TONY COX, host:
From NPR News, this is News & Notes. I'm Tony Cox. President Barack Obama says he'll sign a $410 billion spending bill but says earmark reforms are in the works. Plus, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke says, fix the banks to save the economy. And when should President Obama move his focus from domestic to foreign policy? Joining me now to discuss this week's political stories, Mary Frances Berry, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, and Robert Traynham, the D.C. bureau chief for the Comcast Network, CN8. Robert, Mary, nice to have you.
Professor MARY FRANCES BERRY (History, University of Pennsylvania): Hello, Tony, thanks for having me.
COX: Let's begin with this, the Senate voting to pass the $410 billion spending bill that includes thousands of controversial earmarks. Robert, one of the sticking points, as we say, are those earmark projects. But here's my question, the president is justifying allowing these projects although he spoke out very vociferously against them during his presidential campaign. As you know, earmarks are part of the infrastructure of Congress. Can he really reform this process?
Mr. ROBERT TRAYNHAM (D.C. Bureau Chief, Comcast Network, CN8): He can try, as every president has tried to do. He can campaign as every presidential campaign has tried to do, which is to say no more earmarks, they need to go to the proper appropriation channel. They should not be insert into the budget in a line item. But, you know, what I find interesting about all of this, Tony, is that all throughout the presidential campaign, the Obama campaign and the president himself, now President Obama, has said, I will not sign earmarks into law. They have to go to the appropriate appropriation channel. And here he is, signing a legislative bill that has earmarks in it. Now of course, the Obama spin is, is that this is leftover business from the Bush administration. That's disingenuous. It's technically correct, yes. This is leftover business from the previous administration. However, he is now in control, and the Democrats are in control obviously of the House and the Senate, so he does have the power to tell the Democrats give me a clean bill, scrub this bill clean, send me a bill that is clean. He didn't do that.
COX: Maybe he has that - go ahead, Mary. Does he had that power?
Prof. BERRY: Well, you know, with all due respect, I think that all of what Robert said is true but it's probably irrelevant. The point is that a campaign is a campaign. He's also served in the Congress, and he knows how important earmarks are to legislators. And legislators insert earmarks at the behest of their people who vote for them and give them campaign contributions. And in fact, there's no way to stop them. Also if you're president, you don't like earmarks because you would like to be in control of what's in the budget and how the money is spent. If you're Congress, you want to have some say-so representing the people in your districts. Also the reforms of, to saying openly what they are, putting them on the Web sites and the like will be fine. Most earmarks, in fact, go for non-profits and for universities and all kinds of places for important things. And there's no way legislators are going to give them up, and I think Obama understand that, which is why he said that all earmarks are not bad.
COX: Well, they certainly have a process. In fact, some of the Democratic leadership has already posted some of the new requirements that they are going to try to get in place, having, for example, members to post all of their request online, certify that there's no financial interests, having executive review, so on and so forth. One last thing on the earmarks. Actually, Robert, not just the earmarks, the budget itself or the spending bill itself has some other concerns, does it not, ecause of people like the chairs of the Senate and the House of finance and budget committees and people like Charlie Wrangle Ways and Means and Henry Waxman over at Energy and Commerce with regard to whether or not they are willing to give up some of their interest for the interest of the spending bill.
Mr. TRAYNHAM: You're absolutely correct, Tony. You know, just to go back, just very quickly, this is not about earmarks per se. It's about the process. And understanding in the grand scheme of things that we are in an economic meltdown, and to the extent that you're going to ramrod a budget with earmarks out there - that's not a priority right now. And it should not be a priority. And the founders of our country put a process in place, i.e. the appropriations process for earmarks to go to the process. To answer your question specifically, you know, every signal member of Congress, particularly the chairman of jurisdiction, they need to prioritize, they need to scratch their heads and say, you know what, this is not a priority but this is a priority. And it seems like, as Mary have said a few moments ago, that every member of Congress is looking out for their own best interest as oppose to the country's best interests as a whole.
COX: Now Mary, staying with money and finance, the Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke spoke out yesterday, saying that in order for the economy to recover the financial system needs to be stabilized. And in the speech, he diagnosed the root of the economic crisis as, in his words, banks that are considered too big to fail, and ad hoc financial structures among other things. So here's my question, isn't this kind of analysis from the Fed chairman a little late? AIG has already been bailed out, among others. Isn't this the kind of advice that should have preceded the bailout?
