get out of
control. The idea of a Department of Peace is you’re, you’re on the
ground early on
and you’re
seeing where the violence is percolating. That, that what we often find
is the
intervention comes
in long after just, you know, reams of data have appeared that indicate
you’ve
got a problem.
It’s like you have a small fire and you wait until it engulfs a
forest. Well, the
Department of
Peace would be there early on in finding ways of meeting those
difficulties that
are occurring. And
if nothing can be done, that’s what the United Nations ought to be
about. No
nation should take
it upon itself to become the enforcement mechanism for international
principles.
That’s what the U.N.’s about. That’s the only way we’re going to
have peace in this
world.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Let’s take a question that relates to this from one of our viewers.
This is a
member of the
World Affairs Council Betty Overhoff from Danville, CA.
Q: Hello. My name
is Betty Overhoff and I’m Contra Costs Chair of the World Affairs
Council. My
question is about North Korea. Do you view them as a possible threat to
the United
States, and if you do, how will you
handle this problem?
Rep. Kucinich:
When President Bush declared North Korea part of the Axis of Evil and
then he proceeded
to attack Iraq without any justification he created a North Korea a
problem for
the United States.
As President of the United States, I would meet with the North Korean
leaders and assure
them that we have no intention of attacking their county. I would ask
them to
give up any of
their ambitions for any kind of nuclear power. I would ask them to
understand
that as president
I intend to lead the way, to live by the tenets of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty
which called for
all the nuclear nations to get rid of their weapons and for the
non-nuclear
nations not to
develop weapons. The United States’ credibility is on the line through
the
presidency and as
president I would set aside the ambitions outlined in [the nuclear
posture]
review, for a
nuclear first strike and the development of new nuclear weapons. I’d
lead the world
in an effort to
abolish nuclear weapons. I’d provide comfort not only to the North
Koreans on
the security
issues, but I’d also provide comfort on the economic issues. North
Korea right now
is having
difficulty feeding its people. We need to make sure that they have the
resources so that
their people will
be fed. We also need to make sure that the ambitions of North Koreans
and
South Koreans to
reunify are not in anyway defeated because of the [re___ politic] of
American
foreign policy.
And so, I think that we can achieve a [reproach ________] with the, with
the
North Koreans and
I think that we can move in the direction which will lessen the kind of,
of
tensions which now
exist.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Can you talk quickly about the role of China, here, not only in relation
to
North Korea, but
Nick Christophe said in the New York Times the other day that the rise
of
China is the most
important fact in the world today, not just because China’s economy
is, is
taking away jobs
from, from others, but also their industrialization is creating enormous
environmental
difficulties. As president, what would you do about China?
Rep. Kucinich: I
remember meeting with a Chinese energy minister in Buenos Aires a few
years ago at the
Conference of Parties, the Global Climate Change talks and was talking
to him
about this new
development that’s going on in China and the damage to the environment
and one
of the things he
said, he said, well, you know, you’re not one to talk. We’re still,
our people are
still riding
around on bicycles. And I said, great idea. We, we need to recognize
that China has
been for quite a
while an emerging economic power and the United States needs to be in a
constant dialogue
with China. We also have to look at what our trade relations are in, in
effect
enabling China to
gain an enormous amount of strength through, you know, we have a $130
billion trade
deficient with China alone right now. And I think the, the lack of a
dialogue has
been created by
global corporations essentially setting the tone for what the, for the
exodus of
jobs out of this
country and for the growth of China. One of the first companies I had in
my
office after I got
elected to the Congress was Boeing who explained to me, they were
promoting,
they were asking
me to support most favored nation status for China and I, and in the
course of
the conversation
it was very clear that they were ready to provide prototypes to the
Chinese
government so they
could develop aircraft and that, you know, set the stage for, you know,
I
think a threat to
our ability to make what is really one of the biggest products that we
make in
this country:
airplanes. We need to be aware of what our economic needs are first in
this county.
I do not want to
see America go out of manufacturing. I think the maintenance of steel,
automotive,
aerospace, shipping, textiles, and agriculture are vital to our national
security. We
need a cooperative
relationship with China. But my administration will be about reviewing
the
most favored
nation status. We want trade with China but you know what everyone wants
access to our
market as well. And we have, as Lester Theroux has written, there has to
be some
correspondence
between what a nation sells from us and what they buy from us. So we
need a
more even
relationship with China. And also, on the issues of peace, I think the
Chinese will find
that I’ll be the
kind of president who will give them a sigh of relief, they won’t have
to go into a
huge arms race,
having to worry about an aggressive United States intent on expansion.
Mark Hertsgaard:
We’re about to run out of time. Let me ask you one last question. As a
reporter overseas,
foreigners often tell me, you Americans, when you elect your president,
you’re
not just electing
the President of the United States. You’re so powerful you’re in
effect electing
the President of
the World. How would you as president live up to that responsibility?
Rep. Kucinich: I
bring, and I will bring to the presidency, an holistic world view, a
view
of a world as one.
