MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesApril 15, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Up front this Monday night, we're going to be focusing again on Secretary Powell's Mideast trip. We'll be looking at the effects of Euro-Powell diplomacy, focusing especially on the Powell-Arafat meeting that occurred over the weekend and what the implications of that meeting may be.
This takes place, of course, against the backdrop of continued and intensifying events. Today, for example, Israel arrested a top Arafat aid accused of masterminding the terrorist suicide bombings. And Prime Minister Sharon promised to complete a partial withdrawal from the West Bank, including Jenin.
Secretary Powell is scheduled to meet with Sharon tomorrow and again with Arafat on Wednesday. Now, today he met with the leaders of Lebanon and Syria, who refused his request to stop attacks against Israel. In fact, Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas vowed today to continue attacks on Israeli troops in a disputed border area, shrugging off Powell's warning that this was risking regional conflict.
The group said this in a statement: “The Islamic resistance in Lebanon again confirms that it will continue carrying out its duty to free the remaining occupied Lebanese land and will not submit to the messages, pressures, and threats that the American minister conveyed.”
It looked like on all fronts Secretary Powell is meeting at the moment with closed doors and no to the request to end violence, to end participation in the conflict that is going on in the region. That seems especially true over the weekend of his meeting with Yasser Arafat. As the secretary was touching down in Israel practically, there was another suicide bombing that claimed more Israeli lives. It was as if the Palestinian leadership, the Palestinian Authority, was spitting in the face of the secretary of state, basically defying him as he set foot in Israel with his demand that the violence should stop, and that Yasser Arafat should denounce terrorism.
Well, doubtless in order to get his meeting with Secretary Powell and grandstand further before the world, Yasser Arafat did in fact issue a statement that appeared to be satisfactory to the U.S. administration on the issue of terrorism. He denounced terrorism. He denounced the killing of Israeli civilians that had occurred as Secretary Powell touched down.
And I guess in the secretary's opinion, this was a sufficient step to justify his then going on with a meeting with Arafat even though in the wake of the bombing itself he had suspended the possibility of that meeting. The question then arises, of course, of what sense it makes, that one should accept a statement with respect to terrorism, “I denounce terrorism,” at the very moment that those who are denouncing the terrorist act have thrown one of those acts as a gauntlet in your path, practically spitting in your eye with the consequences.
Of course, the added difficulty in all of this is, as I have said before, that it's not entirely clear why one should be reassured when an individual who has consistently lied on the same point in the past tells you another lie now. Even though he tells it in English and Arabic and, as it was expected by the Bush administration, also distributed this statement, by the way, through the Palestinian Authority.
We double-checked that today. And the statement of Arafat condemning the terrorist attack against Israel was distributed by WAFA.
Of course, we have two problems that also occurred over the weekend. First, indicating perhaps a little ambiguity at the personal level for Mr. Arafat, in an interview with a Saudi magazine, Arafat's wife Suha said that if she had a son, there would be no greater honor than to sacrifice him for the Palestinian cause. She asked, “Would you expect me an my children to be less patriotic and more eager to live than my countrymen and their father and leader who is seeking martyrdom?”
So, the encouragement of all of this self destructive tactic aimed at killing innocent civilians in Israel, according to Arafat's wife, this is a great honor. But then he speaks not as an individual, so maybe we shouldn't look at it from a personal point of view, but as a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority.
This, we are told, is the reason why one has to deal with him. He's the elected representative of the Palestinian people. He's the head of the Palestinian Authority. And WAFA did distribute his statement.
But the following day, Sunday, right after they distributed that statement by Yasser Arafat condemning supposedly these terrorist attacks, here is what an editorial from WAFA, the official news service of the Palestinian Authority, had to say, quote: “We need to refuse the USA policy that imposes on us solutions against our interests and against the interests of the Arab world.” The statement went on to say, “And why does the USA demand us to denounce what they do not ask Sharon, who is attacking us with USA weapons, to denounce?” That doesn't sound to me like it's a very wholehearted denunciation of terrorism. It sounds to me like it's a rejection of that policy which requires that terrorism be stopped and rejected.
As if to confirm this understanding of the text, the WAFA statement goes on to say this, quote: “Sharon's theory of destroying what he calls the infrastructure of Palestinian terror is a miserable theory because fighting weaponry is possible, but fighting a human bomb is impossible because it is the weapon of the individual, and it is hidden deep inside the individual's brain. And it is unseen. It is motivated by misery, oppression, occupation, and frustration,” unquote.
Now, does that sound to you like a denunciation of terrorism, like a rejection of the terrorist tactic? Quite the contrary. It sounds to me like an analysis and explication of why the use of terroristic suicide bombs is so effective, so fearsome, so fearful against the enemy.
So, at the very moment when Yasser Arafat was supposedly denouncing terrorism in his capacity as head of the Palestinian Authority, we have the WAFA, the Palestinian agency that distributed his statement, following up with a statement that seems hardly to embrace the strategy of terroristic suicide bombings.
Now, I guess we're supposed to just be too stupid to make this juxtaposition, to see that it is possible for folks to talk out of both sides of their mouths. Why we would believe that's advisable for America to base its policy on the foolhardy acceptance of these kinds of palpable self-contradictions and lies is beyond me.
It does not seem to me that you're going to get much of a foundation for real peace and progress by making it clear that you can be duped by one side into accepting affirmations that it then withdraws in the face of its own people, accepting a supposed abandonment of terror that in fact is not meant at all, while the encouragement of confidence and faith in the terroristic tactic is then immediately — immediately — propounded to the people who are being incited to those acts of terror.
Well, next on the “Heart of the Matter,” in light of this kind of resolve, we're going to be asking ourselves whether Secretary Powell has, in fact, been duped by Yasser Arafat into accepting his continuing role in the process despite his absolute and clear commitment to the strategy of terror. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: You're looking at a live shot from Maryfield, Virginia, just outside of Washington. Filers rush to the post office with tax forms in hand. Many a year but for this program I might be in that line myself.
With less than two hours to go before the deadline, the president says and other politicians that they want tax cuts, they want to make them permanent. They're bold in telling us they'll let us keep a little bit more of our hard earned dollars. But in the next half hour, we'll debate the real issue, whether the government should have the power, in fact, indiscriminately to dig into our hard earned dollars to whatever degree they please.
Should the income tax be abolished? That's what we'll be talking about in the next half hour.
Also, a reminder that the chat room is hot tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
Let's get back to Colin Powell's trip. We were talking about whether or not in light of what appears to be the pretty evident duplicity of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, Secretary Powell hasn't just been duped into legitimizing the participation in this process of folks who are simply and deeply committed to the strategy of terror.
To help us get to the heart of this matter, Hugh Price, the president and CEO of the National Urban League. Today he spoke at the pro-Israeli rally here in Washington that drew tens of thousands of folks from all over the country. Organizers called it the biggest march for Israel ever.
Also with us, Salam al Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a public service agency that works for the civil rights of Muslim Americans. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
I want to start with a question for you because I'm looking at this whole situation, it strikes me that the Israelis in my opinion — and I've expressed it quite clearly on the program — are doing what is necessary to go after the infrastructure of terror, while many people, including Colin Powell and the Bush administration and the Europeans, keep telling them they've got to stop before they get the job done.
He also moves forward now to legitimize Arafat in what appears to be a palpable duplicity on the part of Mr. Arafat, saying one thing to us and another thing to his own people, saying one thing to get what he wants, taking it back the next day. Can we really build an effective approach on a willingness to be duped like this by a leader like Yasser Arafat?
HUGH PRICE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE: Well, I don't believe for a moment that Colin Powell is being duped. He's a former national security adviser, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He's not capable of being duped.
I think what he's doing is engaging in the very kind of shuttle diplomacy that we all asked him to do, going over there, meeting with whomever about whatever to see whether he can find any openings. And I think he may be beginning to find some openings.
Diplomacy is a chess match. Sometimes there are things to announce in a very splashy public way. Other times you lay the foundation below the surface for progress that may take a little more time to materialize. And we really don't know what's going on behind the scenes in those conversations that haven't been revealed.
KEYES: Well, I know what's going on before the scenes though. And this is the great problem, you. I didn't ask Colin Powell to make this trip. The president asked him. Maybe you asked him. But I didn't ask him. And as I look at the results that are happening right now, what I see is somebody, you say he can't be duped. What is it when you accept as legitimate a statement against terrorism that is then palpably contradicted by the self-same authority barely 24 hours later? That's not being duped?
PRICE: No, I don't think so. You know, when there's an effort to press toward a resolution of apartheid in South Africa, there was all sorts of noise above ground when in fact Nelson Mandela and W. De Klerk were negotiating seriously behind ground to try to lay the foundation.
I don't know whether there is real progress being made. There are glimmers of it. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. And I do not think that Colin Powell is capable of being duped.
KEYES: Let me ask you one more question before I get to Salam Al Marayati. Is there some doubt about the folks who were killed in the suicide bombing that punctuated Powell's arrival in Israel? Did they take place...
PRICE: Of course not...
