Transcript: John McCain on Meet the Press, March 29

(Source: NBC News’ Meet the Press)

MR. GREGORY:  Senator McCain, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ):  Thanks, David.

MR. GREGORY:  Very, very nice to have you here.

SEN. McCAIN:  Nice to be back.

MR. GREGORY:  You just heard Secretary Geithner.  What’s your level of confidence in him?

SEN. McCAIN:  Well, I have some confidence in him.  I think he’s very smart. And I hope that this new plan–which, by the way, I thought was well-described…

MR. GREGORY:  Good.

SEN. McCAIN:  …earlier–will work.  My preference would have been to go in and, you know, with stress testing these banks and go ahead and sell off the–take the toxic assets and sell them off, and then let the good asset banks continue.  But this proposal, I hope it works.  We all want it to work. But what I’m most worried about is laying a debt on future generations of Americans.  The, the multitrillion-dollar debts, unprecedented debts that we are–we are committing generational theft.  I’m confident that the economy will recover.  The question is after it recovers, what kind of a debt are we going to carry which will cause us to print money, inflation, and go through a worse wringing out than we went in the late 1970s and early ’80s?

MR. GREGORY:  And I want to ask you specifically about the debt in just a moment.

SEN. McCAIN:  Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY:  But more generally, in terms of fixing of the economy, fixing the financial industry, if you look at all of the programs that the government has now put in place, do you think they got the prescription right?

SEN. McCAIN:  Well, I hope they do with this plan.  I think the markets reacted well.  And I’m not an expert, but it seems to me that it gave us a little optimism that there was a plan that people could understand, that was coherent, that might lead us out of this mess that we are in.  So there was a great deal of incoherency for a long time, beginning with Secretary Paulson saying the TARP money would be used to…

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.

SEN. McCAIN:  …on the home loan mortgage crisis, and then switch to financial institutions.  And it seemed that every few days there was a target du jour, and that obviously eroded dramatically any confidence that Americans might have.

MR. GREGORY:  Do you think that the banks will need more government money, and would you be willing to support that?

SEN. McCAIN:  I would not unless I certainly saw a way that it would not be used the–as the first TARP money was.  I think that’s the general opinion throughout the Congress on both sides of the aisle.  There’s got to be more transparency.  You didn’t ask him, but the secretary of Treasury I understand will not reveal is how much money is left in TARP 1.  Don’t you think the American people should know that?  There–we still don’t have the transparency and oversight.

One other thing we need, we do need a select committee in Congress to look at what happened so people can–this train hit them without any knowledge.  They still don’t know what happened.  Why did it happen?  So then they would have some more confidence on, in what actions we might take in the future to prevent it from happening again.

MR. GREGORY:  And what is your take on the anger, the populist anger in the country?  Do you think it’s justified, or do you think it’s been overblown? Has the president showed leadership in standing up to it?

SEN. McCAIN:  I think the president was trying to walk a careful line between reflecting public anger–which is all justified.  It’s all justified, ranging from the extreme of Madoff to just outright greed and people who knew better. So I think he was trying to walk a fine line between rechanneling and reflecting anger, at the same time not bashing people that are innocent.  I think that, that what we need to do here is understand, too, that sometimes Congress overreacts.  I share all that anger.  My constituents share that anger.  It’s, it’s real, it’s palpable and it’s justified.  But bills of attainder, basically going back and taxing people for what they’ve already by contract earned or are going to earn, I think is a dangerous course of action as well.

MR. GREGORY:  Let me ask you for your assessment of your former opponent in the presidential race and now president, Obama.  This is what you said on election night.  Let’s watch.

(Videotape, November 4, 2008)

SEN. McCAIN:  I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  Have Republicans heeded that call, and do you think President Obama has heeded that call?

