MODERATOR: The following is an unrehearsed interview with Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley speaking to you live from Muscatine. Participating in
today's public affairs program are Janelle Tucker with KMCH Radio in
Manchester and Butch Heman with the Carroll Daily Times Herald in
Carroll.
The first question will be from Janelle Tucker.
QUESTION: Hi, Senator. You voted this week against the final
passage of the stimulus bill. I was just wondering if you could give
your reasoning behind that.
GRASSLEY: Let's divide it into three or four parts. The tax provisions,
about 35 percent of it, mostly pretty good. I could have made it
better, but I'm not -- I could have voted for it based on it.
The second part is what you call stimulus. And any spending
that's shovel ready that we could get started within a few days this
year going into the next years and spend all that money in two years,
I wouldn't find too much fault with that approach. There might be
parts of it I wouldn't like, but I wouldn't vote against the bill if
it was strictly stimulus and strictly the tax provisions.
But the third part -- and I'll say the last part -- is more than
half of the spending goes beyond the year 2010, so it's not stimulus.
And I voted against it because I think it's wrong to use the excuse,
and legitimate excuse, of a stimulus which is needed to spend money
that wouldn't otherwise be spent unless it got through the
appropriation process to subvert that appropriation process and
consequently use stimulus for a platform to do a lot of things that
might not otherwise get done.
I think that's intellectually dishonest. More importantly, when
you're handling the taxpayer's money, it ought to be done in a
thoughtful process. And the appropriation process is much more
thoughtful than the stimulus process.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Senator, along that line, we've heard different
accounts of where this money is actually going to be coming from.
What have you heard?
GRASSLEY: Well, you only got two sources of money coming into
the federal Treasury. Either it's borrowed or it's taxed. And a
borrowed dollar doesn't look any different than a tax dollar. So when
you're running a deficit, you can surely say some or all it's going to
be borrowed with the idea that you get the -- it's necessary to do
that to get the economy jumpstarted.
Now, I wish I could promise you this was going to jumpstart the
economy. We sure hope so. I want Mr. Obama to do well because if he
does well with his policies, this country is going to do well. But I
can't guarantee that. And even you find some hedging by the
president.
So that's the sources of the money and, hopefully, it does the
good that's it's going to do and it justifies the borrowing that's
going to be done.
QUESTION: Senator, you mentioned you're on your way to a town
hall meeting and you've been holding a number of them this week. And
I know notice you will be in our area in Delaware County tomorrow
afternoon. What have been some of the big topics brought up by
constituents, and why do you feel that's so important to hold those
meetings each year?
GRASSLEY: Well, the last question is I'm part of the process of
representative government. In fact, I'm paid to make representative
government work. And you can't have representative government if you
don't have dialogue between those of us elected and those we serve.
So the purpose of the town meeting is for me to keep up with the
views of my constituents so I can better represent them in the
Congress of the United States.
The topics that have come up, probably every meeting, the
stimulus comes up. Health care reform, very little agricultural
issues, very little education issues. But a lot dealing with
immigration, transportation, health care -- I'm saying that twice
because it does play a prominent role in the discussions. And there's
probably a lot more and not everything comes up the same at every
meeting.
But the five or six things that I mentioned have come up at every
meet.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Senator, what's your assessment of the president's
first 3 weeks or so in office?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think he's been outperformed -- I mean, his
performance has been good. But as a party leader, he's let his
leaders of his party in the Democrat Party run away with the show.
He's the guy that has brought the show home, and he should have been
given more consideration.
And, for instance, on this business that I answered the first
question of spending different from stimulus, in particularly, the out
year spending. He has told the Democrat leaders on the Hill that that
additional spending is not going to be in his baseline for the year
2010 and '11. And if it isn't in the baseline, then that means that
we shouldn't be spending it now.
But Democrat leaders have just kind of thrown his point of view
on the side and done what they've been waiting to do for 30 years and
haven't had much of an opportunity to do in the last 30 years -- do
their own thing.
And they're thinking bigger spending than he is. Now, he may
turn out to be a big spender, right now, he appears to be kind of a
conservative -- relatively conservative. And he's been outperformed.
Then the only other thing I'll comment about it is his
appointments have run into a lot of trouble that if he had the vetting
process for appointments to his Cabinet that he bragged about he was
going to have, he wouldn't have had Geithner and Daschle paying a lot
of back taxes, and he would have more of his Cabinet people confirmed
by now.
Next?
QUESTION: From what I understand, you introduced legislation
last week, I believe, to help seniors and people with disabilities get
care at home. Can you explain that further?
GRASSLEY: Yes. It's -- it's a situation where if we can spend a
little more money for care at home, keep people in their homes longer
than going hospitals or nursing homes, you end up saving a lot of
taxpayer's money, particularly on Medicare and Medicare, and quality
of life at home, for most people, is much better than being in an
institution.
And if may sound tongue in cheek, but it's got a lot of truth to
it. I've never run into a single constituent who said I'm just dying
to get into a nursing home. So the idea is to save money and enhance
the quality of life of people; in most cases, seniors, but it doesn't
have to always be a senior.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: What's the operation, ideally, for that money to
improve the quality of care, Senator? What are you thinking for that?
GRASSLEY: Oh, well, it would be professional health people that
would go in to take care of people's immediate health care needs. But
it would also be things like that you might call home -- housekeeper
sort of duties, things -- maybe the occasional helping of preparation
of meals, changing beds, doing the laundry, things of that nature.
But -- so people can be in their home, but if they aren't capable
of doing everything that you have to do when you're living in your own
home, they get a little bit of help. But you can understand how
that's a lot cheaper than spending a day in a hospital bed.
Next?
QUESTION: All right. I have no further questions. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Back to you then in Carroll.
QUESTION: That's all for me, Senator.
GRASSLEY: OK. Then close it down.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Janelle and Butch, for participating in
today's public affairs program. This has been Senator Chuck Grassley
reporting to the people of Iowa.
GRASSLEY: Yes. And thanks, once again, to all of you. Thank
you very much.