KEYES: ...let me finish asking the question. Did that take place behind the scenes? Was it something that we can't see and evaluate because it seems to me they sent a clear message: we're going on with our campaign of terror, but you will meet with Yasser Arafat anyway, and he did.
PRICE: Did you expect peace to break out just because Colin Powell has arrived there when it hasn't for months on end? I think he's engaged in the very thing that so many people said must happen, which is shuttle diplomacy to see whether there are any openings to make progress.
And I think with the Israeli pullback we're beginning to see some early steps there. There's a lot more that has to be done. And, obviously, there may be a number of things we don't know about and that neither one of us has read about.
KEYES: I think that what we do know about suggests a palpable contradiction in this policy, a policy that we say involves a war against terror, which then involves negotiating with somebody who is using that terrorism as an instrument of his policy in order to influence the process which we — an approach which we apparently through Colin Powell's trip have now legitimized. Maybe you asked him to legitimatize terrorism in that fashion.
PRICE: Of course not. Come on.
KEYES: I think it's a grave mistake. Bet me go to Salam Al Marayati. In terms of what I look at, the statement by Yasser Arafat, the statement by the Palestinian Authority, how are we to believe that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority leadership actually mean to renounce terror when in the Palestinian Authority's statement they are confirming the success and also the importance of the human bombers as a part of their strategy?
SALAM AL MARAYATI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Well, I think there's a difference between legitimate resistance and terrorism. And I think you are probably not able to see that distinction.
And as far as Secretary Powell is concerned, I don't think he's duped. I think he's too smart of a man to be duped. And if he can meet with a war criminal like Ariel Sharon, who is responsible for the (INAUDIBLE) massacre, who is responsible for the war crimes right now that are happening in Jenin, then I'm sure he can meet with anybody else, including Arafat.
This is nothing more than a war to steal lands from Palestinians, to decimate their leadership, to humiliate the Palestinian people. And these are war crimes. The rest of the world sees that as a war crime, Mr. Keyes.
And I think it's time we tell the American people the truth about what's happening in the occupied territories. It's a military, brutal military apartheid policy that Ariel Sharon is conducting in the occupied territories.
And I'm glad the previous speaker talked about apartheid in South Africa because Bishop Desmond Tutu spoke over the weekend. And he was one of the great leaders in the anti-apartheid movement. He says, “I can't believe the United States really believes in its impotence to halt Israeli aggression.” I think if he says that and he's saying that it is apartheid, what's happening in the occupied territories, I think it's time to tell the American people the same thing. And we should be pro-American in our policy, not pro-Israel and not even pro-Arab.
KEYES: Salam, I have to tell you that, in my opinion, repeating a false statement doesn't make it so. But we have to look for a minute, though, at what you just said. Do you mean to say that the attacks that have been carried out by these suicide bombers, aimed at destroying the lives of civilians — we're not talking about the ones that are against military installations, leave those aside — but aimed at destroying people who are civilians — at seder dinners, in public marketplaces, on buses — that those attacks by the suicide bombers against civilians are not terrorism but legitimate resistance? Is that what you mean to say?
AL MARAYATI: No, I'm not. No, that's not what I mean to say because those acts of terrorism...
KEYES: Why did you use the phrase legitimate resistance? Those are terrorist acts.
AL MARAYATI: Because the majority of the struggles...
KEYES: ... before you go on with your rhetoric...
AL MARAYATI: ... the majority of the struggle is legitimate.
KEYES: ... before you go on with your rhetoric, in this program we like to examine what people say, not just have a bunch of rhetoric. And you have said this about how the terrorism is bad, and, no, it doesn't include these suicide bombers. If that's so, then the statement by the Palestinian Authority which praised the effectiveness of the human bombing attacks, the human bombs as they called them, that that statement then would in your opinion be a statement that seeks to justify something that's not justifiable. Is that right?
AL MARAYATI: No. I think what you're doing is you're distorting the statements. And I'm kind of surprised, Mr. Keys, because I thought this broadcast is out of Washington, not out of Tel Aviv.
KEYES: No, meaning no offense, Mr. Salam, that's not a true statement.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Matter of fact, the folks on my show know I was very careful to look at the whole statement, to quote it in context, to take everything that was said, including the allusions to suffering and frustration and occupation. But the heart of the matter was to say that suicide bombing is effective, it will not be defeated. That's what was said here.
AL MARAYATI: And we need to look...
KEYES: And you're telling me that that does not constitute encouragement and incitement to this strategy of terror, right?
AL MARAYATI: We need to look at the root causes of terrorism, Mr. Keyes. And the root cause of terrorism is apartheid.
KEYES: You are saying this is terrorism?
AL MARAYATI: When Nelson Mandela said...
KEYES: You are saying this is terrorism.
AL MARAYATI: ... Yes, it's terrorism.
KEYES: All right, go ahead.
AL MARAYATI: Any attack against civilians is terrorism. But you don't talk about the attacks against Palestinian civilians. And this is the problem with the rhetoric that I hear from the pro-Israel lobby in America that is isolating America from the rest of the world.
KEYES: Let's go to Hugh Price.
PRICE: Let me just say, this is illustrative of the loggerheads that we now face. I think if the Palestinian Authority and Israelis cannot make the kind of headway that sets a foundation for peace, then frankly I think the U.S., the NATO alliance, and peace-loving Arab nations have got to step in and impose a political settlement which includes zero tolerance for terrorism, number one; recognition and acceptance of Israel's right to exist, number two; and the creation of a viable peace-loving Palestinian state that will live with its neighbors. We can't let this continue to spiral into an abyss.
KEYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Price...
PRICE: Yes.
KEYES: ... let me examine that statement because I think it sounds wonderful. But I've got to tell you, wishful thinking is no substitute for reality. When you say we should go in and impose this or that...
PRICE: Right.
KEYES: ... then you're suggesting that if suicide bombings then continued and those suicide bombings included Israeli civilians and included American or other international forces, would you kindly describe to me what the policy would be in response to that continued implementation of the strategy of terror?
PRICE: I said that there must be zero tolerance for terrorism.
KEYES: What does that mean?
PRICE: It means we would have to track down those who are engaged in it and take them out of commission.
KEYES: Mr. Price, we wouldn't that have to do what the Israelis are doing now, right?
PRICE: Mr. Keyes, what is your proposal?
KEYES: No, I'm asking you a question.
PRICE: I'm asking you — you attacked my statements. What is your proposal?
KEYES: You make statements — when people come on this program, you, when people come on the program and they make nice sounding statements, don't expect me to sit here and not examine their logic.
PRICE: Well, don't expect me to listen to your...
KEYES: The logic of your statement, Mr. Price, the logic of your statement is clear. We'll substitute for the Israelis. And I'm asking a simple question.
PRICE: And for the Palestinians. The international community must step in.
KEYES: It means right now it would be stepping in to substitute for Israeli security forces in their effort to stop this terrorism. And so if we put the international force in there and the terrorism continues, then the international force would have to fight the terrorists, right?
PRICE: Yes, it might.
KEYES: So, what's the difference between letting the Israelis do the job and stepping in so that other people can do it?
PRICE: Because it doesn't lay the foundation for a future.
KEYES: It doesn't lay the foundation (INAUDIBLE)...
PRICE: It doesn't lay the foundation for a viable future.
AL MARAYATI: Let me agree with you.
KEYES: Well, no. Let me finish. You can agree with him in a minute.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: What lays the foundation for the viable future would seem to be the end of terrorism. And, Salam Al Marayati, I don't see how we get there until the Palestinian leadership stops playing duplicitous games and commits itself actually to stopping its violence.
AL MARAYATI: Well, talk about duplicity, there is a double standard, Mr. Keyes, because the country that introduced terrorism to the region is Israel. Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir were known wanted terrorists. They bombed hotels. They killed civilians. They're responsible for the Deriosin (ph) massacre. That's terrorism.
And the problem is that you're not willing to condemn the occupation. You're not willing to condemn terrorism on the Israeli side. You're only singling out the Palestinian side. And that's dehumanizing the Palestinian people.
The root cause of terrorism, as I was saying, one of the root causes, is the illegal Israeli settlements that the United Nations and international law has called illegal. And if you're such a conservative, you should call it what it really is. They are illegal aliens. And illegal aliens therefore are unlawful. And they should be removed in order to achieve a peace process.
KEYES: First of all, Salam, the dehumanizing that goes on here, I think it is dehumanizing to take 18-year-old girls, incite them to such hatred that they strap on bombs to go out and blow up other 18-year-old girls. I think that's dehumanizing. I think the leaders...
AL MARAYATI: Look, when you have...
KEYES: ... you will let me speak, sir. No, you will let me speak. I let you speak.
AL MARAYATI: OK, go ahead.
PRICE: The leaders that are willing to look at young Palestinian people and see not children, not young people, but bombs, are just as evil as the terrorists who looked at passenger planes and didn't see people but guided missiles. It is the same dehumanization. That's the dehumanization, not what I am trying to do in stopping that dehumanizing violence.
That's the first problem. And it's not me and it's not others who have introduced terrorism into this situation. It is those leaders who are inciting folks to kill themselves along with others and who have no real sense of the deep dignity and value of the lives that they are exploiting in the pursuit of their agenda.