SEN. McCAIN:  I think neither side, perhaps, has done it as much as maybe we should.  But you establish an environment.  Really, bipartisanship is sitting down across a table from each other and negotiating, recognizing there’s got to be compromise.  And in all due respect to the incoming administration, the speaker said, “We won.  We wrote the bill.” There was never any serious negotiations over the stimulus package, over the omnibus spending bill.  Now there doesn’t seem to be any on the budget.  Those are all party line votes. There’s not the negotiations.  And I–look, I’ll take blame on our side for maybe not being more forthcoming, but really the president does beat the drum and sets the pace.  And so far there has not been not an instance where they sat down across the table and said, “OK, what do you want?  What are you demanding here?  What do you think is best?” And including some of those concerns as we come–as we move forward with really large, encompassing packages about the future of this country.

MR. GREGORY:  Instead, the administration has…

SEN. McCAIN:  I–could I say–could I just also say, though…

MR. GREGORY:  Yes.

SEN. McCAIN:  …on national security policy I think the president has done the right thing on Iraq.  We may get to it.  I think his proposal for Afghanistan, I might modify it a little, is good.  So I, I think in the area of national security policy there has been some working together.

MR. GREGORY:  And yet the White House says the Republicans have become the party of no.  Is that fair?

SEN. McCAIN:  Well, we did have an alternative to the stimulus package, we had an alternative to–on the omnibus bill.  We will have an alternative budget.  And so the–I, I understand the White House saying that.  But the White House, in order to have legitimacy to that charge, has got to give me one example where on a major issue we’ve sat across a table negotiating, each putting forth their proposals and reaching a compromise.  As far as I can tell, on any domestic issue that hasn’t happened.

MR. GREGORY:  Has the president been true to his word to change the way Washington operates?

SEN. McCAIN:  I think he’s trying.  I want to give him credit for trying.  I think this is early in his administration.  I don’t think we should make judgments.  There’s no doubt this president has as great a challenges as any president ever has in the history of this country, certainly amongst the top three or four.  So let’s continue to work to, to try to make him succeed.  I believe the role of loyal opposition is loyal to the country, yet opposition where we disagree on principles and philosophy.  That makes for vigorous debate.  Could that debate be more respectful?  Yes.

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.  Earlier this month you took to the floor on that spending bill over earmarks, and you were quite upset about it.  This is what you said.

(Videotape, March 2, 2009)

SEN. McCAIN:  I just went through a campaign, Mr. President, where both candidates promised change in Washington; promised change from the wasteful, disgraceful, corrupting practice of earmark, pork-barrel spending.

So what are we doing here?  Not only business as usual, but an outrageous insult to the American people.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  You made it very clear, in that instance the president had not been true to his word.

SEN. McCAIN:  The president said he’d go line by line over any appropriations bill and get rid of those that are unnecessary.  All he had to do was veto that bill, send it back and say, “No more earmarks.  None of this stuff now while the American people can’t keep their jobs, can’t–don’t have health care, all, all the challenges we’re facing.” One point seven million dollars for pig odor research, on and on and on.  But the practice–the reason why I sounded as upset and I am as upset, because it’s not just wasteful spending, it’s not everything I just said, it’s also corruption.  A senior staff member of the Appropriations Committee just pled guilty in federal court.  A lobbying outfit was shut down and the FBI investigated it.  I mean, there’s former members of Congress in federal prison.  And we need it now, we need the confidence and trust of the American people as never before.  Instead, on this earmarking, pork-barrel spending, it’s business as usual.  And someone will come on here and say, “It’s only a small amount of money, only a few billion dollars.” I just don’t buy that and I don’t think Americans do, either.

MR. GREGORY:  On the economy, I don’t have to remind you, during the campaign you said, as this financial crisis was really unraveling, as the economy was taking a dive, that the fundamentals of the economy were strong.  You were criticized as being out of it, not getting it, not understanding the economy. And yet just a couple of weeks ago this was the president in the Oval Office. Watch.

(Videotape, March 13, 2009)

PRES. OBAMA:  If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, then we’re going to get through this.  And I’m very confident about that.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  What did you think when you saw that?

