The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the Presidential campaign, with Gore and Bush campaign speeches, a discussion about how their policies might effect the economy, and a Gore versus Nader debate between Jim Hightower and Senator Paul Wellstone. We close with a Tom Bearden report on the shortage of blood for medical emergencies. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: George W. Bush warned President Clinton today against getting into the Presidential race. The Texas governor said if Mr. Clinton were to campaign for Vice President Gore, he might be subject to attack. Bush spoke in Arlington Heights, Illinois, outside Chicago. A middle school student asked about the President's behavior in office.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I don't think there's a lot of politics to be gained by talking about him. As a matter of fact, I think most Americans would rather move on, and that's what I'm going to do. (Applause) Now, if he decides he can't help himself and starts getting out there and campaigning against me, the shadow returns. (Cheers and applause) I may say something.

JIM LEHRER: Bush also charged again that Vice President Gore wants to expand the federal government. Gore countered, saying he and President Clinton have shrunk the size of government. And he said he would continue to do so if elected. He spoke in Little Rock, Arkansas.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: I'll make this clear pledge: As President, I will not add to the number of people doing work for the federal government, not by even one position. And there will be more who leave those ranks than the ones who are replaced. We have to make sure that government is never a barrier to private sector growth and investment, and we have to make sure bureaucracy is never a barrier to our families or communities.

JIM LEHRER: The Vice President also charged Governor Bush had sharply increased the size of state government in Texas. We'll have more of the candidates' speeches today right after this News Summary. The federal budget surplus was a record $237 billion in fiscal year 2000. President Clinton made the announcement today. It's based on figures for the year that ended in September. It was the third straight annual surplus, something that had not happened since the late 1940s. Overseas today, there were indications that North Korea may curb its missile program. Secretary of State Albright said North Korean leader Kim Jong Il had made an offhand remark about launching a long-range missile. He said his country's launch in 1998 had been its first, and would be its last. She reported the remark as she concluded her historic visit to the communist nation.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: We obviously are continuing these very serious missile discussions, and I take what he said on these issues as serious in terms of his desire and ours to move forward to resolve the various questions that continue to exist on the missile... on the whole range of missile issues.

JIM LEHRER: Albright said lower- level talks on North Korean missiles would resume next week. She flies to South Korea tomorrow. In the Middle East today, rain storms helped reduce street violence in the West Bank. But Palestinians again clashed with Israeli troops in Gaza, where the weather was dry. And Palestinians reported three more deaths in the last 24 hours. On the Israeli side, a spokesman said the army was prepared for a long conflict. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Gore and Bush campaign speeches, the economy argument, the liberals' Nader vote debate, and a shortage of blood.

