Charles Rangel, successor to Adam Clayton Powell, will be the new chairman of the House Ways and Means committee.
He eloquently skewers both the anti-health care crowd and the reporter.
Here are his comments.
Listening to NPR's interview with
Charles Rangel this morning was refreshing.
The interview starts of with some snide poofy stuff and then moves on to an homage to Adam Powell.
Rangel then talks about the old, crippled and poor and concludes "We should say, not in our country".
Steve Inskeep:
He will be under pressure, though, to help the poor constituents he speaks for, without hurting the economy
Rangel:
I have admit that I have more new friends in the corporate world than I had before, in the minority.
And I have to ask them, as we talk about trade, do they realize that they are competing against people from countries that pay for the education of the workers, they get their own health insurance paid, and that in our country they have to bear that burden? Isn't that unfair? That automobile manufacturers say they pay more in health insurance than they do in steel?
I want the companies to be on my side and to understand that an investment in what I was talking about before is an investment in the workforce, an investment in the country that supports them.
Then Steve Inskeep asks Rangel "even if it means higher taxes"? Rangel responds that there are thousands of items in the tax code that were put if for political reasons and not economic reasons. The tax code is so bloated that the IRS estimates they cost 350 Billion per year in revenue.
Rangel observes that the code could be streamlined a bit.
Inskeep:
What you mean is that some peoples taxes will go down and some peoples taxes will up down?
Rangel:
Oh my god. What an honest question I must say.
Yes, of course. You cannot deal with any complex legislation, let alone trade, social security, tax reform, without having winners and losers. During the campaign, the President and Vice-President made a big deal that, my being honest and saying everything is on the table, there goes Rangel again, he said tax increases on the table.
I accept the political rhetoric. I was being responsible, they were being totally political. But the campaign is over, and I have every reason to believe that they dare not talk that way again.
We can show the Congress and the country that Republicans and Democrats on the Ways and Means committee can and are anxious to work together in a bipartisan way. And only until we've established that working relationship and that trust, can we even start thinking about tax reform, social security, or medicare.
Inskeep:
Can you think of one of President Bush's tax cuts of the last several years that will definitely stay, as long as it is up to you, which it very well could be?
Rangel:
What could stay?
Inskeep:
Yeah, you've been asked about what might go away, that maybe some will, maybe some won't. Is there a tax cut that is so good that you will not touch it?
Here, Rangel skewers Inskeep
I though you were gonna be one of those responsible reporters, but you just couldn't resist a loaded question. But we'll go back to when you were responsible, and say this: If I, as chairman of the committee, working with the senior Republicans and were to say, we've got to handle the question of tax reform, I couldn't say "I want reform but I don't want you to touch certain things." Or "I want reform, but one damn thing has to go, and you can depend on that". I suspect that my Republican friend would say "I feel the same as Rangel do, this is my list". And then the guy down the line would say, "I go along with both of you. You're senior, but these are things I have too". And then where the heck are we? You gotta have 52 cards in the deck. You just can't pull out the ones you like and say you want a reform.
So Rangel has reality squarely in his sights. It will take honest brokerage.
And we will have to wait to see what the Republicans do.
In the meantime, remember, all those Republicans who are against health care for all citizens are wrong on two counts:
1. Its anti-business and reduces our competitiveness in the global economy, forcing jobs to go overseas.
2. Its contrary to the Progressive mantra of "Liberty, Equality and Justice for All."