SEN. McCAIN:  I think we’re in agreement.  I think what the president is saying now, and it’s needed to be said to the American people, that we have the best workers, we’re the most innovative, we’re the most productive.  We still have the fundamentals of a very strong economy.  And we need some confidence to get, to get through this.  We need–that’s part of, of the recovery.  So I’m glad we’re in agreement.

MR. GREGORY:  In the, the campaign, you think that criticism was unfair?

SEN. McCAIN:  Life isn’t fair.  We all know that.

MR. GREGORY:  Let’s move on to the budget and the deficit picture that you referenced just a moment ago.  The Washington Examiner reported this this week:  “Last week in a little-noticed conference call featuring Budget Director Peter Orszag…[Orszag was asked:] Are those deficits sustainable? Relenting, Orszag said such deficits, in the range of 5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, `would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable.’ The simple version of that is:  If the Congressional Budget Office projections are correct, we’re headed for hell in a handbasket.” How concerned are you that, with the goals the administration has for spending on major programs, they’re going to have to raise taxes?

SEN. McCAIN:  Well, that’s always the inevitable result of increasing spending and increasing the size of government.  They’ve earmarked $634 billion for cap and trade; by the way, a betrayal of everything I’ve ever believed in about cap and trade, which I’m a supporter of.  They, they have earmarked or budgeted for hundreds of billions of dollars in increases in spending in health care to bring down the cost of health care.  So my great worry, my great worry is the trillions.  The $10 trillion we already owe, the $1 trillion or $2 trillion that the Chinese now own.  The Chinese comments about a world currency and their complaints about our fiscal policies concern me.  The–you know, there’s only one thing worse than, than the Chinese owning a lot of American debt, and that is Chinese stop buying American debt.

MR. GREGORY:  Is that a real fear in your mind?

SEN. McCAIN:  Oh, I think it’s of a concern.  I don’t think in the short term.  But we’ve got to get our fiscal house in order.  We were talking about the party of saying no.  Our proposal on the stimulus package was once this country reaches a 2 percent increase in GDP, inflation adjusted, then we’d be on an automatic spending reduction path.  We’ve got to get the spending under control.  And the old line about deficits as far as the eye can see is, is now so large that it staggers the imagination.  And it can’t continue.  No country can continue to do this.

MR. GREGORY:  During his press conference on Tuesday, the president pushed back a bit.

SEN. McCAIN:  Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY:  This is what he said.

(Videotape, Tuesday)

PRES. OBAMA:  I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory.  Because as I recall, I’m inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit from them.  That would be point number one.

Now, none of us know exactly what’s going to happen six or eight or 10 years from now.  Here’s what I do know.  If we don’t tackle energy, if we don’t improve our education system, if we don’t drive down the costs of health care, if we’re not making serious investments in science and technology and our infrastructure, then we won’t grow 2.6 percent, we won’t grow 2.2 percent.  We won’t grow.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  The response?

SEN. McCAIN:  Well, first of all, let me say he was inheriting about half of what he described until we added the spending.  Second of all, no…

MR. GREGORY:  This new round of spending from, from last year.

SEN. McCAIN:  Yeah.  No, no nation can spend this way and get out of it without debasing the currency and us returning to a period that we had in the late ’70s and the early ’80s where we had inflation, a high unemployment and higher taxes, because it, it–you can’t do it.  And so I hope that the president’s next objective will be to work on this deficit.

MR. GREGORY:  Do you think that Republicans should provide a detailed budget alternative?

SEN. McCAIN:  Yes.

MR. GREGORY:  With numbers?

SEN. McCAIN:  Yes.

MR. GREGORY:  Will that happen in the Senate?

SEN. McCAIN:  We’re working on it, working very hard on it.

MR. GREGORY:  And the, the key elements of it would be what?

SEN. McCAIN:  Well, obviously less spending, obviously more restraints, obviously not having $630 billion for “revenues from cap and trade.” By the way, that’s cap and tax, that’s not cap and trade.  The other spending restraint measures that would–that have to be taken.  We’ll, we’ll–we’re working on it very hard.