FOCUS - ON THE STUMP

JIM LEHRER: We begin with another pair of campaign speeches by the leading Presidential candidates. First, Vice President Gore, speaking today at a rally in Little Rock, Arkansas.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: This is an opportunity for Arkansas to shape decision of the entire nation. And you have to ask yourselves, whether or not you want to keep prosperity going or not, whether or not you want to extend it, whether or not you are tired of the strongest economy in the 224-year history of the United States of America; whether or not you want to go back to the days eight years ago, because Governor Bush, after all, says... well, let's hear his argument. He says that we were a whole lot better off eight years ago than we are today. Now, eight years ago, to continue my narrative here, we brought about some changes. And every Republican elected official in the Congress voted against it, and they predicted catastrophe, disaster, even depression. Well, they turned out to be a little bit wrong on that, because after eight years, we have changed the biggest deficits into the biggest surpluses. Instead of repeated recessions, we've seen a tripling of the stock market. Instead of high unemployment, we now have the lowest African American unemployment ever measured, the lowest Latino unemployment ever measured, 22 million new jobs, and the strongest economy in the entire history of the United States of America. That is progress. (Cheers and applause) But here is my message to you today: I'm not satisfied. You ain't seen nothing yet. We're going to do better. But I think the most important thing we can do for our economy is to insist upon the right and responsible choices, and one of them has to do with our budgets. I believe in balanced budgets. I will balance the budget every year. I will pay down the debt every year. And by early in the next decade, under the proposals I'm making, we will completely eliminate the national debt and take that burden off the shoulders of these children as they grow up and make their own way in the world. My opponent's proposal has three elements to it that I want you to look at long and hard. Number one, the centerpiece of his economic plan is a giant $1.6 trillion dollar tax cut, mainly for the wealthy, actually 41%, by his own numbers, 41% of his tax cut plan would go to the wealthiest 1%. Now, I don't begrudge them a tax cut. But I do begrudge on behalf of the American people any effort to squander the surplus in a way that would put us right back into the giant deficits of eight years ago, right back into the repeat recessions that were hard on working people. He wants to privatize a big part of Social Security. Well, now listen here. Hear it out - because the first part of his proposal sounds pretty good when you first just hear the short description of it. He wants to take $1 trillion out of the Social Security Trust Fund and give it to young workers for savings and investment. Well, young workers need more incentives for savings and investments, but the way he proposes to do it is to give $1 trillion out of the Social Security Trust Fund and then he turns right around and gives... promises the same $1 trillion to seniors to keep from having any benefit cuts in Social Security. Now, in addition to all that, he also proposes another $500 billion in new spending, and it's fuzzy math indeed to try to add those numbers up in a way that doesn't put us back into big deficits again. But now here's the point: Those at the very top who are fueling Governor Bush's campaign are anxious for that huge tax cut for the very wealthy. It is not really even good for them, because actually, they benefit from having a strong economy continue more than they would benefit from this short-term infusion of cash. They ought to cast their lot with the rest of us, with all of the people of this country, because we're going to keep the economy strong.

JIM LEHRER: Now to Governor Bush. He spoke today at a middle school in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: The best way to show I trust the people and he trusts the government is to talk about my tax relief plan. First, it's important to understand there's a surplus, but the projected surplus will exist after budgets have grown, after over the next ten years, the baselines of the budget are increased and there's still money, which leads me to believe that the people aren't under-taxed, they're overtaxed. (Applause ) People ask me all the time, well, what's going to affect economic growth? Over-regulation, overspending at the federal level, unbridled tort lawyers and isolationism. That's what's going to cause this nation's economy to slow down. What will increase growth is trade, reasonable civil justice laws, less regulation and tax relief, and tax reform. ( Applause ) Rather than increasing the size and scope of the federal government, like my opponent would like to do, I'd like to send some of the money back to people who paid the bills. You see, there's a difference of opinion. There you are. There's a difference of opinion. There's a difference of opinion. He thinks the surplus is the government's money. I know the surplus is the people's money. And we have a difference of opinion about what's called targeted tax relief or tax relief. If we're going to have tax relief, it ought to be fair. It ought not to be one of these plans that is so prescriptive, it's hard to figure out who gets what. Let me ask you a question, just to point up the differences between our points of view. How many of you own hybrid electric-gasoline engine vehicles? (Laughter) If you look under there, you'll see that's one of the criteria necessary to receive tax relief. So when he talks about tax relief, that's pretty darn targeted. (Applause) How many of you are stay-at-home moms and have a baby under the age of one? If you're a stay-at-home mom and have a baby under the age of one, you qualify for targeted tax relief. I think you're beginning to get the drift of what the definition of targeted is. I have a different point of view. How many of you all pay federal taxes? You get tax relief. (Cheers) I don't think you want a President-- this country doesn't need a President who tries to pick the winners and losers with tax relief. I believe we need to eliminate the death tax. It's unfair to Illinois farmers and small business people. We need to do something about the marriage penalty. Our code needs to encourage marriage. We need to drop the top rate from 39.6 to 33%. Let me tell you two reasons why: Let me tell you two reasons why: One, our nation needs to stand on principle. And, in principle, the federal government should take no more than a third of anybody's federal income. And two, we've got to understand how capital works. Governments don't create wealth. The government's role is to create an environment in which entrepreneurs can flourish, in which small businesses grow to be big businesses. Our point of view is, cutting the top rate encourages economic growth, and the question the President ought to ask is, "how do we continue to expand the pie, so people who are willing to work hard can realize the great American experience." It's like this nation has put a tollbooth right smack in the middle of the road of the middle class. And that's not fair. I want to drop the bottom rate from 15% to 10%, increase the child credit from $500 to $1,000 per child. I want to make it fair and make it middle class, accessible to all who are willing to work.