PRICE: Let me just say that Israel announced the beginnings of some withdrawals. I think that's a very positive step. The question will be whether the Palestinian Authority is going to do anything in response to that. I think Israel is taking a very positive step that they've announced today.
Colin Powell is looking for breakthroughs. Let us find out whether any emerge. We don't know. You can't pass judgment this early in the process of shuttle diplomacy.
What I've said is that if that doesn't provide the kind of progress we need, then I think there needs to be more moral authority and more muscle on the part of the international community, including Arab countries, to say to the Palestinian Authority, “If there's to be a sustainable peace, you've got to lay down the terrorism arms.”
KEYES: Mr. Price, what I love about that statement...
AL MARAYATI: In terms of dehumanizing...
KEYES: ... no, let me finish. Mr. Price has had his say. I'm against both of you tonight, so I get a little more time this evening.
Mr. Price, I've got to tell you, I listened to your statement. And you said, “We've got to say this, we've got to say that, we've got to say the other thing.” As we have found in our own war against terror, you don't stop terrorists by talking to them.
PRICE: I'm not proposing talking to them.
KEYES: Excuse me, yes. Yasser Arafat and his cohorts have sponsored terrorism. You have supported the idea that we talk to terrorists and negotiate with terrorists because they are terrorists. And you are saying that the way in which we will now stop their terrorism is with some more talk and some more condemnation.
PRICE: No, that's not what I said. That's not what I said.
KEYES: That does not stop terrorism. And asking that we should do so would be like asking that we shouldn't have gone in and destroyed the infrastructure in Afghanistan. We shouldn't have dropped the bombs...
PRICE: That's not what I said.
KEYES: ... because bombs killed innocent civilians as well. We shouldn't have taken direct action to deal with the terrorists. We should have just invoked moral authority.
PRICE: You have just made all that up. I didn't say one of the things you just said, Alan.
KEYES: Go ahead.
PRICE: I said that I think that...
AL MARAYATI: Let me interject at this point. Let me just interject at this point because I think you're completely towing the (INAUDIBLE) line...
KEYES: Let Hugh Price respond, and then I'll give you the last word...
AL MARAYATI: ... and again, and I think we should be pro-American.
KEYES: ... Let Hugh Price respond.
PRICE: I said that I believe the international community to the extent that negotiations that Colin Powell is trying to arrange don't bear fruit, the international community has got to come in and back up an end to terrorism, number one. Number two, support Israel's efforts to protect its sanctity, its sovereignty, and its security. And three, I think over the long haul, there is going to have to be a Palestinian state that is peaceful, that is viable, if there ever is to be sustained peace in that region of the world.
KEYES: Now, Salam, I want to give you time here, about a minute. And then I want to say a wrap-up, so go right ahead.
AL MARAYATI: Sure. It's the Israelis that are driving the Palestinians into the sea. It is the Israeli government now that is completely after the destruction of a Palestinian state. It is the Israeli government that has committed acts of terrorism, committed war crimes against the Palestinian people.
nd Ariel Sharon belongs next to Milosevic. He belongs in the Hague. And for the United States to say that the United States should continue to support this kind of oppression, to support this kind of racism, to support this kind of apartheid will further isolate America.
Only the United States government and Israel are on the side of the Israelis at this time. The rest of the world knows the truth about what's happening there. And that is the humiliation of the Palestinian people, the torture of its leadership.
And Ariel Sharon is the person who continued to assassinate Palestinian leaders until suicide bombers kept coming one after another. That's the real cause of terrorism.
KEYES: Now we see — now we see — now, Salam, we see what is at stake here. And I want to thank both of you gentlemen for being with me this evening and for getting these ideas on the table.
But I think we know what's on stake here. On the one hand, we have folks who won't call terrorism terrorism, who are then going to say that when you respond to terrorism to try to destroy its infrastructure you are the terrorists, blaming those in point of fact against whom the violence has been unleashed, you are the war criminals, which by the way — and I think people in America ought to remember this — that means that the Afghans can call us war criminals because we unleashed bombs. We didn't even use bulldozers and try to discriminate building by building where the terrorists were. We just blew up what was necessary to go after that terrorist infrastructure.
So, if you're going to start throwing around accusations of who's a war criminal, don't expect that we will be left out when we respond to this ruthless strategy of terror. No, this is just a prelude to what is going to be brought against us as well. And I think we need to keep this in mind.
So on one side you have the ruthless terrorists playing every game they can to get us to look everywhere but at their killing of innocent civilians, including the ruthless dehumanization of Palestinian life that uses young children as bombs instead of respecting them as people.
Then, on the other side we have the diplomacy represented by Mr. Price in which we shall tut-tut down on the sidelines, in which we shall invoke moral authority, in which we shall claim that leader will support the necessary efforts to get rid of terrorism. Yet bombing after bombing, lie after lie, we are willing to tolerate just one more lie from Mr. Arafat today and say we'll do something about the terrorism tomorrow.
I don't think that's fair to Israel. And I, frankly, don't think such an approach is very fair to the resolve we must ourselves have against the terrorist scourge where everything we do in response to terrorism in the Middle East is influencing the credibility of what we will be able to do, what we must do, in order to defend American lives in the larger war against this self-same strategy of terror.
Well, next we're going to get to the question of the day. Should April 15 be a day just like any other? There's only one way to make it so. And that's not to lower the taxes and change the tax rates. It's to ax the tax, get rid of the income tax.
Is it a feasible approach? We will be discussing and debating it in the next half hour.
And after that, “My Outrage of the Day.” An archbishop in Wisconsin who appears to blame the victims of this terrible pedophilia and abuse, rather than looking at their real plight.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: You're looking at a live shot in Maryfield, Virginia. With only 90 minutes to go until midnight here on the East Coast, Maryfield's post office has been turned into an ad hoc drive-through for last-minute tax filers.
Well, tonight, on MAKING SENSE, we're going to be talking about the — what I think is really the key question in all of this.
Like sheep, we go through the process of this income tax every year, a tax that was imposed on us under false pretenses at the beginning of this century, a whole bunch of lies and half truths that got it into place. And, as a consequence, we hand off to the government the power to take as much of our money out of our pockets as they please, and then we're supposed to live with the result.
That, I think, is not only bad in an economic sense, bad for us in terms of what we can build the future on for our families, but it's also bad in terms of our constitutional system because, if our elected leaders and officials can determine what kind of a resource base we're going to have to keep track of them, it's not too long before, as our founders themselves said, the power over our resources will become a power over our will, destroying the real meaning of self-government in this country.
I think the income tax is not only a bad system, it's a system dangerous for liberty. So I state my prejudices right up front.
And we have joining us tonight to talk about this issue, should we get rid of the income tax, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia, a member of the House Rules committee who wants the income tax to go, and against the idea of abolition is Congressman Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington State and a member of the House Budget and Ways & Means Committees.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
REP. JOHN LINDER (R), GEORGIA: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: I want to go first to state the sort of affirmative side of should we abolish the income tax to John Linder on our mini debate here.
Representative Linder, you have introduced legislation that would achieve this purpose. Why do you think it's a good idea?
LINDER: Well, first of all, I think my bill should be looked at very seriously by everyone because it totally makes everyone in America a voluntary taxpayer. You pay taxes exactly when you choose, as much as you choose, by how you choose to spend, and it adheres to three great principles in writing this bill.
First of all, we should totally untax the purchase of essentials and necessities, and, by so doing, we untax the poor. We should then treat everyone else exactly the same. And, thirdly, we should make all taxes transparent. We should know exactly what we're paying the government at every point.
If you were to abolish all taxes on income, the income tax for corporations and individuals, got rid of the payroll tax, the self-employment tax, the gift tax, capital-gains tax, estate tax, throw it all out and tax only personal consumption, you would, first of all, eliminate the tax component in our price system.
We have a study out of Harvard that says 22 percent of what you currently pay for at retail is the embedded cost to the IRS. That is every company that's touched by a product — for example, a loaf of bread from the farm to the shelf — every company has income tax costs and payroll tax costs and accountants and attorneys to avoid the tax costs. All that gets embedded in the product, and the consumer pays it. We believe it's 22 percent of what you currently pay for.
We say abolish the IRS, let competition drive that out of the system, put in place a 23-percent embedded cost, which is a frank, transparent tax, and you got to keep your whole check. Everybody will be totally untaxed on essentials and voluntary taxpayers after that, and April 15th will be another nice spring day.
KEYES: Representative McDermott, I've got — I have stated my prejudice. I happen to believe that's a really good idea. I've listened to those arguments, and I say to myself, “Why not?” Well, you're going to tell me, I'm sure. Why not?
REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Well, first of all, John makes the point that the Senate Finance Committee — Russell Long used to make, is that the only tax that's any good is don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree. We're always looking for ways to put the tax off on someone else.
The reason we have an income tax is because we ultimately started out with a property tax. Everybody's wealth was in property. And, after a while, people said, “Well, this doesn't make any sense. We've got all kinds of wealth in this country that's not related to property. We ought to have a tax on what people make in the society.”
