Excerpts
JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Now it's time for our weekly analysis from Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Welcome, gentlemen.
MARK SHIELDS: Thank you, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And we're going to begin tonight with a debate in Congress yesterday over the extension of the Patriot Act.
The law was first passed in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and it granted law enforcement significant new surveillance tools in fighting terrorism. Opponents charge the law infringes on civil liberties.
Here's just a bit of last night's debate.
REP. LAMAR SMITH, R-Texas: S-990, PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise to reauthorize the existing Patriot Act provisions for another four years. By doing so, Congress is ensuring that critical intelligence will be collected and terrorist plots will be disrupted.
REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: When we last considered these expiring provisions, it was to extend them temporarily, so that the House could review them and consider whether to improve them or allow them to expire.
These three provisions dealing with roving wiretap authority, expansion of the definition of an agent of a foreign power to include so-called loan wolves, and Section 215, which allows governments to obtain business and library records using an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, instead of the normal methods, have aroused a great deal of controversy and concern, and rightly so.
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, R-Wis.: These three provisions have stopped countless attacks and play a critical role in helping ensure law enforcement officials have the tools they need to keep our country safe.
The death of Osama bin Laden proves that American intelligence-gathering is vital to our national security. The fight against terrorism, however, didn't die with bin Laden, and neither did the need for the Patriot Act.
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-Ky.: You don't have to give up your liberty to catch criminals. You can catch criminals and terrorists and protect your liberty at the same time. There is a balancing act. But what we did in our hysteria after 9/11 was, we didn't do any kind of balancing act. We just said, come and get it. Here's our freedom. Come and get it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The reauthorization of the act cleared both houses of Congress with bipartisan majorities, and President Obama signed it into law last night.
And now to Mark and David.
So, David, it passed, but it was at the last minute. There was this -- a little bit of an uproar over it. What do you make of that?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes. If you cover politics on the campaign trail, the Patriot Act is extremely unpopular, and can -- people running for office rail against it.
Once they get in office, especially those in charge of the national -- nation's security, they tend to support it. So, I assume, once they get in office and they understand what it's doing behind the scenes, they tend to think it's probably a good idea.
And this is what's happened to President Obama. It's what's happened to most people who are privy to how it actually works.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, a lot of Democrats don't like it, and some Republicans don't like it.
MARK SHIELDS: You're right, Judy. The Democrats' argument is that, oh, we're confident that President Obama will be more solicitous and careful about civil liberties than his predecessors. That may be comforting, but it's also a rationalization from what the Democrats' position has been, as Jerry Nadler, the congressman from New York, expressed in the piece.
And I think the indispensable part that intelligence played in the capture and -- of Osama bin Laden probably strengthened the case for the Patriot Act's -- Patriot Act's reinstatement. And I would say intelligence remains the cornerstone of the exit strategy from Afghanistan and to Iraq to a considerable degree. And I think that neutralized some of the opposition.
---- on Medicare
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, as David said, more Republicans.
All right, let's bring it home and talk about politics in this country. There was a congressional -- a special election in a congressional district, New York State's 26th District, where we saw the Democrat win, in part, David, by going after the Republican for embracing the Paul Ryan Medicare proposal.
What -- are there lessons from this? Is it a one-time deal or what?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I don't think it's a one-time deal. If you ask Americans, do you think Medicare should be cut to help trim the deficit or trim the debt, 78 percent say, no, don't touch Medicare. So, Medicare is pretty popular.
When Barack Obama cut it by $400 billion or $500 billion as part of health care, Democrats -- Republicans went after him for death panels and all the rest. Paul Ryan and the Republicans went after it. And the Democrats have gone after them for ending Medicare. Both those charges are more or less untrue.
Nonetheless, they struck a chord because people want to keep their Medicare. And so, to me, the depressing thing is not a partisan thing, is just the lesson for both parties is never touch Medicare, never touch Social Security, don't touch it.
And that would be fine if we could afford it. The problem is we can't afford that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And we heard -- in fact, Bill Clinton, former President Clinton, told Gwen Ifill (Newshour) this week in an interview that the Democrats have to be careful about assuming from the results of this election that they can get away with doing nothing about Medicare.
----
DAVID BROOKS: I do think that is the lesson. The Republicans are telling themselves, this year, it's different. This year the people are so disgusted by the debt they want us to be serious.
And so what they effectively did was, they saw a line of battlements and a field of 400 yards with no cover, and they ran straight at it. And they get mowed down. And so I think a lesson for the Republicans has to be, do something more crafty. Don't just run straight at it.
On Medicare, what the voting public is REALLY saying is PAY FOR IT. This also applies to Social Security. The public is coming to the realization that if they want Medicare and Social Security as is, it MUST be paid for = higher taxes. There is "no free lunch."
My suggestion, EVERYONE who has taxable income should pay into Medicare and Social Security without exceptions. These are social contracts to all Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment