Time - Man of the Year/Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso/moy/040692/0406103.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 10KB | 223 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 20

Why Washington Doesn't Work


Republican Senator Warren Rudman is quitting because even though
politicians know what to do about the nation's problems, they
are afraid to lead

By NANCY TRAVER/WASHINGTON and Warren Rudman


    Q. You're considered one of the most influential,
effective Senators. Why are you retiring?

    A. I am very frustrated with the inability of Congress to
accomplish a great deal. Congress is not addressing fundamental
issues. The one I've talked about the most is the deficit, and
the fact that we are about to enter an era of annual $400
billion to $500 billion deficits, which will truly wreck the
country. I mean, we will be facing a situation at the end of
this century that will be not very pretty to look at
financially. We will have foreign governments in a position to
dictate terms and conditions of money they will loan us.
Interest rates will go higher. The economy will be seriously
impaired. The standard of living will decline. And this Congress
just seems unable to deal with it. And quite frankly, the last
several Administrations haven't either.


    Q. Why have Congress and the Administration been unable to
address the nation's problems?

    A. It's a political fireball. These are very tough issues,
because many of the retired people in this country truly believe
that when we talk about means-testing social programs like
Medicare and Social Security, we're talking about taking
something away. Well, we are. But not from people who are in
true need. But when you talk about it, everybody thinks you're
talking about them. And the great example of that is the
catastrophic-health bill. That was a good bill. All the
newsmagazines and news programs talked about the disaster that
befalls people when they have catastrophic illnesses. We did
something about it. And we means-tested it and [made sure it
was] paid for by the group that would use it and need it the
most. And there was a fire storm over that. I'll never forget
the pictures on television of [House Ways and Means chairman]
Dan Rostenkowski having his car nearly tipped over in his
district because elderly people were so angry they might have
to pay a few hundred dollars a year.


    Q. But how do you address that? How do you take that on?

    A. We're going to have to get rid of that attitude in this
country, and we're going to have to take some leadership
positions. This country is running out of money, and then there
will be draconian cuts that truly will hurt people if we don't
get control of it now.


    Q. Are Congressmen and the President too concerned with
being re-elected rather than taking on tough problems?

    A. Absolutely. We ought to tell [people] what the real
facts are. We ought to do what we have to do, go home, and try
to defend it. The worst thing that can happen to a politician
is to get defeated. And I haven't heard too many people who
love the life [in Washington] so much that getting defeated
is like a death sentence. I mean, you're going home to your
state, which probably is a much nicer place to live than
Washington. But people here don't seem to want that; for reasons
of ego, they've got to hold on to power. And frankly, I'm not
sure the power is worth holding on to if what we're doing is
bankrupting America.


    Q. But shouldn't voters demand more truth?

    A. Of course. The American people bear some share of the
responsibility for being totally intransigent to any approach
on reasonable means-testing of these programs. But quite
frankly, we were elected to lead. And we ought to lead.


    Q. Do you think that the American people are tired of
hearing politicians' platitudes, that they're ready to hear what
you think they have to hear?

    A. Yes, I believe they are if the messenger knows how to
project the message. Communication is difficult. In my 1986
campaign in New Hampshire, I did talk about these issues, rather
directly. In fact, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget law passed
just a year before my re-election. And I was elected with a very
substantial majority, 60-some-odd percent of the vote. If you
can't communicate to your constituency what the issues are, you
probably ought not to be here.


    Q. Is your retirement related to protest votes for
candidates like Pat Buchanan and Jerry Brown? Are people all
over disenchanted with the political process and with business
as usual in Washington?

    A. I'm not sure my retirement and those votes are related.
But I can only tell you that the country is getting into real
trouble, really going down the wrong track. We're getting to the
point where the U.S. Treasury has to go out to borrow another
$250 billion, and those who have the money will say, "Here are
the terms and conditions that we're going to set to loan you
that money." Now the fact is, that's exactly what the World
Bank does with Third World countries. I can't imagine Americans
visualizing that we're going to be in that kind of situation.
It is a frightening prospect.


    Q. There appears to be a throw-the-bums-out attitude now.
What's it all about?

    A. There's disaffection over relatively small things. With
all due respect to the House banking scandal, in terms of its
impact on the citizens of this country, that is zero. In terms
of the judgment of some of the voters, it probably means that
some members are not going to get re-elected, those who were
truly abusers. But that has gotten more ink and more time on
television than anything I can remember since the Keating Five
case. However, in terms of its impact on the average American,
it's a grain of sand in the desert compared with the deficit.


    Q. If you were to change the system to make it work
better, what would you do? Would you take on campaign-finance
reform?

    A. That's just plain bull. Our problems have nothing to do
with the structure of the Congress. Listen, we know what to do.
We could pass a bill tomorrow to fix our fiscal problems. A lot
of us might get defeated when we did it, if we didn't explain it
right. What's wrong is that if the Republicans take the lead,
the Democrats will absolutely crucify us for it, and vice
versa. So basically what has to happen is we've got to draw
together in some way, or have one-party control of the country
for a few years, and do what has to be done. Everybody knows
what to do. We know how to do it. We're always afraid to do it.


    Q. Do you think, if we had one party in the White House,
the House and the Senate, that taking on the nation's problems
would be easier?

    A. I think the country would be better served if the
American people stopped splitting the ticket and elected
President Bush and a Republican House and Senate, and let us all
do as a party what we want to do. Then if we really foul up,
throw everybody out. Or if they want to elect a Democratic
President and a Democratic Congress, fine, do that. But let's
have some accountability.


    Q. Then there's just too much partisan bickering going on?

    A. Oh, absolutely. We must get rid of this bickering and
say, "This country is facing disaster." Let's put our sharp
knives aside, and let's address it together. Let's not get into
class warfare over taxing the rich vs. taking money away from
the poor. Let's do what we all know has to be done: establish
means-testing on the entitlement programs, which are essentially
for the middle class of this country, not in a way that's going
to impair them, but in a way that can control the growth of
these programs. Everybody knows that. The Democrats know it. The
Republicans know it. We are talking about the security of this
nation. That is what frustrates me. And yet we don't seem to get
people to address it. I believe we will do something about it.
But will it be in time to avoid a lot of pain that we shouldn't
have to endure? I've been fighting this battle for 12 years,
and I'm not going to fight it anymore.


    Q. Would you say you've given up trying to persuade people
to think of the long-term good of the country?

    A. Well, I've tried my hardest, but it is discouraging,
very discouraging. I care deeply about the country. I think
we've got enormous resources and very bright people, industrious
people. But this government cannot continue to be as profligate
as it's been and expect this country to succeed. We can't do it.
We've got to take some political risks and risk some political
careers. I'm not talking about people risking their lives, like
in war. I'm talking about risking political careers. But the
country is at stake, and we ought to do it.


    Q. You're not leaving entirely because of your
frustration. Aren't you also tired of public service? Don't you
want to be in the private sector?

    A. Yeah, that's part of it also. Well, you know, I've been
in public life -- between being an attorney general in New
Hampshire, being in the military, being here -- 22 or 23 years.
That's enough.


    Q. Is part of the reason you're leaving to make more money?

    A. That was never a consideration. As the senior Senator
from New Hampshire, I'm privileged to sit behind Daniel
Webster's desk. That's been my desk for a long time. If the
Senate were engaged in the kind of debate and the kind of
confrontational issues that it was in Webster's time, I never
would have left. Daniel Webster was nearly bankrupt -- in fact,
I think he was -- when he died. Money would never be a factor
if we were doing things that were meaningful, important and
exciting. But frankly, we're not.