If you live in a civil society, you have a responsibility to pay for it, to pay for roads, to pay for schools, to pay for hospitals, to pay for people who are sick or people who are mentally ill.
And to say that you're going to run that on some kind of voluntary system, that somehow you're just going to say, “Well, if the people aren't buying anything” — I don't know what John means is the — it will be off the essentials. I suppose he means food and clothing.
LINDER: Actually, I don't, Jim, and let me explain what I mean by that. The federal government determines every January what it takes for poverty-level spending, and, by definition, what they mean is what a household of one, two, six, or 10 must spend for their essentials.
So our rebate system would rebate to every household a check sufficient to offset the total tax consequences of spending up to the poverty line, and our mother would get it, and Bill Gates would get it. They shouldn't pay — if they wanted to pay for only essentials and live at poverty level, they would not pay any taxes.
Number two, you made my case about Russell Long's warning, don't ask him, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree. Today in America, the guy who gets away from paying taxes, the guy who's got enough money to buy the lobbyists to get through your committee, the Ways & Means Committee, the average guy is paying a lot.
I want to say that everybody should pay the same. When you get beyond the essentials, which is above poverty-level spending, everybody pays evenly. Nobody is going to get out of this business. We're all going to have to buy food for our families and pay for housing and health care, and we know from a study done at Boston College that the consumption in the economy is a very consistent and steady predictor of activity, much more so than the income economy, which has high amplitudes of volatility.
KEYES: Now...
LINDER: So we're saying we've done $22 million worth of research on this in the last five years...
MCDERMOTT: John...
LINDER: ... economic and market research. We know this will work better than the current system, and, under the current system, it's only the rich who don't pay their share.
MCDERMOTT: Now tell us — tell us what the tax rate would be on the American people...
LINDER: Currently...
(CROSSTALK)
MCDERMOTT: ... replace the income tax...
LINDER: OK. Four...
MCDERMOTT: ... and you're talking about cutting taxes. That is you want to reduce the size of government. You don't want to pay for the things that are going on.
LINDER: Jim, you're changing the subject.
MCDERMOTT: Then...
KEYES: Wait. Can I get in here, gentlemen, just for a second?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hold on. Let me get in here for just a second, though, because, as I listen to the back-and-forth here, I think partly we're missing — he already stated what the rate would be. Twenty-three percent, I think, is what I heard in terms of that tax.
It's an excise tax, by the way, Representative McDermott, which is, in addition to property taxes, the kind of taxes our founders actually wrote into the Constitution, and that is to say taxes on the retail sales of various goods. That has been with us from time immemorial. That's not a new idea. It's actually a return to an older idea.
Final point I would like to make is that you talk about the rate, but what I think John Linder is also alluding to is what is called the incidence of taxation, since how much you pay in taxes depends on how often you engage in the activity or behavior that is taxed, and what this approach does is it puts the incidence of taxation under the control of the individuals, so that, when they engage in certain kinds of spending behaviors, they pay the tax. When they choose not to engage, they don't pay the tax. They are back in the driver's seat.
MCDERMOTT: So, if we had a system like you're talking about, if people didn't want to pay for this war that's going on right now, they'd just say, “I'm not buying anything,” and that would be all right with you because it's voluntary, right?
LINDER: Well, we've had several — Jim, we've had several wars since 1945, and the consumption economy...
MCDERMOTT: And we paid for them with the income tax.
LINDER: The consumption economy is increasing a modest amount every year. Even in the last quarter of last year, it went up by 1.4 percent. But you made a point which has never been part of this discussion, and you've just created it out of whole cloth. I would like to cut government spending, but I don't want to have that...
MCDERMOTT: Ah!
LINDER: Jim, I don't want to have that fight now. I would tax...
MCDERMOTT; Why not? That's what it's about.
LINDER: No, it's not. No, it's not.
MCDERMOTT: What you're trying to do is cut the money out for Social Security...
LINDER: No.
MCDERMOTT: ... and cut the money out for Medicare because your party has never wanted those programs.
LINDER: Jim, you're a very bright guy, and you ought to be ashamed at...
MCDERMOTT: That's true.
LINDER: You should...
MCDERMOTT: Your party never has supported Social Security.
LINDER: Jim...
MCDERMOTT: It has never supported Medicare.
LINDER: Jim — Jim, 80 percent of the Republicans in 1935 voted for Social Security and 80 percent voted for Medicare. Please, please don't resort to cliches. Cliches are a substitute for rigorous thought.
Here is the fact. The 23 percent that Alan and I have talked about is revenue neutral. It brings in the same amount as currently. We know for a fact that there should be arguments down the road about spending levels. We don't want them to take place in this argument.
MCDERMOTT: And what does distribution table look like? Who pays the bulk of the taxes then?
LINDER: The fact of the matter...
MCDERMOTT: The people at the bottom because...
LINDER: No, no. You're wrong, Jim. You're wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
MCDERMOTT: ... and that's what you're doing.
KEYES: Can I — gentlemen, we're running out of time here. I do want to get one word in edgewise before we go, though, because...
MCDERMOTT: It's your program.
KEYES: I must say that I find it interesting, Congressman McDermott, that you would object to the possibility that people would actually be able to control their own tax burden and that it would somehow be totally unacceptable if we were to take out of the hands of our elected masters the access to our income and actually be put back in control of it ourselves. What would happen to our ability to make war and do this and do that?
The scare tactics, though, are based on a fundamental premise that the American people can't be trusted with their own money and that we now have a system in which politicians and leaders should have a...
MCDERMOTT: Alan...
LINDER: You know it makes sense.
KEYES: ... say, regardless of our will — regardless of our will, you should be able to dip into our pockets...
(CROSSTALK)
MCDERMOTT: ... mess...
KEYES: ... to the extent that you decide, And I have to tell you, I've told audiences around the country, the people who oppose this approach are people who basically want to keep power over us and over our economy and over our income in their hands, to be the gatekeepers of our economic fate.
MCDERMOTT: Six hundred thousand people elected me. Six hundred thousand people elected John. They have got control.
KEYES: We're right up against...
MCDERMOTT: They can throw John out in this election.
KEYES: We'll have to have you back because this is just the beginning of a fascinating discussion. Thank you, both. Great job. And I think laying these ideas on the table — and it is just the beginning because this is an idea and an issue very close to my heart.
But I wanted to make sure that we had enough time left for you to share with me “My Outrage of the Day.” Archbishop in Wisconsin who made remarks suggesting that maybe these young people who were abused were at fault because they, quote, “squealed.” You won't believe this.
Right after I get back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now it's time for “My Outrage of the Day.” We've arranged things so I end up with a little more time today because this is an outrage that has been coming back to me like the taste of a bad meal all day long because of the deeply serious nature of the, I think, almost incredible indifference to decency that is represented here.
And I am talking about a statement by an archbishop in Wisconsin, Archbishop Weakland, known as one of the more liberal bishops in the Catholic Church, somebody who had a reputation for having somehow dealt effectively with the challenge of priests who abuse children and rehabilitating them and so forth and so on.
And it comes out now that, in 1994, he had told “The Milwaukee Journal,” and I quote here, “What often — what happens so often in those cases,” these cases of priests and the people they abuse, “is that they go on for a few years, and then the boy gets a little older, and the perpetrator loses interest. Then is when the squealing comes in, and you have to deal with it.”
When I first read that remark, I could not believe that it had come from a prelate of the Catholic Church or, frankly, anybody else of decent conscience.
Does this archbishop fail to appreciate the abusive nature of the relationship between someone, a priest, who represents the moral authority of the Catholic Church in the life of a young person that was entrusted to the company of that priest, precisely because he represents what is supposed to be the grace and authority of the church?
That priest then abuses the child and, in that abuse, introduces, instead of the relationship with God, a relationship based upon an evil will of mutual exploitation. He becomes, as it were, for that child and in that child's life the substitute for what should have been the God-centered moral universe of that young person. Instead, it becomes centered on this wicked relationship and on an authority figure who has abused his position of power in order to usurp the place that should belong to decent authority and decent principle.
If this is not a classic case in which co-dependency will then result and when the more authoritative figure turns away from the younger one, he leaves him in a shattered moral universe, the relationship with God disrupted by the one person who should have represented the integrity of that relationship, and this bishop then has the nerve to imply that the squealing begins, as if somehow or another maybe it would have been better for what, for the abusive relationship to continue?
The very thought sickens me, and it ought to be repugnant to every decent person who thinks of it. If this is the kind of thinking that lies behind the indifference to the real and grievous nature of these abuses that has been in evidence in the church, then I thank God that the pope has called them to Rome, and I sincerely hope that some of them will come back without the authority they have so deeply abused.
We'll be back right after these words here on MAKING SENSE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: If you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site, keyes.msnbc.com. Each day in your mailbox, you'll get show topics, my weekly column, and the links to my favorite articles of the day. And, of course, you can join me in the chat room each night before the show begins at chat.msnbc.com. You all come now.
Well, that's my sense of it tonight. I want to thank all of you for being with me. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.