FOCUS - ECONOMIC IMPACT

JIM LEHRER: As we just heard, economic plans are very much on the minds of the candidates, Margaret Warner has more on that.

MARGARET WARNER: The presidential campaign comes at a time of unprecedented prosperity. The nation is enjoying its tenth year of economic growth, with inflation of just 3.5% and unemployment near a 30-year low, there are also some troubling signs. Higher oil prices have fueled fears of rising inflation. And uneven corporate earnings have roiled the stock market. To explore how the candidates' competing plans would affect the nation's economy, we turn to John Makin, chief economist with a New York investment hedge fund, and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; William Spriggs, director of research and public policy at the National Urban League; Morton Marcus, director of the Business Research Center at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business; and Stanford historian David Kennedy, whose book, "Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War," won a Pulitzer Prize this year. Welcome, gentlemen. You all just heard the two candidates lay out a synopsis of their economic plans. John Makin, based on those plans, who do you think would do a better job of keeping the prosperity going?

JOHN MAKIN: I think Governor Bush would do a better job of keeping the prosperity going. There are really a couple of problems that we have to address. One, as you mentioned, is the problem of higher oil prices, which really amounts to a tax on households and businesses. And lower tax rates would help to reverse the effect of that. Secondly, I think probably over the next four years, we're goingto experience a recession. I know we've had a great expansion. Everybody is very happy with it. But it's probably prudent to think about what one would do in a recession. And I'm surprised to see so much resistance to the idea of cutting tax rates. It was such a popular idea in the 1980'S. It was such a popular idea with President Kennedy in the 1960's, to get the economy moving. So I think the idea of cutting tax rates, which would help demand, as well as production, is a sounder idea than spending more money and would be a better antidote to any possible recession we might have.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Bill Spriggs, how do you see it in terms of who would keep the economy stronger?

WILLIAM SPRIGGS: Well, they don't come with empty slates. One of the key issues is credibility on the budgeting process. And eight years ago, I think we've been spoiled by the fact that the Office of management and Budget used to turn out numbers that we couldn't believe, and there was no credibility in the fiscal policy of the government. Now at least we believe these numbers, and in fact, the economy has performed better. So I think that's a big thing in favor of Vice President Gore in evaluating the credibility of their plans. The other thing is that I think that we don't want to spend, and tax cuts are spending away that surplus in a way that's so broad and so massive. So I think that the cautious and prudent approach of a narrower tax plan, and of making sure that we get the national debt down, buy down the debt, so that we have the room to invest in the future, as well as make sure that we have funds available for a next generation, when they have to figure out what they're going to do with Social Security.

MARGARET WARNER: Morton Marcus, how do you see the impact that each of these plans would have on the economy?

MORTON MARCUS: Well, it's very much the way we have the World Series going on right now. Whichever team wins, we still have a winner in New York City, and I think that the differences between Bush and Gore are very great, but the results turn out to be the same. And that is, if you look at the tax cut plan of Governor Bush or if you look at the spending plans or tax plans of Vice President Gore, in both cases, you have more money pumped into the economy. You have more pressure on inflation. You have more of the tendency for Alan Greenspan to raise interest rates. I don't think that either of those approaches is necessarily healthy. On the side with Social Security, both candidates are encouraging private money going into the stock market. What they want to do is they want to take money from Social Security, and they want to put that into the stock market. And one way or another, that's what they're trying to do. I don't think we need to boost up the stock market. So both of them come at this in different ways, but they have the same kinds of results.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor Kennedy, how do you see this in terms of the likely impact?