MR. GREGORY:  Let me turn to the issue of Afghanistan.  The president has ordered 17,000 additional forces to go to Afghanistan and announced on Friday 4,000 additional, so a total of 21,000.  Those 4,000 additional would specifically help police and Afghan forces.  This is the threat that the president described on Friday.

(Videotape, Friday)

PRES. OBAMA:  The situation is increasingly perilous.  Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.  And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  Does this strategy have it right when it comes to preventing that sort of outcome?

SEN. McCAIN:  I believe so.  As you know, and is well-known inside the Beltway in this town, there was a big debate in the White House over–and the administration–over a minimalist approach, send a few more troops, kill some bad guys and then get out as quick as you can.  I think this–the outlines of this proposal are good.  The best way to get out of Afghanistan fast is people to think we’re staying.  We have to more than double the size of the Afghan army.  We have to–I, I would have announced that 10,000 additional that have been requested would have been sent.  There’s several other changes.

MR. GREGORY:  You think more troops are necessary, as you did in Iraq.

SEN. McCAIN:  I know they are.  I know they are.  And the main thing I would have done in that speech, I’m sorry to say, tell the American people it’s going to be long and hard and tough.  And as these additional troops come in and we move into the south, which we do not have control of, the southern part of Afghanistan, there’s going to be an increase in casualties.  You’ve got to prepare the American people for a significant expenditure of American blood and treasure.  I think the president laid out the threat very well.

MR. GREGORY:  How do you define victory in Afghanistan?

SEN. McCAIN:  The same way as in Iraq.  You have a governing place where al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations cannot base attacks on the United States and other–and our allies.  You have a government that functions ineffectively, but–I mean, with some effect.  You have an economy that’s growing.  You have normal trappings of emerging democracies as they move forward the difficult path towards a free and prosperous nation.  And this is complicated by Pakistan.

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.

SEN. McCAIN:  On the issue of Pakistan, we have to have a policy that’s oriented to Pakistan, not Afghanistan.  Pakistan’s a nuclear-armed country. It’s a huge country.  It’s an important country no matter what.  And we can–we need to work with Pakistan as much as possible, cooperate in those border areas in the problems and issues we all know about.  But the fact that we may not get as much help from Pakistan as we want because of their internal dynamics does not mean, necessarily, we don’t achieve success in Afghanistan. It does not mean that.  It mean–we can still succeed in Afghanistan and still have some of the difficulties that have in Pakistan.

MR. GREGORY:  It’s been suggested that the Taliban, which is now reconstituting itself primarily in Pakistan…

SEN. McCAIN:  Yes.

MR. GREGORY:  …to launch attacks into Afghanistan, that one of the ways to deal with them is to start negotiating with them…

SEN. McCAIN:  Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY:  …with those elements who are not as hard-core as, as other elements.  The vice president suggested this, the president alluded to this and Hamid Karzai is saying that that should be done.

SEN. McCAIN:  Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY:  Is that the smart thing to do?

SEN. McCAIN:  Well, it’s a smart thing to do as long as you–as these people believe that you’re not leaving and that you are not abandoning your goals as articulated by the president.  And by the way, we have problems with–in, in Iraq, and still do from Iran, from Syria.  And we didn’t invade those countries.  We were, we were able to achieve a strategy of success with those problems remaining.  And there’s no direct analogies.  There’s always difference in circumstances.  But I believe that we can succeed.  And the issue of Pakistan is vital not only because of Afghanistan, but because Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation we–with tensions with India, with all of the, the, the problems with democracy and corruption that they have there as well.  I think that Karzai’s comments about the president’s policy can be helpful.

MR. GREGORY:  I want to move on to a couple of other topics, including one that hits very close to home for you as an Arizona senator, and that’s this drug violence on the border with Mexico.  What is your assessment of the threat, and what should the United States be doing about it?