A world that is interconnected and interdependent. A world that is
linked not
only nation to
nation but heart to heart. And my presidency will be one which will
reach out to
embrace the
fullness and the diversity of the world, to let people know that America
is ready to
participate as a
nation among nations, not a nation above nations. The highest principles
and
aspirations that
our founders set forth for this nation are principles that we can share
with the
world to the
extent that countries are ready to embrace them. But for those who are
not, we need
to find a way to
have peaceful co-existence. And as the President of the United States, I
will
create an
affirmative culture of, of international law, by supporting not only
nuclear abolition but
by having the
United States sign the biological weapons convention, the chemical
weapons
convention, the
small arms treaty, the land mine treaty. America will join the
international
criminal court. We
will sign the Kyoto Climate Change treaty. We will participate in a
global
effort to meet the
problems of AIDS. We’ll work to achieve the treaty with, the [SEDAR]
treaty,
affirming the
rights of women and children. It’s through an American leader who’s
ready to
recognize the
importance of an affirmative structure of international law and
cooperation, that I
think we can be
about the beginning of a new era of peace in the world. And I’m ready
and I’m
up to that
challenge.
Mark Hertsgaard:
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, thank you very much for joining us.
Rep. Kucinich: Thank you.
Mark Hertsgaard:
You know, during this campaign just about every candidate has said that
this election is
really about listening to the American people, hearing their ideas and
answering
their concerns. In
the end, that’s what should decide who ends up in the White House.
That’s all
we have time for.
I’d like to thank Representative Kucinich for joining us. I’d also
like to thank
the citizens
groups who participated with us. You can learn more about all of these
groups at our
Web site, www.LinkTV.org.
And you can read about this program in full transcripts online at
Salon.com. I’m
Mark Hertsgaard in San Francisco, for the People’s Voice, thanks for
joining us.
Background
What if you could
sit down with each of the presidential candidates for an hour to ask
them hardhitting
questions about
issues that real people care about? Link TV is doing just that with its
new series, THE
PEOPLE’S VOICE — one hour, in-depth, interviews with presidential
candidates. From
Iowa farmers to environmentalists to the nation’s newest voters, Link
TV is
putting the people
back in the electoral process by linking the candidates with the
nation’s
leading citizen
activist groups and membership organizations. The first edition of THE
PEOPLE’S VOICE features Rep.
Dennis Kucinich.
An election series
unlike any other on national television, THE PEOPLE’S VOICE promises
to
mobilize the
mobilizers and activate the activists by enlisting the people most
involved in
making this country a
better place.
Journalist Mark
Hertsgaard, the host of THE PEOPLE’S VOICE and Link TV’s
political
correspondent, has
a national reputation for probing deeper. His hard-hitting journalism
has
appeared in The
New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Time, The Washington Post, and many other
publications
around the world. He is the author of five books, including most
recently “The
Eagle’s Shadow: Why America
Fascinates and Infuriates the World” (Picador).
Partnering citizen
groups are being encouraged to organize “house parties” across the
country,
where viewers
watch and participate in the interviews. Throughout each program,
banners
appear on the
bottom of the screen giving viewers many other ways to get involved in
the
electoral process,
from registering to vote to volunteering for a candidate’s campaign to
joining
one of the
collaborating citizen groups.
Funding for the
THE PEOPLE’S VOICE is provided by The Shei’rah Foundation and Link
TV
viewers.
About Link TV:
Founded in 1999,
Link TV is the first U.S. network offering a global perspective on news,
current events and
culture, presenting viewpoints seldom covered in the U.S. media. In
fact, 95%
of the station’s
first-run documentaries on global issues have never before been shown in
the
U.S.
Link TV is seen
nationwide via satellite broadcast on DIRECTV Channel 375 and on DISH
Network channel
9410 and is accessible to more than 21 million households, one out of
every
five, in the U.S.
Link’s programming, combined with its innovative use of two-way
digital link-
ups and a
participatory web site, deepens audience engagement and encourages
active
participation.
Link TV is a national non-commercial channel funded by viewer
contributions and
grants from major
foundations. For complete program scheduling and Internet streaming, go
to
http://www.linktv.org
About Salon.com:
Founded in
November 1995 by David Talbot, Salon.com (NASDAQ:SALN) is an Internet
company that
produces 8 original content sites as well as two online
communities—Table Talk
and The WELL. The
content sites, updated daily or more frequently, include News and
Politics,
Opinion,
Technology & Business, Arts & Entertainment, Books, Sex, Life
and Comics.
About Participating Citizen Activist
Organizations:
The
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is the oldest and
broadest-based civil rights
coalition in the
United States. Founded in 1950, LCCR is currently comprised of more than
180
organizations
representing persons of color, women, children, labor unions,
individuals with
disabilities,
older Americans, major religious groups, gays and lesbians, and civil
liberties and
human rights
groups. LCCR works to effect meaningful legislation, policies, and
judicial
appointments, and
to ensure the proper enforcement of civil rights laws to unite us as a
nation
true to its
promise of equal justice, equal opportunity, and mutual respect.
The
National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) represents 34 grassroots
farm, resource
conservation, and
rural advocacy groups from 32 states, and works with farmers and others
to
preserve and
strengthen family farms.
The
United States Student Association (USSA) is the country’s
oldest and largest national student
organization, representing millions of students. Founded in 1947, USSA
is the recognized voice for
students on Capitol Hill, in the White House, and in the Department of
Education. USSA believes that education is a right and works on
building grassroots power among students to win concrete victories that
expand access to education at the federal, state, and campus levels.
WireTap
is the independent information source by and for socially
conscious youth that showcases
investigative news articles, personal essays and opinions, artwork and
activism resources that
challenge stereotypes, inspire creativity, foster dialogue and give
young people a voice in the
media.
The
World Affairs Council was founded in 1947 out of the interest
generated by the founding of
the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945. With over 10,000 members,
they are the largest international
affairs organization on the west coast. The Council hosts more than 200
events every
year with leading political and business leaders, academics,
journalists, and artists.
|