DAVID KENNEDY: We, I was struck throughout the presidential debate at how uncritically virtually everybody accepts the premise that there will be surpluses off into the indefinite future. It seems to me that that's a very dubious assumption. The Congress has broken the budget agreement for each of the last several years and is already spending the surplus before it officially arrives. The current moment reminds me in many ways of another decades that resembles ours in many ways, the 1920's -- a period which was often referred to sometimes in Herbert Hoover's campaign slogan, in fact, as thenew era -- the phrase with which our current, phrase the new economy resonates. There were new technologies, such as radio and automobiles, which were creating wholly new industries, in a way that telecommunications and computer technologies are today. And it was a time filled with confidence that the future would be prosperous out into all the foreseeable horizons. But every schoolchild knows how that story ended - with the Great Crash of 1929 and an 11-year Depression that ensued. So I think if the study of history teaches us anything here, and in other case, too, it's that we need to be cautious about the future. It's full of surprises.

MARGARET WARNER: What about that point, John Makin, that both candidates are basing their economic plans on this huge surplus that they're projecting, and that it's a pretty shaky assumption, whether you just look at what's happening in our economy now, or as Professor Kennedy is, if you look at history?

JOHN MAKIN: Certainly it's not a good idea to think that you're going to have surpluses forever, and, you know, one of the problems we've had is we have gotten into this ten-year budget projection syndrome, which is I think very dangerous. The other thing I'm surprised at is the notion, however, that just paying down the debt is a good thing. Both candidates seem to accept the idea. You know, it's not always a good thing to pay down the debt. It may turn out that instead of paying down the debt, which by the way now is only 35% of GDP, the lowest it's been in many years, and the lowest among G-10 countries -- it might make more sense to invest in the economy by lowering tax rates -- again, as the Kennedy administration did in the 60's and the Reagan administration did in the 80's. Secondly, if we have a recession, the idea of paying down the debt would be a bad idea. You'd certainly want to help the economy with less burden from taxes, and perhaps some spending stimulation.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me make sure I understand it. You're saying that the tax cuts in a time of recession are actually a good idea. You're not saying that a President Bush could roll back those or would roll back those tax cuts even in a downturn?

JOHN MAKIN: No, I think it would be all the more appropriate to have them in a down turn. Again, when I -- there's a bit of revisionism under way here. Most standard approaches to how to deal with a recession would be that the government tries to stimulate the economy. It used to be by spending more money. I think one of the things we've learned over the past 40 years is that it's probably better to stimulate the economy by reducing the burdens of taxation, by cutting tax rates and encouraging more efforts and leaving more money in people's hands.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Bill Spriggs, you do the same thing. Look at the real possibility of a downturn. Where would president... a President Gore's plan leave us, because as you said, tax cuts or spending are both spending?

WILLIAM SPRIGGS: Well, I think that a President Gore plan in the case of a downturn still puts you in wiggle room. I think the problem with Governor Bush's proposal is that you're spending the entire proposed surplus ahead of time. A tax cut really spends the money ahead of time. And so it puts you in a weird position. If there was a downturn, I'm not sure that the tax relief needs to go to those at the top. And I think that there are other ways of figuring out how to stimulate the economy that would be more fair. One of the things that really helped this current expansion look so different is the massive tax cut we gave to those at the bottom. And that's why we've been setting record low poverty rates, because we have restored progressivety to the tax system in a very different way than we had in the 1980's.

MARGARET WARNER: So Professor Marcus, are you at all reassured by either of these arguments?