SEN. McCAIN:  I think it’s an existential threat to the government of Mexico. I applaud President Calderon.  He is the first president of Mexico to really take on the drug cartels.  The corruption level is very high there.  The violence will spill over into the United States of America.  It already has to some small degree.  The Merida Initiative of working and helping the Mexican government and law enforcement has been succeeding, but it’s a huge problem. It is–my hometown of Phoenix, Arizona, is now the kidnapping capital.  That’s got all to do with the drug cartels.  These coyotes, these smugglers of illegal immigrants.  And it, it argues for us to work as closely as we can with the Mexicans, and that job is to secure our borders.

MR. GREGORY:  Does that mean U.S. troops if necessary, National Guard troops?  What?

SEN. McCAIN:  Both the, both the governor of Texas and the governor of Arizona have asked for National Guard troops on the border.  I think we need them.

MR. GREGORY:  And what would they do?

SEN. McCAIN:  I think they would help with enforcement.  We simply don’t have enough now of boots on the ground.  I think they would help with the enforcement.  And obviously that would require additional training, but we could give it to them.

MR. GREGORY:  I want to, in our couple minutes left, ask you about, as you look back on your 2008 campaign and think about the Republican Party, the future of the party.  Mike Murphy, who of course worked for you in 2000 as a Republican strategist…

SEN. McCAIN:  Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY:  …was on the program on March 1st, and he talked about what has to happen for the party.  Listen to this.

(Videotape, March 1, 2009)

MR. MIKE MURPHY:  At the end of the day, here’s the one statistic we all got to remember:  The country’s changing.  Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 51 percent of the vote.  We all worship Ronald Reagan.  But if that election had been held with the current demographics of America today, Ronald Reagan would have gotten 47 percent of the vote.  The math is changing.  Anglo vote’s 74 percent now, not 89.  And if we don’t modernize conservatism, we’re going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, enjoying every, every applause line, ripping the furniture up.  We’re going to be in permanent minority status.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  Given that, assuming you agree, how does conservatism modernize itself?  How does the party get back to power?

SEN. McCAIN:  The party of ideas, party of inclusiveness, outreach to other ethnic aspects of the American electorate; in my part of the country especially, Hispanic voters.  We have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office.  We have to welcome new ideas.  And there are–you know, a lot of people complain about divisions within the Republican Party.  That’s good right now.  Let’s let a thousand flowers bloom.  Let’s have different clashes of ideas, sharing the same principles and goals.  Look, if we were having this show in 1982, Republican Party was dead.  1994, the Democratic Party was dead. Right now–there’s, there’s a great resilience in American politics, and I have–I’m very optimistic about the future of the Republican Party if we do the right things.

MR. GREGORY:  Speaking about the Hispanic vote, would you like to work on immigration policy with this president?

SEN. McCAIN:  At any time I stand ready, but the president has to lead.  The, the administration has to lead with a proposal.

MR. GREGORY:  Do you think they have that proposal, want to do that?

SEN. McCAIN:  They have not come forward with one yet.  They said that they are going to–I understand the president met with the Hispanic Caucus and he said he would have some forums and, and other things.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

SEN. McCAIN:  But they have not come forward with a proposal.

MR. GREGORY:  In terms of future leaders of the Republican Party, would you like to see Sarah Palin become president?

SEN. McCAIN:  I’d like to see her compete.  I think we’ve got some very good candidates:  Jon Huntsman and–the problem when I run down these names, I always leave, leave out a, a name–Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty.  There’s, there’s so many.  There’s a lot of good, fresh talent out there.

MR. GREGORY:  But would you support Palin?

SEN. McCAIN:  Oh, I’d have to see who the candidates are and, and what the situation is at the time.  But have no doubt of my respect, admiration and love for Sarah and her family.

MR. GREGORY:  This is your 54th appearance on MEET THE PRESS.  Now, I know you’re a competitive guy.  Bob Dole still holds the record at 63.  And so we’ve been doing the calculations here.  We think we can make this up, maybe within a year’s time.

SEN. McCAIN:  I’d love…

MR. GREGORY:  If you’re game for that.

SEN. McCAIN:  I’d love to try.  Thank you, David.

MR. GREGORY:  Senator McCain, thank you very much for being here.