Up front this Monday night, we're going to be focusing again on Secretary Powell's Mideast trip. We'll be looking at the effects of Euro-Powell diplomacy, focusing especially on the Powell-Arafat meeting that occurred over the weekend and what the implications of that meeting may be.
This takes place, of course, against the backdrop of continued and intensifying events. Today, for example, Israel arrested a top Arafat aid accused of masterminding the terrorist suicide bombings. And Prime Minister Sharon promised to complete a partial withdrawal from the West Bank, including Jenin.
Secretary Powell is scheduled to meet with Sharon tomorrow and again with Arafat on Wednesday. Now, today he met with the leaders of Lebanon and Syria, who refused his request to stop attacks against Israel. In fact, Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas vowed today to continue attacks on Israeli troops in a disputed border area, shrugging off Powell's warning that this was risking regional conflict.
The group said this in a statement: “The Islamic resistance in Lebanon again confirms that it will continue carrying out its duty to free the remaining occupied Lebanese land and will not submit to the messages, pressures, and threats that the American minister conveyed.”
It looked like on all fronts Secretary Powell is meeting at the moment with closed doors and no to the request to end violence, to end participation in the conflict that is going on in the region. That seems especially true over the weekend of his meeting with Yasser Arafat. As the secretary was touching down in Israel practically, there was another suicide bombing that claimed more Israeli lives. It was as if the Palestinian leadership, the Palestinian Authority, was spitting in the face of the secretary of state, basically defying him as he set foot in Israel with his demand that the violence should stop, and that Yasser Arafat should denounce terrorism.
Well, doubtless in order to get his meeting with Secretary Powell and grandstand further before the world, Yasser Arafat did in fact issue a statement that appeared to be satisfactory to the U.S. administration on the issue of terrorism. He denounced terrorism. He denounced the killing of Israeli civilians that had occurred as Secretary Powell touched down.
And I guess in the secretary's opinion, this was a sufficient step to justify his then going on with a meeting with Arafat even though in the wake of the bombing itself he had suspended the possibility of that meeting. The question then arises, of course, of what sense it makes, that one should accept a statement with respect to terrorism, “I denounce terrorism,” at the very moment that those who are denouncing the terrorist act have thrown one of those acts as a gauntlet in your path, practically spitting in your eye with the consequences.
Of course, the added difficulty in all of this is, as I have said before, that it's not entirely clear why one should be reassured when an individual who has consistently lied on the same point in the past tells you another lie now. Even though he tells it in English and Arabic and, as it was expected by the Bush administration, also distributed this statement, by the way, through the Palestinian Authority.
We double-checked that today. And the statement of Arafat condemning the terrorist attack against Israel was distributed by WAFA.
Of course, we have two problems that also occurred over the weekend. First, indicating perhaps a little ambiguity at the personal level for Mr. Arafat, in an interview with a Saudi magazine, Arafat's wife Suha said that if she had a son, there would be no greater honor than to sacrifice him for the Palestinian cause. She asked, “Would you expect me an my children to be less patriotic and more eager to live than my countrymen and their father and leader who is seeking martyrdom?”
So, the encouragement of all of this self destructive tactic aimed at killing innocent civilians in Israel, according to Arafat's wife, this is a great honor. But then he speaks not as an individual, so maybe we shouldn't look at it from a personal point of view, but as a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority.
This, we are told, is the reason why one has to deal with him. He's the elected representative of the Palestinian people. He's the head of the Palestinian Authority. And WAFA did distribute his statement.
But the following day, Sunday, right after they distributed that statement by Yasser Arafat condemning supposedly these terrorist attacks, here is what an editorial from WAFA, the official news service of the Palestinian Authority, had to say, quote: “We need to refuse the USA policy that imposes on us solutions against our interests and against the interests of the Arab world.” The statement went on to say, “And why does the USA demand us to denounce what they do not ask Sharon, who is attacking us with USA weapons, to denounce?” That doesn't sound to me like it's a very wholehearted denunciation of terrorism. It sounds to me like it's a rejection of that policy which requires that terrorism be stopped and rejected.
As if to confirm this understanding of the text, the WAFA statement goes on to say this, quote: “Sharon's theory of destroying what he calls the infrastructure of Palestinian terror is a miserable theory because fighting weaponry is possible, but fighting a human bomb is impossible because it is the weapon of the individual, and it is hidden deep inside the individual's brain. And it is unseen. It is motivated by misery, oppression, occupation, and frustration,” unquote.
Now, does that sound to you like a denunciation of terrorism, like a rejection of the terrorist tactic? Quite the contrary. It sounds to me like an analysis and explication of why the use of terroristic suicide bombs is so effective, so fearsome, so fearful against the enemy.
So, at the very moment when Yasser Arafat was supposedly denouncing terrorism in his capacity as head of the Palestinian Authority, we have the WAFA, the Palestinian agency that distributed his statement, following up with a statement that seems hardly to embrace the strategy of terroristic suicide bombings.
Now, I guess we're supposed to just be too stupid to make this juxtaposition, to see that it is possible for folks to talk out of both sides of their mouths. Why we would believe that's advisable for America to base its policy on the foolhardy acceptance of these kinds of palpable self-contradictions and lies is beyond me.
It does not seem to me that you're going to get much of a foundation for real peace and progress by making it clear that you can be duped by one side into accepting affirmations that it then withdraws in the face of its own people, accepting a supposed abandonment of terror that in fact is not meant at all, while the encouragement of confidence and faith in the terroristic tactic is then immediately — immediately — propounded to the people who are being incited to those acts of terror.
Well, next on the “Heart of the Matter,” in light of this kind of resolve, we're going to be asking ourselves whether Secretary Powell has, in fact, been duped by Yasser Arafat into accepting his continuing role in the process despite his absolute and clear commitment to the strategy of terror. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: You're looking at a live shot from Maryfield, Virginia, just outside of Washington. Filers rush to the post office with tax forms in hand. Many a year but for this program I might be in that line myself.
With less than two hours to go before the deadline, the president says and other politicians that they want tax cuts, they want to make them permanent. They're bold in telling us they'll let us keep a little bit more of our hard earned dollars. But in the next half hour, we'll debate the real issue, whether the government should have the power, in fact, indiscriminately to dig into our hard earned dollars to whatever degree they please.
Should the income tax be abolished? That's what we'll be talking about in the next half hour.
Also, a reminder that the chat room is hot tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
Let's get back to Colin Powell's trip. We were talking about whether or not in light of what appears to be the pretty evident duplicity of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, Secretary Powell hasn't just been duped into legitimizing the participation in this process of folks who are simply and deeply committed to the strategy of terror.
To help us get to the heart of this matter, Hugh Price, the president and CEO of the National Urban League. Today he spoke at the pro-Israeli rally here in Washington that drew tens of thousands of folks from all over the country. Organizers called it the biggest march for Israel ever.
Also with us, Salam al Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a public service agency that works for the civil rights of Muslim Americans. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
I want to start with a question for you because I'm looking at this whole situation, it strikes me that the Israelis in my opinion — and I've expressed it quite clearly on the program — are doing what is necessary to go after the infrastructure of terror, while many people, including Colin Powell and the Bush administration and the Europeans, keep telling them they've got to stop before they get the job done.
He also moves forward now to legitimize Arafat in what appears to be a palpable duplicity on the part of Mr. Arafat, saying one thing to us and another thing to his own people, saying one thing to get what he wants, taking it back the next day. Can we really build an effective approach on a willingness to be duped like this by a leader like Yasser Arafat?
HUGH PRICE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE: Well, I don't believe for a moment that Colin Powell is being duped. He's a former national security adviser, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He's not capable of being duped.
I think what he's doing is engaging in the very kind of shuttle diplomacy that we all asked him to do, going over there, meeting with whomever about whatever to see whether he can find any openings. And I think he may be beginning to find some openings.
Diplomacy is a chess match. Sometimes there are things to announce in a very splashy public way. Other times you lay the foundation below the surface for progress that may take a little more time to materialize. And we really don't know what's going on behind the scenes in those conversations that haven't been revealed.
KEYES: Well, I know what's going on before the scenes though. And this is the great problem, you. I didn't ask Colin Powell to make this trip. The president asked him. Maybe you asked him. But I didn't ask him. And as I look at the results that are happening right now, what I see is somebody, you say he can't be duped. What is it when you accept as legitimate a statement against terrorism that is then palpably contradicted by the self-same authority barely 24 hours later? That's not being duped?
PRICE: No, I don't think so. You know, when there's an effort to press toward a resolution of apartheid in South Africa, there was all sorts of noise above ground when in fact Nelson Mandela and W. De Klerk were negotiating seriously behind ground to try to lay the foundation.
I don't know whether there is real progress being made. There are glimmers of it. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. And I do not think that Colin Powell is capable of being duped.
KEYES: Let me ask you one more question before I get to Salam Al Marayati. Is there some doubt about the folks who were killed in the suicide bombing that punctuated Powell's arrival in Israel? Did they take place...
PRICE: Of course not...