MORTON MARCUS: No. I think the real issues are what do we do in terms of stimulating the economy now? I think both of them have programs of stimulus that we do not need in the economy. I think that if anything, Mr. Gore's program at least gives us a more targeted approach. He's interested in the environment and certain kinds of spending that is really national investment of the best sort. Tax cuts very often lead to a lot of discretionary spending by consumers and we'll have more people taking cruises, but that's not necessarily investing in our economy.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think is the most likely scenario for a downturn?

I mean, what might the next president face that could trigger such a downturn?

MORTON MARCUS: Well, a downturn could easily be triggered by increases in petroleum prices that stay high. We haven't seen that yet. They've been bouncing around. We could also have downturns triggered by international considerations similar to what we had in 1990-91, which was also oil related. But I think that the most likely situation that we have to look for first is an increase in inflationary pressures in the near term as these presidents might come in, and then try the push these inflationary programs.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Professor Kennedy, I know you're an historian, not an exist, but you have written a lot about this, as we just pointed out. Do you think that we are, as a nation, as vulnerable to a massive depression, such as we had in the 30's, at the end of the 1920's, or is our whole economic so different, with so many more sort of safety nets and features and institutions that we aren't?

DAVID KENNEDY: Well, I don't think we'll have that particular depression again. I think we've learned a lot of ways to protect ourselves against it. We've built in protections for consumers and bankers and homeowners and so on and so forth. So that one is not likely to repeat itself. But again, the history is full of surprises. And whether there might be some other kind of recession or depression perhaps on that scale, though not precisely the same thing, is impossible to say. You know, the difference here it seems to me between these two candidates is one that really goes back to a long-standing difference between the two parties. The American philosopher William James said, "in the last analysis, all philosophical differences come down to a difference in temperament." And I think basically there is a difference in temperament here. Republican platforms and candidates tend to be more risk prone, more willing to take risks of various sorts in order to energize and stimulate the economy. The Democratic Party I think traditionally has been more risk averse, more prudential in the face of risk in order to protect people from the volatilities of the free market system. And I think these two candidates reflect that. This difference isn't so much big government or less government, it's really - it's a question about one's aversion to or predilection to risk.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor Marcus, how much impact really in the end does a president actually have? In other words, he comes into office, he has this economic plan he talked about during his campaign, but he's got a Congress to deal with, he's got a Fed to deal with, all other kinds of factors. How much control does he really have?

MORTON MARCUS: I don't think the President has a great deal of control, but he has a great deal of influence. That's really what we're talking about is what kind of course does the president try to set in his program, what does he try to do? What kind of direction does he give, and then he has to respond to the pressures you mentioned. The real question is, how would Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore be capable of dealing with those various forces. Either one of them running on ideological gas could be dangerous for the country.

MARGARET WARNER: Bill Spriggs, influence but not control in terms of impact on the economy from a president?

WILLIAM SPRIGGS: I think the President has a great deal of influence. The last eight years was a different type of recovery. People at the bottom benefited in a way they didn't during the 1980 recovery. I think that when you look at that, that makes a difference. When you also look at the difference in projections, when the Bush... when President Bush's administration left in 1993, they left behind what they thought they could accomplish, and again, using numbers that -- had proven to be rosy in the past. And yet the Clinton administration's program exceeded each one of those markers, lower unemployment, a lower deficit, in fact, surpluses. So I don't think you can call it luck. I think that the direction and the course of an expansion can be set by those priorities. Does the president prevent recessions or that sort of thing, I don't think so.

MARGARET WARNER: John Makin, as an investor, how much impact do you think a new president has or a president has?

JOHN MAKIN: I think the main thing you look for from a president, as others have suggested, is to do no harm and perhaps lead in the right direction. That is, if we have some kind of a crisis or the economy slows down, to lead in a direction that avoids, let's say, protectionism, that avoids being too rigid about paying down the debt and actually being a little more imaginative and perhaps taking some of the chances that David Kennedy is suggesting. So it's really a matter of avoiding a move in the wrong direction when there's a problem and tilting the economy in the right direction. Remember, the President can offer the leadership, but on many of these measures of economic policy that we're talking about, the Fed controls monetary policy, and the Congress disposes on tax and budget matters. So it's the leadership of the President in the right direction that matters.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Professor Kennedy, final thoughts from you on what history teaches us about the President's impact.

