STAFF: The following is an unrehearsed interview with Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley speaking to you live from Washington. Participating in today's public affairs program are Dave Vickers with KROS Radio in Clinton and Marge Warder with the Red Oak Express in Red Oak.
The first question will be from Dave Vickers.
QUESTION: Welcome, Senator. Glad you're able to visit with us for this session.
What I wanted to get your thoughts on the possibility -- some of the talk in Washington of reinstituting what has been known as the Fairness Doctrine, especially, covering broadcast outlets. Have you taken a stand on that yet?
GRASSLEY: Yes, I have. And it also is an issue that came up in a lot of my town meetings last week. And I would vote against reestablishing the Fairness Doctrine, and I suppose I ought to stop there.
But I think -- let me explain that maybe more than 20 years ago, maybe I would have supported it. What's different between then and now? Well, back then, a few AM stations, hardly any FM stations, we had three TV channels. And so there wasn't outlets for various opinions that people had.
And so maybe, as a matter of fairness, give people a shot at it. So now it's entirely different. We've got all these FM stations. We've got all the channels including news channels where all sorts of controversy can be talked about. There's no way that you can't get our opinion out that way.
And then don't forget, we've got the Internet. You've got Face Book. You've got MySpace. You've got Twitter, you know, and a lot of other things.
And so if you -- if you've got an opinion, you can get it out. And so making somebody else provide a vehicle for you to get your opinion out just because that person that does have a vehicle got their opinion out, is unwarranted taking his money and time and resources to help somebody else when they've got all sorts of opportunities to get it out.
QUESTION: Senator, this is Marge Warder at Red Oak Express, and I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you this morning, too. And I hope you're having a good day.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: I was wondering we're hearing an awful lot about our government becoming providers of health care and college for everyone and financial stability and all that kind of thing. And if we citizens and you, our government officials, all accept President Obama's plan that appear to look to the government for nearly everything, aren't we not only obligating future generations financially but also creating socialism as a form of government that we'll pass on to them?
GRASSLEY: Well, it's easy to quantify what you say because it's just a simple rule that every resource that the government takes and political leaders like those of us in Congress and the president make decisions to spend it, then it does two things. One, it takes decision making away from individuals and, number two, it makes things more political which is more socialistic based upon the proposition of the government running something or not.
Now, you know, if -- if this stimulus package is nothing more than a stimulus package and it ends at the end of two years, then I wouldn't say I would agree with you. But so much in this stimulus package and the reason I voted against it is based on the proposition that about half of the money being spent is going to be spent beyond the year 2010. And it does involve a lot of government decision making and interference within our economy.
And so, yes, it's something that I don't subscribe to, that's why I voted against it. And, you know, none of us are poor on the issue of government programs because we've voted for some government programs. But the extent to which government is going to get bigger and bigger and never get smaller -- but the way I try to measure policy is within our taking about what is a 40-year average -- about 18.3 percent of the gross national product into taxes.
Now, why do I settle on that? Well, a 40-year average, you've seen not -- you haven't -- we haven't had a lot of taxpayer revolt. They accept that level of expend picture. And, also, it hasn't hurt our economy, as you've seen our economy grow from one generation to the other doing better.
But if we kept on this path that we're on now and taxes go up automatically, as they will at the end of 2010 because that's when the 2001 tax relief expires -- and I was involved in passing that tax relief because I was chairman of the committee at that time -- then we're going to have 21 percent, 22 percent of gross national product. That 18 to 22 might not sound like much, but think in terms of that being 25 percent increase in the greater involvement in the government and it can grow and grow and grow.
And so, yes, I'm concerned about it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Senator, you mentioned the stimulus package. Is there any parts of it that you could agree to or what kind of a stimulus package would you have supported?
GRASSLEY: Sure. The tax provisions, I might have structured them a little better, but let's just say the way they were, not too bad. The spending during 2009 and 2010 that's going to be spent once and not be repeated, maybe buy into that, although, I would not have $87 billion for Medicaid when only $11 billion is needed because of the recession as just one example where I would change it.
But even that $87 billion, if it's not continued into 2010 and into the future is not something that I would argue with. But, as I indicated to Marge, it's the money that -- it's about half of the spending that goes beyond 2010.
And as I just came from a speech on the Senate floor, I said the stimulus was a platform for subterfuge to do through the stimulus package in two weeks what maybe wouldn't have gotten done through the more deliberate appropriation process that runs from April through September where you have to measure one priority against another. You have to pick and choose. It doesn't see to me like there's a lot of picking and choosing in this stimulus bill.
So let's say, basically, if that last -- that third section I just reported on hadn't been in it, maybe more Republicans could have voted for it.
QUESTION: I have another question here. In December, we had a local window and door manufacturers plant bought up by Rich Gillman (ph) and Investor Bill Smith. They came in promising that they'd the company and employ more workers. And as of this week, with less than three months after the takeover, our plant has been closed down here in Red Oak. As of tomorrow, the doors -- the locks on the doors are changing.
And they're leaving a lot of vendors with bills unpaid resulting -- and also resulting in the loss of over 100 jobs because of Gillman and Smith claiming that they have no obligation to pay anything after a week's farewell pay to the workers who have been here employed even up to 14 years.
And Rich Gillman and his wife were the presidents and owners of both our local company here and Republic Windows in Chicago that made all news right before Christmas. So my question is -- I know you can't inject consciousness into those who acquire wealth by buying and closing plants as they leave the little guy without employment or insurance or severance pay and that kind of thing, but what laws are in place or could you write that would make it criminal to practice abuse and agreed in business?
As I understand it -- and I think banks can do it, too, from what I understand -- that when a person or a business declares bankruptcy where there is no obligation to pay debts, they can continue to collect the payables and then they can sue those who protest their practices.
GRASSLEY: About the only place where you can pass laws is when there's fraudulent activity.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: That's about the only area you can legislate in. You have to ask would the company, if it hadn't been sold, run locally. Would it still be viable today?
QUESTION: Yes. And it would -- they were thinking about 14 million a year...
GRASSLEY: And why did they sell it? I thought maybe they sold it because there was a chance that maybe they were going beyond competitive.
QUESTION: Well, the parent company is TRACO out of Pennsylvania. And the sale happened very abruptly. They got a call here on December 3rd that the new owners would be in by 5:00 a.m. the next morning. And then they came in promises that they were going to be able to do all this expansion. Instead, they closed the business and they closed the business at Republic and, you know, in Chicago, too.
GRASSLEY: Hmm. You'd have to have fraud involved. That's about the only thing you can legislate against.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: All right.
GRASSLEY: OK. Back to Dave?
QUESTION: Senator, you mentioned early on some of the social networking sites as one way to get your views out. I noticed the other day you were mentioned as one of the top most influential people, I believe, on the site Twitter. What prompts a politician like you to use some of those social networking sites?
GRASSLEY: Well, mostly because I do most of my communication through BlackBerry. And you -- it's short messages you get out. And I can do it whenever I want to do it. I don't have to be sitting at my desk.
And it's just one more tool beyond the Internet or, I should say, mail, this radio program, et cetera, et cetera, Web site, Face Book, every way I can communicate to encourage participation in the governmental process and for me to get the opinions of people and to stir interest because representative government has to have two-way dialogue.
Thank you, Dave and Marge, for participating in today's public affairs program. This has been Senator Chuck Grassley reporting to the good people of Iowa.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: You bet.
QUESTION: Thank you, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Thanks to both of you for participating.