KEYES: ...let me finish asking the question. Did that take place behind the scenes? Was it something that we can't see and evaluate because it seems to me they sent a clear message: we're going on with our campaign of terror, but you will meet with Yasser Arafat anyway, and he did.
PRICE: Did you expect peace to break out just because Colin Powell has arrived there when it hasn't for months on end? I think he's engaged in the very thing that so many people said must happen, which is shuttle diplomacy to see whether there are any openings to make progress.
And I think with the Israeli pullback we're beginning to see some early steps there. There's a lot more that has to be done. And, obviously, there may be a number of things we don't know about and that neither one of us has read about.
KEYES: I think that what we do know about suggests a palpable contradiction in this policy, a policy that we say involves a war against terror, which then involves negotiating with somebody who is using that terrorism as an instrument of his policy in order to influence the process which we — an approach which we apparently through Colin Powell's trip have now legitimized. Maybe you asked him to legitimatize terrorism in that fashion.
PRICE: Of course not. Come on.
KEYES: I think it's a grave mistake. Bet me go to Salam Al Marayati. In terms of what I look at, the statement by Yasser Arafat, the statement by the Palestinian Authority, how are we to believe that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority leadership actually mean to renounce terror when in the Palestinian Authority's statement they are confirming the success and also the importance of the human bombers as a part of their strategy?
SALAM AL MARAYATI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Well, I think there's a difference between legitimate resistance and terrorism. And I think you are probably not able to see that distinction.
And as far as Secretary Powell is concerned, I don't think he's duped. I think he's too smart of a man to be duped. And if he can meet with a war criminal like Ariel Sharon, who is responsible for the (INAUDIBLE) massacre, who is responsible for the war crimes right now that are happening in Jenin, then I'm sure he can meet with anybody else, including Arafat.
This is nothing more than a war to steal lands from Palestinians, to decimate their leadership, to humiliate the Palestinian people. And these are war crimes. The rest of the world sees that as a war crime, Mr. Keyes.
And I think it's time we tell the American people the truth about what's happening in the occupied territories. It's a military, brutal military apartheid policy that Ariel Sharon is conducting in the occupied territories.
And I'm glad the previous speaker talked about apartheid in South Africa because Bishop Desmond Tutu spoke over the weekend. And he was one of the great leaders in the anti-apartheid movement. He says, “I can't believe the United States really believes in its impotence to halt Israeli aggression.” I think if he says that and he's saying that it is apartheid, what's happening in the occupied territories, I think it's time to tell the American people the same thing. And we should be pro-American in our policy, not pro-Israel and not even pro-Arab.
KEYES: Salam, I have to tell you that, in my opinion, repeating a false statement doesn't make it so. But we have to look for a minute, though, at what you just said. Do you mean to say that the attacks that have been carried out by these suicide bombers, aimed at destroying the lives of civilians — we're not talking about the ones that are against military installations, leave those aside — but aimed at destroying people who are civilians — at seder dinners, in public marketplaces, on buses — that those attacks by the suicide bombers against civilians are not terrorism but legitimate resistance? Is that what you mean to say?
AL MARAYATI: No, I'm not. No, that's not what I mean to say because those acts of terrorism...
KEYES: Why did you use the phrase legitimate resistance? Those are terrorist acts.
AL MARAYATI: Because the majority of the struggles...
KEYES: ... before you go on with your rhetoric...
AL MARAYATI: ... the majority of the struggle is legitimate.
KEYES: ... before you go on with your rhetoric, in this program we like to examine what people say, not just have a bunch of rhetoric. And you have said this about how the terrorism is bad, and, no, it doesn't include these suicide bombers. If that's so, then the statement by the Palestinian Authority which praised the effectiveness of the human bombing attacks, the human bombs as they called them, that that statement then would in your opinion be a statement that seeks to justify something that's not justifiable. Is that right?
AL MARAYATI: No. I think what you're doing is you're distorting the statements. And I'm kind of surprised, Mr. Keys, because I thought this broadcast is out of Washington, not out of Tel Aviv.
KEYES: No, meaning no offense, Mr. Salam, that's not a true statement.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Matter of fact, the folks on my show know I was very careful to look at the whole statement, to quote it in context, to take everything that was said, including the allusions to suffering and frustration and occupation. But the heart of the matter was to say that suicide bombing is effective, it will not be defeated. That's what was said here.
AL MARAYATI: And we need to look...
KEYES: And you're telling me that that does not constitute encouragement and incitement to this strategy of terror, right?
AL MARAYATI: We need to look at the root causes of terrorism, Mr. Keyes. And the root cause of terrorism is apartheid.
KEYES: You are saying this is terrorism?
AL MARAYATI: When Nelson Mandela said...
KEYES: You are saying this is terrorism.
AL MARAYATI: ... Yes, it's terrorism.
KEYES: All right, go ahead.
AL MARAYATI: Any attack against civilians is terrorism. But you don't talk about the attacks against Palestinian civilians. And this is the problem with the rhetoric that I hear from the pro-Israel lobby in America that is isolating America from the rest of the world.
KEYES: Let's go to Hugh Price.
PRICE: Let me just say, this is illustrative of the loggerheads that we now face. I think if the Palestinian Authority and Israelis cannot make the kind of headway that sets a foundation for peace, then frankly I think the U.S., the NATO alliance, and peace-loving Arab nations have got to step in and impose a political settlement which includes zero tolerance for terrorism, number one; recognition and acceptance of Israel's right to exist, number two; and the creation of a viable peace-loving Palestinian state that will live with its neighbors. We can't let this continue to spiral into an abyss.
KEYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Price...
PRICE: Yes.
KEYES: ... let me examine that statement because I think it sounds wonderful. But I've got to tell you, wishful thinking is no substitute for reality. When you say we should go in and impose this or that...
PRICE: Right.
KEYES: ... then you're suggesting that if suicide bombings then continued and those suicide bombings included Israeli civilians and included American or other international forces, would you kindly describe to me what the policy would be in response to that continued implementation of the strategy of terror?
PRICE: I said that there must be zero tolerance for terrorism.
KEYES: What does that mean?
PRICE: It means we would have to track down those who are engaged in it and take them out of commission.
KEYES: Mr. Price, we wouldn't that have to do what the Israelis are doing now, right?
PRICE: Mr. Keyes, what is your proposal?
KEYES: No, I'm asking you a question.
PRICE: I'm asking you — you attacked my statements. What is your proposal?
KEYES: You make statements — when people come on this program, you, when people come on the program and they make nice sounding statements, don't expect me to sit here and not examine their logic.
PRICE: Well, don't expect me to listen to your...
KEYES: The logic of your statement, Mr. Price, the logic of your statement is clear. We'll substitute for the Israelis. And I'm asking a simple question.
PRICE: And for the Palestinians. The international community must step in.
KEYES: It means right now it would be stepping in to substitute for Israeli security forces in their effort to stop this terrorism. And so if we put the international force in there and the terrorism continues, then the international force would have to fight the terrorists, right?
PRICE: Yes, it might.
KEYES: So, what's the difference between letting the Israelis do the job and stepping in so that other people can do it?
PRICE: Because it doesn't lay the foundation for a future.
KEYES: It doesn't lay the foundation (INAUDIBLE)...
PRICE: It doesn't lay the foundation for a viable future.
AL MARAYATI: Let me agree with you.
KEYES: Well, no. Let me finish. You can agree with him in a minute.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: What lays the foundation for the viable future would seem to be the end of terrorism. And, Salam Al Marayati, I don't see how we get there until the Palestinian leadership stops playing duplicitous games and commits itself actually to stopping its violence.
AL MARAYATI: Well, talk about duplicity, there is a double standard, Mr. Keyes, because the country that introduced terrorism to the region is Israel. Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir were known wanted terrorists. They bombed hotels. They killed civilians. They're responsible for the Deriosin (ph) massacre. That's terrorism.
And the problem is that you're not willing to condemn the occupation. You're not willing to condemn terrorism on the Israeli side. You're only singling out the Palestinian side. And that's dehumanizing the Palestinian people.
The root cause of terrorism, as I was saying, one of the root causes, is the illegal Israeli settlements that the United Nations and international law has called illegal. And if you're such a conservative, you should call it what it really is. They are illegal aliens. And illegal aliens therefore are unlawful. And they should be removed in order to achieve a peace process.
KEYES: First of all, Salam, the dehumanizing that goes on here, I think it is dehumanizing to take 18-year-old girls, incite them to such hatred that they strap on bombs to go out and blow up other 18-year-old girls. I think that's dehumanizing. I think the leaders...
AL MARAYATI: Look, when you have...
KEYES: ... you will let me speak, sir. No, you will let me speak. I let you speak.
AL MARAYATI: OK, go ahead.
PRICE: The leaders that are willing to look at young Palestinian people and see not children, not young people, but bombs, are just as evil as the terrorists who looked at passenger planes and didn't see people but guided missiles. It is the same dehumanization. That's the dehumanization, not what I am trying to do in stopping that dehumanizing violence.
That's the first problem. And it's not me and it's not others who have introduced terrorism into this situation. It is those leaders who are inciting folks to kill themselves along with others and who have no real sense of the deep dignity and value of the lives that they are exploiting in the pursuit of their agenda.