DAVID KENNEDY: To repeat, history's full of surprises. That's the main thing it teaches us. Just to return to your original question, I think the distinction between influence and control is a good one. This $9 trillion economy that we have now is like the fabled supertanker. It's very difficult to change its direction or its speed. But the President is the person who can ring up more steam or order a change in the rudder direction or whatever. Those are not insignificant measures by which to influence the direction and the pace of the economic development. So I think it's crucially important who is at the helm, even when seas look calm, as they do today.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you all four very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the liberals: Gore or Nader choice, and a shortage of blood.

FOCUS - THE NADER FACTOR

JIM LEHRER: The big Nader debate. Betty Anna Bowser begins our coverage.

RALPH NADER: Gore hasn't mentioned my name until today, when he uttered the original phrase, "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." Geez, what a creative chap he is, isn't he?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: He may be kidding, but the campaign of third-party candidate Ralph Nader has turned out to be no joke. Last night he spoke to a stand standing-room-only crowd at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, slamming Vice President Al Gore and Governor George Bush equally hard.

RALPH NADER: Let's not unduly personalize George W. Bush, because you know what he really is, he's nothing more than a big corporation running for president disguised as a human being. That's all. (Applause)

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In the final two weeks of the campaign, the impact of Nader's Green Party run for the White House has become a problem -- not for Governor Bush, but for the Vice President -- drawing away some traditionally liberal votes.

SPOKESMAN: Please welcome Ralph Nader.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Nader has been drawing big crowds in rallies around the country. Polls show that even though his numbers are small, they are big enough to make a difference in eight states that President Clinton carried, eight states which had not earlier been considered a problem for Gore. They are: Maine, with four electoral votes. Maine with eight, Michigan with eighteen electoral votes, Minnesota with ten electoral votes, Nevada with four electoral votes, New Mexico with seven electoral votes, Oregon with seven electoral votes, Washington with 11 electoral votes, and Wisconsin with 11 electoral votes. In all, it's a total of 70 electoral votes in states where Al Gore is in a neck-and-neck contest with Governor Bush.

RALPH NADER: The impact this election has on Bush, Gore-- that's their problem. That's not my problem.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Some former Nader raiders have asked their boss to pull out of states where Gore is in a dead heat with Bush. Nader dismisses them as well-intentioned but frightened liberals who sided with the lesser of two evils and focuses instead on the future.

RALPH NADER: I want to build the progressive movement. Stage one will be November 7 with thousands of people who share that objective. And immediately the Green Party becomes the disciplining watchdog on the two parties, pointing their feet to the fire and the only message they understand, which is loss of votes in future elections.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: A major goal of Nader's supporters is to get 5% of the popular vote, so the party can qualify for millions of dollars in federal money in future presidential elections. And some supporters say they don't want to hurt Gore, so they are running ads in major newspapers in states where the race is not tight. The ad's reason: That voting for a candidate who can't win is the smartest thing you'll ever do.

JIM LEHRER: Gwen Ifill takes it from there.

GWEN IFILL: So is Ralph Nader a spoiler? Pitting liberals against liberals, populists against progressives? We pick up the debate with Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota; the two-term Senator has one of the most liberal voting records in Congress. He supports Al Gore. And Nader supporter Jim Hightower, a populist radio commentator and publisher of a monthly political newsletter, he's the author of "If the Gods had Meant us to Vote, They Would have Given us Candidates." Welcome both gentlemen.

Mr. Hightower, why should progressives vote for Ralph Nader?

