TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century / TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO / 1990 / 92 / apr_jun / 0406103.000 next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-02-27 | 10KB | 215 lines

<text> <title> (Apr. 06, 1992) Interview:Warren Rudman </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Apr. 06, 1992 The Real Power of Vitamins </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> NATION, Page 20 Why Washington Doesn't Work </hdr> <body> Republican Senator Warren Rudman is quitting because even though politicians know what to do about the nation's problems, they are afraid to lead By Nancy Traver/Washington and Warren Rudman Q. You're considered one of the most influential, effective Senators. Why are you retiring? A. I am very frustrated with the inability of Congress to accomplish a great deal. Congress is not addressing fundamental issues. The one I've talked about the most is the deficit, and the fact that we are about to enter an era of annual $400 billion to $500 billion deficits, which will truly wreck the country. I mean, we will be facing a situation at the end of this century that will be not very pretty to look at financially. We will have foreign governments in a position to dictate terms and conditions of money they will loan us. Interest rates will go higher. The economy will be seriously impaired. The standard of living will decline. And this Congress just seems unable to deal with it. And quite frankly, the last several Administrations haven't either. Q. Why have Congress and the Administration been unable to address the nation's problems? A. It's a political fireball. These are very tough issues, because many of the retired people in this country truly believe that when we talk about means-testing social programs like Medicare and Social Security, we're talking about taking something away. Well, we are. But not from people who are in true need. But when you talk about it, everybody thinks you're talking about them. And the great example of that is the catastrophic-health bill. That was a good bill. All the newsmagazines and news programs talked about the disaster that befalls people when they have catastrophic illnesses. We did something about it. And we means-tested it and [made sure it was] paid for by the group that would use it and need it the most. And there was a fire storm over that. I'll never forget the pictures on television of [House Ways and Means chairman] Dan Rostenkowski having his car nearly tipped over in his district because elderly people were so angry they might have to pay a few hundred dollars a year. Q. But how do you address that? How do you take that on? A. We're going to have to get rid of that attitude in this country, and we're going to have to take some leadership positions. This country is running out of money, and then there will be draconian cuts that truly will hurt people if we don't get control of it now. Q. Are Congressmen and the President too concerned with being re-elected rather than taking on tough problems? A. Absolutely. We ought to tell [people] what the real facts are. We ought to do what we have to do, go home, and try to defend it. The worst thing that can happen to a politician is to get defeated. And I haven't heard too many people who love the life [in Washington] so much that getting defeated is like a death sentence. I mean, you're going home to your state, which probably is a much nicer place to live than Washington. But people here don't seem to want that; for reasons of ego, they've got to hold on to power. And frankly, I'm not sure the power is worth holding on to if what we're doing is bankrupting America. Q. But shouldn't voters demand more truth? A. Of course. The American people bear some share of the responsibility for being totally intransigent to any approach on reasonable means-testing of these programs. But quite frankly, we were elected to lead. And we ought to lead. Q. Do you think that the American people are tired of hearing politicians' platitudes, that they're ready to hear what you think they have to hear? A. Yes, I believe they are if the messenger knows how to project the message. Communication is difficult. In my 1986 campaign in New Hampshire, I did talk about these issues, rather directly. In fact, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget law passed just a year before my re-election. And I was elected with a very substantial majority, 60-some-odd percent of the vote. If you can't communicate to your constituency what the issues are, you probably ought not to be here. Q. Is your retirement related to protest votes for candidates like Pat Buchanan and Jerry Brown? Are people all over disenchanted with the political process and with business as usual in Washington? A. I'm not sure my retirement and those votes are related. But I can only tell you that the country is getting into real trouble, really going down the wrong track. We're getting to the point where the U.S. Treasury has to go out to borrow another $250 billion, and those who have the money will say, "Here are the terms and conditions that we're going to set to loan you that money." Now the fact is, that's exactly what the World Bank does with Third World countries. I can't imagine Americans visualizing that we're going to be in that kind of situation. It is a frightening prospect. Q. There appears to be a throw-the-bums-out attitude now. What's it all about? A. There's disaffection over relatively small things. With all due respect to the House banking scandal, in terms of its impact on the citizens of this country, that is zero. In terms of the judgment of some of the voters, it probably means that some members are not going to get re-elected, those who were truly abusers. But that has gotten more ink and more time on television than anything I can remember since the Keating Five case. However, in terms of its impact on the average American, it's a grain of sand in the desert compared with the deficit. Q. If you were to change the system to make it work better, what would you do? Would you take on campaign-finance reform? A. That's just plain bull. Our problems have nothing to do with the structure of the Congress. Listen, we know what to do. We could pass a bill tomorrow to fix our fiscal problems. A lot of us might get defeated when we did it, if we didn't explain it right. What's wrong is that if the Republicans take the lead, the Democrats will absolutely crucify us for it, and vice versa. So basically what has to happen is we've got to draw together in some way, or have one-party control of the country for a few years, and do what has to be done. Everybody knows what to do. We know how to do it. We're always afraid to do it. Q. Do you think, if we had one party in the White House, the House and the Senate, that taking on the nation's problems would be easier? A. I think the country would be better served if the American people stopped splitting the ticket and elected President Bush and a Republican House and Senate, and let us all do as a party what we want to do. Then if we really foul up, throw everybody out. Or if they want to elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, fine, do that. But let's have some accountability. Q. Then there's just too much partisan bickering going on? A. Oh, absolutely. We must get rid of this bickering and say, "This country is facing disaster." Let's put our sharp knives aside, and let's address it together. Let's not get into class warfare over taxing the rich vs. taking money away from the poor. Let's do what we all know has to be done: establish means-testing on the entitlement programs, which are essentially for the middle class of this country, not in a way that's going to impair them, but in a way that can control the growth of these programs. Everybody knows that. The Democrats know it. The Republicans know it. We are talking about the security of this nation. That is what frustrates me. And yet we don't seem to get people to address it. I believe we will do something about it. But will it be in time to avoid a lot of pain that we shouldn't have to endure? I've been fighting this battle for 12 years, and I'm not going to fight it anymore. Q. Would you say you've given up trying to persuade people to think of the long-term good of the country? A. Well, I've tried my hardest, but it is discouraging, very discouraging. I care deeply about the country. I think we've got enormous resources and very bright people, industrious people. But this government cannot continue to be as profligate as it's been and expect this country to succeed. We can't do it. We've got to take some political risks and risk some political careers. I'm not talking about people risking their lives, like in war. I'm talking about risking political careers. But the country is at stake, and we ought to do it. Q. You're not leaving entirely because of your frustration. Aren't you also tired of public service? Don't you want to be in the private sector? A. Yeah, that's part of it also. Well, you know, I've been in public life--between being an attorney general in New Hampshire, being in the military, being here--22 or 23 years. That's enough. Q. Is part of the reason you're leaving to make more money? A. That was never a consideration. As the senior Senator from New Hampshire, I'm privileged to sit behind Daniel Webster's desk. That's been my desk for a long time. If the Senate were engaged in the kind of debate and the kind of confrontational issues that it was in Webster's time, I never would have left. Daniel Webster was nearly bankrupt--in fact, I think he was--when he died. Money would never be a factor if we were doing things that were meaningful, important and exciting. But frankly, we're not. </body> </article> </text>