PRICE: Let me just say that Israel announced the beginnings of some withdrawals. I think that's a very positive step. The question will be whether the Palestinian Authority is going to do anything in response to that. I think Israel is taking a very positive step that they've announced today.
Colin Powell is looking for breakthroughs. Let us find out whether any emerge. We don't know. You can't pass judgment this early in the process of shuttle diplomacy.
What I've said is that if that doesn't provide the kind of progress we need, then I think there needs to be more moral authority and more muscle on the part of the international community, including Arab countries, to say to the Palestinian Authority, “If there's to be a sustainable peace, you've got to lay down the terrorism arms.”
KEYES: Mr. Price, what I love about that statement...
AL MARAYATI: In terms of dehumanizing...
KEYES: ... no, let me finish. Mr. Price has had his say. I'm against both of you tonight, so I get a little more time this evening.
Mr. Price, I've got to tell you, I listened to your statement. And you said, “We've got to say this, we've got to say that, we've got to say the other thing.” As we have found in our own war against terror, you don't stop terrorists by talking to them.
PRICE: I'm not proposing talking to them.
KEYES: Excuse me, yes. Yasser Arafat and his cohorts have sponsored terrorism. You have supported the idea that we talk to terrorists and negotiate with terrorists because they are terrorists. And you are saying that the way in which we will now stop their terrorism is with some more talk and some more condemnation.
PRICE: No, that's not what I said. That's not what I said.
KEYES: That does not stop terrorism. And asking that we should do so would be like asking that we shouldn't have gone in and destroyed the infrastructure in Afghanistan. We shouldn't have dropped the bombs...
PRICE: That's not what I said.
KEYES: ... because bombs killed innocent civilians as well. We shouldn't have taken direct action to deal with the terrorists. We should have just invoked moral authority.
PRICE: You have just made all that up. I didn't say one of the things you just said, Alan.
KEYES: Go ahead.
PRICE: I said that I think that...
AL MARAYATI: Let me interject at this point. Let me just interject at this point because I think you're completely towing the (INAUDIBLE) line...
KEYES: Let Hugh Price respond, and then I'll give you the last word...
AL MARAYATI: ... and again, and I think we should be pro-American.
KEYES: ... Let Hugh Price respond.
PRICE: I said that I believe the international community to the extent that negotiations that Colin Powell is trying to arrange don't bear fruit, the international community has got to come in and back up an end to terrorism, number one. Number two, support Israel's efforts to protect its sanctity, its sovereignty, and its security. And three, I think over the long haul, there is going to have to be a Palestinian state that is peaceful, that is viable, if there ever is to be sustained peace in that region of the world.
KEYES: Now, Salam, I want to give you time here, about a minute. And then I want to say a wrap-up, so go right ahead.
AL MARAYATI: Sure. It's the Israelis that are driving the Palestinians into the sea. It is the Israeli government now that is completely after the destruction of a Palestinian state. It is the Israeli government that has committed acts of terrorism, committed war crimes against the Palestinian people.
nd Ariel Sharon belongs next to Milosevic. He belongs in the Hague. And for the United States to say that the United States should continue to support this kind of oppression, to support this kind of racism, to support this kind of apartheid will further isolate America.
Only the United States government and Israel are on the side of the Israelis at this time. The rest of the world knows the truth about what's happening there. And that is the humiliation of the Palestinian people, the torture of its leadership.
And Ariel Sharon is the person who continued to assassinate Palestinian leaders until suicide bombers kept coming one after another. That's the real cause of terrorism.
KEYES: Now we see — now we see — now, Salam, we see what is at stake here. And I want to thank both of you gentlemen for being with me this evening and for getting these ideas on the table.
But I think we know what's on stake here. On the one hand, we have folks who won't call terrorism terrorism, who are then going to say that when you respond to terrorism to try to destroy its infrastructure you are the terrorists, blaming those in point of fact against whom the violence has been unleashed, you are the war criminals, which by the way — and I think people in America ought to remember this — that means that the Afghans can call us war criminals because we unleashed bombs. We didn't even use bulldozers and try to discriminate building by building where the terrorists were. We just blew up what was necessary to go after that terrorist infrastructure.
So, if you're going to start throwing around accusations of who's a war criminal, don't expect that we will be left out when we respond to this ruthless strategy of terror. No, this is just a prelude to what is going to be brought against us as well. And I think we need to keep this in mind.
So on one side you have the ruthless terrorists playing every game they can to get us to look everywhere but at their killing of innocent civilians, including the ruthless dehumanization of Palestinian life that uses young children as bombs instead of respecting them as people.
Then, on the other side we have the diplomacy represented by Mr. Price in which we shall tut-tut down on the sidelines, in which we shall invoke moral authority, in which we shall claim that leader will support the necessary efforts to get rid of terrorism. Yet bombing after bombing, lie after lie, we are willing to tolerate just one more lie from Mr. Arafat today and say we'll do something about the terrorism tomorrow.
I don't think that's fair to Israel. And I, frankly, don't think such an approach is very fair to the resolve we must ourselves have against the terrorist scourge where everything we do in response to terrorism in the Middle East is influencing the credibility of what we will be able to do, what we must do, in order to defend American lives in the larger war against this self-same strategy of terror.
Well, next we're going to get to the question of the day. Should April 15 be a day just like any other? There's only one way to make it so. And that's not to lower the taxes and change the tax rates. It's to ax the tax, get rid of the income tax.
Is it a feasible approach? We will be discussing and debating it in the next half hour.
And after that, “My Outrage of the Day.” An archbishop in Wisconsin who appears to blame the victims of this terrible pedophilia and abuse, rather than looking at their real plight.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: You're looking at a live shot in Maryfield, Virginia. With only 90 minutes to go until midnight here on the East Coast, Maryfield's post office has been turned into an ad hoc drive-through for last-minute tax filers.
Well, tonight, on MAKING SENSE, we're going to be talking about the — what I think is really the key question in all of this.
Like sheep, we go through the process of this income tax every year, a tax that was imposed on us under false pretenses at the beginning of this century, a whole bunch of lies and half truths that got it into place. And, as a consequence, we hand off to the government the power to take as much of our money out of our pockets as they please, and then we're supposed to live with the result.
That, I think, is not only bad in an economic sense, bad for us in terms of what we can build the future on for our families, but it's also bad in terms of our constitutional system because, if our elected leaders and officials can determine what kind of a resource base we're going to have to keep track of them, it's not too long before, as our founders themselves said, the power over our resources will become a power over our will, destroying the real meaning of self-government in this country.
I think the income tax is not only a bad system, it's a system dangerous for liberty. So I state my prejudices right up front.
And we have joining us tonight to talk about this issue, should we get rid of the income tax, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia, a member of the House Rules committee who wants the income tax to go, and against the idea of abolition is Congressman Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington State and a member of the House Budget and Ways & Means Committees.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
REP. JOHN LINDER (R), GEORGIA: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: I want to go first to state the sort of affirmative side of should we abolish the income tax to John Linder on our mini debate here.
Representative Linder, you have introduced legislation that would achieve this purpose. Why do you think it's a good idea?
LINDER: Well, first of all, I think my bill should be looked at very seriously by everyone because it totally makes everyone in America a voluntary taxpayer. You pay taxes exactly when you choose, as much as you choose, by how you choose to spend, and it adheres to three great principles in writing this bill.
First of all, we should totally untax the purchase of essentials and necessities, and, by so doing, we untax the poor. We should then treat everyone else exactly the same. And, thirdly, we should make all taxes transparent. We should know exactly what we're paying the government at every point.
If you were to abolish all taxes on income, the income tax for corporations and individuals, got rid of the payroll tax, the self-employment tax, the gift tax, capital-gains tax, estate tax, throw it all out and tax only personal consumption, you would, first of all, eliminate the tax component in our price system.
We have a study out of Harvard that says 22 percent of what you currently pay for at retail is the embedded cost to the IRS. That is every company that's touched by a product — for example, a loaf of bread from the farm to the shelf — every company has income tax costs and payroll tax costs and accountants and attorneys to avoid the tax costs. All that gets embedded in the product, and the consumer pays it. We believe it's 22 percent of what you currently pay for.
We say abolish the IRS, let competition drive that out of the system, put in place a 23-percent embedded cost, which is a frank, transparent tax, and you got to keep your whole check. Everybody will be totally untaxed on essentials and voluntary taxpayers after that, and April 15th will be another nice spring day.
KEYES: Representative McDermott, I've got — I have stated my prejudice. I happen to believe that's a really good idea. I've listened to those arguments, and I say to myself, “Why not?” Well, you're going to tell me, I'm sure. Why not?
REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Well, first of all, John makes the point that the Senate Finance Committee — Russell Long used to make, is that the only tax that's any good is don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree. We're always looking for ways to put the tax off on someone else.
The reason we have an income tax is because we ultimately started out with a property tax. Everybody's wealth was in property. And, after a while, people said, “Well, this doesn't make any sense. We've got all kinds of wealth in this country that's not related to property. We ought to have a tax on what people make in the society.”