JIM HIGHTOWER: Because it's a vote for the future. It's a vote against being taken for granted by two-party, money-soaked duopoly that is not meeting the needs of the majority of the people. They're stiffing the family farmers who are going bankrupt at about 1,000 a week now, that are stiffing the working folks who are being downsized at a steady pace, they're stiffing consumers with genetic manipulation of the food supply. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are willing to stand up on these issues, for example, the globaloney of corporate managed train that's being shoved down our throats through NAFTA and the WTO. There's a rebellion against this. This isn't about Ralph Nader. It's about ordinary people looking far real political channel that works for them for a change.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Wellstone, the same question for you. Why should progressives vote for Al Gore?

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: Well, as Jim said, it's a vote about the future. Let me talk about ordinary people. I think that there's an echo here. I hope you can hear me okay. Can you hear me okay, Gwen?

GWEN IFILL: Hearing you fine.

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: I think that what Ralph is saying is important, but we have reached a point right now where... can somebody fix it? I can't come through. I'm sorry.

GWEN IFILL: We'll try to fix it and get back to you, if you don't mind.

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: Okay.

GWEN IFILL: I'll be right what with you. Mr. Hightower, does a vote for Nader hurt Al Gore?

JIM HIGHTOWER: I don't think so. I think Al Gore hurts Al Gore. But I also have been to a number of these rallies that your film was showing and that you were talking about earlier, including 6,000 people here in Austin, which is rather astonishing for Ralph Nader. You know, 10,000 in places like Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, 12,000 in Minnesota, 15,000 in New York. And these are people who are not Gore backers. If you want to back Al Gore, I think that's what you should do. That's an honorable position. But it's just as honorable to be reaching out to the 60% majority, Gwen, who are not going to vote in this November 7 election or are going to vote for third party candidates because they don't believe they have a choice right now. I believe that it's irresponsible for us, particularly as progressives, not to be reaching out to that vast majority of people and offering them a chance to build a new political channel. I come to you as an old-time Democrat, elected here in the state of Texas as a Democrat, proud to be so. But now I look up at my national party, and the Al Gores and the Democratic Leadership Council; they've taken off the old Sears Roebuck work shoes and strapped on the Gucci's that the Republicans strut around in.

GWEN IFILL: Well, we're going to try to give Senator Wellstone a chance to get back in this. Can you hear any better now?

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: You know what -- even if I'm echoing -

GWEN IFILL: You've got a lot to say here.

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: I've got to respond to what Jim is saying. You know, I think you do focus on ordinary people, but I think that what we're saying is, "if you live in Texas, Jim, go ahead and vote for Ralph." But in states where it's going to be close, if you care about the environment and if you care about economic justice, whether or not there's more investment in education and kids and health care, and if you care about reform, and if you care about a Supreme Court that will respect the right of women to choose, and a Supreme Court that won't overthrow much of the work that we've done in our lives, then you're going to vote for Vice President Gore. That's what this election is about. I'm for Ralph doing well up to the point that this means that George W. Bush gets elected President. You don't want George W. Bush and his supporters in control of national government. The differences make a difference, especially for the lives of ordinary citizens in America. I'm sorry, Jim, when it comes to Head Start, or child care, or kids in school, or prescription drugs for elderly people, those are important issues to people's lives. I don't think you want to see a vote for ravel becoming a vote for George W. Bush.

GWEN IFILL: Senator, I do want to give you an opportunity to follow up here. Are you saying then that, in fact, a vote for Ralph Nader would hurt Al Gore?

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: What I am saying is, while I have tremendous respect for what Ralph has done, did you hear what I just said earlier?

GWEN IFILL: Absolutely.

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: Sorry. The connection is all off. What I am saying is that I have tremendous respect for Ralph, and I appreciate a lot of what he said about the issues, and I'm in agreement with what he says about a lot of the issues, but if you live in a state like Texas where Jim's from fine, but in the battleground states, where it's close, you don't want to cast a vote for Ralph Nader which becomes a vote essentially for George W. Bush. You don't want to do that -- not if you care about the environment, not if you care about health care, not if you care about education, and not if you care about the future composition of the Supreme Court. It's too dear a price to pay.