Prof. BERRY: Right. All of his advice is late. The things he said about regulating credit swaps and derivatives and all of that, all of that is - these are things that should've been done before and weren't. And now we're in this mess and here's - well, here's the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that if you try to change the way financial institutions do business they don't like it because to do business, they're in the business of trying to make money and they don't like restraint. They want the money from the Feds but in fact, if you interfere with capitalism and the free enterprise way that they do things, who knows what'll happen. And the government doesn't want to nationalize them and people are getting impatient. We're giving the money over and over again to bail them out without any rules or regulations. So you've have a conundrum there, which as long as the administration is in the business of trying to nationalize anything, the banks feel - and the insurance companies and the like, the non-bank financial institutions - that they can keep asking for money and they can keep functioning, and they can hold off the regulation.
COX: When is the end game, Robert?
Mr. TRAYNHAM: That's a million dollar - that's the billion dollar question. No one knows exactly when this is going to end. Look, the Federal chairman is stuck between a rock and a hard place because if he said something before the curve, then everyone's going to react to that and say that he's trying to create a panic. When he responds after the curve, they're saying he's too slow and he's not really relevant. So, you know, he has to very careful to what he says because obviously his words have weight. One can make the argument even more weightier than the president when it comes to economic terminology. But what is the bottom? When are we going to stop this hemorrhaging? When are we going to start moving forward and stop spinning our wheels? No one knows the answer to that question, Tony.
COX: All right. Let's move on to foreign policy in the time that we have left. President Obama on Monday said that the United States should consider reaching out to members of the Taliban in Afghanistan to bring it in to tensions there. A similar tactic has been tried with the Sunni militants in Iraq. My question, Mary, for you is former members of the CIA have warned against this. What do you say?
Prof. BERRY: I say that - good luck. The Afghanistan is not Iraq. That's the first thing. And we're seeing in recent days that what's going on in Iraq, there's still violence and there's still dissidence and there's still a need for military. But I think its worth a try if they think that they can do this. I had hoped that Obama would deal with other foreign policy issues, the crisis in Darfur, for example, by this time. I was disappointed to see that he has now kept the same rule for Haitian refugees that keep them out of this country, instead of putting them in the same position as refugees from other places in Latin America. I was hoping he would deal with these issues. But on Afghanistan, the tough problem is that no one ever has won in Afghanistan who's tried. Any Western government, and even the Soviet Union didn't win. And so reaching out might be OK, but the problem is who to reach out to? There are too many different tribes who have their own disagreements with each other. But, good luck.
COX: You know, what about relations, Robert, with Iran and Pakistan? Because with Iran especially, there seems to be some difference of opinion in how the president and the secretary of state want to deal with Iran's nuclear program. Obama seems to want talks. Clinton seems to suggest that that isn't necessarily a tenable way to go.
Mr. TRAYNHAM: You know, Tony, I remember during the primaries when Senator Clinton was - then Senator Clinton was debating Senator Obama, they had this conversation about Iran. And Senator Clinton said massive retaliation, if in fact Iran was to get a nuclear weapon and they were to fire it first or first strike, Senator Obama kind of hesitated a little bit and said, you know what, we have to have a carrot and stick approach. We have to engage our enemies. And a lot of people, Republicans and even some Democrats, literally jumped down his throat and said that was very naive thinking. So, it's very interesting to fast forward to today that President Obama is now in power, and he's willing to reach out. But I agree completely with Mary. Who do you reach out to? Are these people rational? Do they have the same interest that you have, which is world peace? Now, granted that was on the context of Afghanistan, but I would actually make the argument that's also in the same context for Iran as well.
COX: Let's end the conversation with this. We've got about 45 seconds or so for your answer, Mary, a little closer to home. Part of that $410 billion spending bill includes a lifting of travel restrictions to Cuba. That's interesting, isn't it?
Ms. BERRY: I think it's great, I think it's about time, and I think that the best way to deal with Cuba is to let as many people who want to go there, go there, as many people who want to trade, trade there. And many Cubans, even in Miami, Cuban-Americans are no longer willing to support the old policy of embargo. So, I was happy to see that and I would just like to see more of the restrictions removed.
COX: You think it's the beginning of a new paradigm - really quickly - Robert?
Mr. TRAYNHAM: I think it's the beginning of, perhaps, the president hitting a beehive and hoping to God that he does not get stung. The question becomes - and I disagree with Mary on this. And the question becomes as whether or not there are Cuban-Americans in Florida truly do believe that this is the right policy. Some of the polling data that I have seen, that's not the case.
COX: Alright. And he also, by the way, is going to be going to Turkey to talk there. So, we'll begin to see more perhaps of our new president's foreign policy in the days and weeks ahead. Mary, Robert, thank you both very much.
Mr. TRAYNHAM: Thank you.
Ms. BERRY: Thank you, Tony.
COX: That was Mary Frances Berry, professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania and the former chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. And Robert Traynham, the D.C. bureau chief for the Comcast Network CN8, host of "Roll Call TV," and a professor at George Washington University. He joined us from our NPR headquarters in Washington D.C.
Copyright © 2009 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.