If you live in a civil society, you have a responsibility to pay for it, to pay for roads, to pay for schools, to pay for hospitals, to pay for people who are sick or people who are mentally ill.
And to say that you're going to run that on some kind of voluntary system, that somehow you're just going to say, “Well, if the people aren't buying anything” — I don't know what John means is the — it will be off the essentials. I suppose he means food and clothing.
LINDER: Actually, I don't, Jim, and let me explain what I mean by that. The federal government determines every January what it takes for poverty-level spending, and, by definition, what they mean is what a household of one, two, six, or 10 must spend for their essentials.
So our rebate system would rebate to every household a check sufficient to offset the total tax consequences of spending up to the poverty line, and our mother would get it, and Bill Gates would get it. They shouldn't pay — if they wanted to pay for only essentials and live at poverty level, they would not pay any taxes.
Number two, you made my case about Russell Long's warning, don't ask him, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree. Today in America, the guy who gets away from paying taxes, the guy who's got enough money to buy the lobbyists to get through your committee, the Ways & Means Committee, the average guy is paying a lot.
I want to say that everybody should pay the same. When you get beyond the essentials, which is above poverty-level spending, everybody pays evenly. Nobody is going to get out of this business. We're all going to have to buy food for our families and pay for housing and health care, and we know from a study done at Boston College that the consumption in the economy is a very consistent and steady predictor of activity, much more so than the income economy, which has high amplitudes of volatility.
KEYES: Now...
LINDER: So we're saying we've done $22 million worth of research on this in the last five years...
MCDERMOTT: John...
LINDER: ... economic and market research. We know this will work better than the current system, and, under the current system, it's only the rich who don't pay their share.
MCDERMOTT: Now tell us — tell us what the tax rate would be on the American people...
LINDER: Currently...
(CROSSTALK)
MCDERMOTT: ... replace the income tax...
LINDER: OK. Four...
MCDERMOTT: ... and you're talking about cutting taxes. That is you want to reduce the size of government. You don't want to pay for the things that are going on.
LINDER: Jim, you're changing the subject.
MCDERMOTT: Then...
KEYES: Wait. Can I get in here, gentlemen, just for a second?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hold on. Let me get in here for just a second, though, because, as I listen to the back-and-forth here, I think partly we're missing — he already stated what the rate would be. Twenty-three percent, I think, is what I heard in terms of that tax.
It's an excise tax, by the way, Representative McDermott, which is, in addition to property taxes, the kind of taxes our founders actually wrote into the Constitution, and that is to say taxes on the retail sales of various goods. That has been with us from time immemorial. That's not a new idea. It's actually a return to an older idea.
Final point I would like to make is that you talk about the rate, but what I think John Linder is also alluding to is what is called the incidence of taxation, since how much you pay in taxes depends on how often you engage in the activity or behavior that is taxed, and what this approach does is it puts the incidence of taxation under the control of the individuals, so that, when they engage in certain kinds of spending behaviors, they pay the tax. When they choose not to engage, they don't pay the tax. They are back in the driver's seat.
MCDERMOTT: So, if we had a system like you're talking about, if people didn't want to pay for this war that's going on right now, they'd just say, “I'm not buying anything,” and that would be all right with you because it's voluntary, right?
LINDER: Well, we've had several — Jim, we've had several wars since 1945, and the consumption economy...
MCDERMOTT: And we paid for them with the income tax.
LINDER: The consumption economy is increasing a modest amount every year. Even in the last quarter of last year, it went up by 1.4 percent. But you made a point which has never been part of this discussion, and you've just created it out of whole cloth. I would like to cut government spending, but I don't want to have that...
MCDERMOTT: Ah!
LINDER: Jim, I don't want to have that fight now. I would tax...
MCDERMOTT; Why not? That's what it's about.
LINDER: No, it's not. No, it's not.
MCDERMOTT: What you're trying to do is cut the money out for Social Security...
LINDER: No.
MCDERMOTT: ... and cut the money out for Medicare because your party has never wanted those programs.
LINDER: Jim, you're a very bright guy, and you ought to be ashamed at...
MCDERMOTT: That's true.
LINDER: You should...
MCDERMOTT: Your party never has supported Social Security.
LINDER: Jim...
MCDERMOTT: It has never supported Medicare.
LINDER: Jim — Jim, 80 percent of the Republicans in 1935 voted for Social Security and 80 percent voted for Medicare. Please, please don't resort to cliches. Cliches are a substitute for rigorous thought.
Here is the fact. The 23 percent that Alan and I have talked about is revenue neutral. It brings in the same amount as currently. We know for a fact that there should be arguments down the road about spending levels. We don't want them to take place in this argument.
MCDERMOTT: And what does distribution table look like? Who pays the bulk of the taxes then?
LINDER: The fact of the matter...
MCDERMOTT: The people at the bottom because...
LINDER: No, no. You're wrong, Jim. You're wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
MCDERMOTT: ... and that's what you're doing.
KEYES: Can I — gentlemen, we're running out of time here. I do want to get one word in edgewise before we go, though, because...
MCDERMOTT: It's your program.
KEYES: I must say that I find it interesting, Congressman McDermott, that you would object to the possibility that people would actually be able to control their own tax burden and that it would somehow be totally unacceptable if we were to take out of the hands of our elected masters the access to our income and actually be put back in control of it ourselves. What would happen to our ability to make war and do this and do that?
The scare tactics, though, are based on a fundamental premise that the American people can't be trusted with their own money and that we now have a system in which politicians and leaders should have a...
MCDERMOTT: Alan...
LINDER: You know it makes sense.
KEYES: ... say, regardless of our will — regardless of our will, you should be able to dip into our pockets...
(CROSSTALK)
MCDERMOTT: ... mess...
KEYES: ... to the extent that you decide, And I have to tell you, I've told audiences around the country, the people who oppose this approach are people who basically want to keep power over us and over our economy and over our income in their hands, to be the gatekeepers of our economic fate.
MCDERMOTT: Six hundred thousand people elected me. Six hundred thousand people elected John. They have got control.
KEYES: We're right up against...
MCDERMOTT: They can throw John out in this election.
KEYES: We'll have to have you back because this is just the beginning of a fascinating discussion. Thank you, both. Great job. And I think laying these ideas on the table — and it is just the beginning because this is an idea and an issue very close to my heart.
But I wanted to make sure that we had enough time left for you to share with me “My Outrage of the Day.” Archbishop in Wisconsin who made remarks suggesting that maybe these young people who were abused were at fault because they, quote, “squealed.” You won't believe this.
Right after I get back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now it's time for “My Outrage of the Day.” We've arranged things so I end up with a little more time today because this is an outrage that has been coming back to me like the taste of a bad meal all day long because of the deeply serious nature of the, I think, almost incredible indifference to decency that is represented here.
And I am talking about a statement by an archbishop in Wisconsin, Archbishop Weakland, known as one of the more liberal bishops in the Catholic Church, somebody who had a reputation for having somehow dealt effectively with the challenge of priests who abuse children and rehabilitating them and so forth and so on.
And it comes out now that, in 1994, he had told “The Milwaukee Journal,” and I quote here, “What often — what happens so often in those cases,” these cases of priests and the people they abuse, “is that they go on for a few years, and then the boy gets a little older, and the perpetrator loses interest. Then is when the squealing comes in, and you have to deal with it.”
When I first read that remark, I could not believe that it had come from a prelate of the Catholic Church or, frankly, anybody else of decent conscience.
Does this archbishop fail to appreciate the abusive nature of the relationship between someone, a priest, who represents the moral authority of the Catholic Church in the life of a young person that was entrusted to the company of that priest, precisely because he represents what is supposed to be the grace and authority of the church?
That priest then abuses the child and, in that abuse, introduces, instead of the relationship with God, a relationship based upon an evil will of mutual exploitation. He becomes, as it were, for that child and in that child's life the substitute for what should have been the God-centered moral universe of that young person. Instead, it becomes centered on this wicked relationship and on an authority figure who has abused his position of power in order to usurp the place that should belong to decent authority and decent principle.
If this is not a classic case in which co-dependency will then result and when the more authoritative figure turns away from the younger one, he leaves him in a shattered moral universe, the relationship with God disrupted by the one person who should have represented the integrity of that relationship, and this bishop then has the nerve to imply that the squealing begins, as if somehow or another maybe it would have been better for what, for the abusive relationship to continue?
The very thought sickens me, and it ought to be repugnant to every decent person who thinks of it. If this is the kind of thinking that lies behind the indifference to the real and grievous nature of these abuses that has been in evidence in the church, then I thank God that the pope has called them to Rome, and I sincerely hope that some of them will come back without the authority they have so deeply abused.
We'll be back right after these words here on MAKING SENSE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: If you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site, keyes.msnbc.com. Each day in your mailbox, you'll get show topics, my weekly column, and the links to my favorite articles of the day. And, of course, you can join me in the chat room each night before the show begins at chat.msnbc.com. You all come now.
Well, that's my sense of it tonight. I want to thank all of you for being with me. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.