GWEN IFILL: What is it about Al Gore... what is it about Ralph Nader that's so appealing, Mr. Hightower, to these Green Party, outsider kind of voters? Are these people who aren't going to vote otherwise at all, or would these people who would have voted Democrat?

JIM HIGHTOWER: Mostly at these rallies, these are folks, particularly young people, they're like 60%, 70% young folks, folks being brought into the process. Ralph is not subtracting from Al Gore, he's adding to the political process and adding to democracy. And the reason he's reaching these people is because this is a guy who is not for sale. He's got - you know -- more than 35 years of being on the side of the people, willing to take on the concentrated global corporate power -- powers that Al Gore has willingly gone along with.

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: But Jim is avoiding one question. Ralph is adding to the political dialogue of this country. He is speaking to important issues. I give him full credit for that. But Jim cannot say he's not subtracting from Al Gore, because in the battleground states, not Texas, Jim, but in a state like Minnesota and other states we've mentioned, clearly if people end up voting for Ralph Nader, we could very well get George W. Bush, and I think the Palo Alto supporters know that.

JIM HIGHTOWER: We have to vote something we're for, that means taking a risk, just as the founding fathers took a risk back in 1776.

GWEN IFILL: Let me jump in ask Senator Wellstone a question. You're in Minnesota. You've run in Minnesota and won. This is one of the battleground states you're talking about. What is it about Ralph Nader that's making him so appealing to people in Minnesota?

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: I think Ralph has tremendous conviction. I think Ralph has taken on a lot of issues that deal with distribution of power in America - some of the global economic questions that Jim and I agree on - but, Jim, I'm for more investment in Head Start. I'm for more investments in children's education. I'm for expanding health care coverage. I'm for more environmental protection. I'm not telling you we're not going to have to organize hard after Al Gore wins, but I'm telling you the differences between Al Gore and George W. Bush on these issues make a difference to the lives of ordinary people, and we shouldn't have too much distance from those problems, everyday problems that people have to say it makes no difference.

GWEN IFILL: That's a good question for you, Mr. Hightower. Does it make a difference at all?

JIM HIGHTOWER: Certainly Al Gore is incrementally better than George W. Bush, including on the kind of social programs that my friend Paul Wellstone, by the way, if he were running, I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd be championing Paul Wellstone. But as a Democrat, I've been terribly disappointed. We've had these promises from Al Gore and Bill Clinton before, and they didn't deliver. They took progressives for granted and went along with Wall Street. I'm tired of being taken for granted. I'm tired of the family farmers and the ordinary working people of this country and around the world, by the way, getting stiffed -- and particularly the poor people in this country getting stiffed. That's why I think we finally have got to take a break and get out there and get back to the grass roots level, get out of the Wall Street suites and back into the streets of ordinary people and build a new politics. And I hope this ends up in the Democratic Party, but if we don't take that break now, we're going to be right back in 2004 waiting for the same thing.

GWEN IFILL: Are you saying, Mr. Hightower, that you're gambling on the fact that even if George W. Bush wins this, it's okay because it will energize liberals?

JIM HIGHTOWER: Well, it's not just liberals. This is not about right to left, it's about top to bottom. Again, you have got 60% of the American people who are voting no to the two-party. They're either not going to vote or are going to vote or vote for third-party candidates. We had better be building something new, or these people are going to be in serious rebellion.

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: Here's what bothers me, Jim, about your comments about taking a break. I see this crowd in the Senate. You know, as a favor, as a special favor to pharmaceutical companies, they don't want to have prescription drug coverage for elderly people. As a special favor to the insurance companies, they don't even want basic patient protection. As a special favor to the bottom dwellers of Congress, they don't want to raise the minimum wage. They call legislation the Safe Act. They call legislation that overturns the 40-hour week the Family Friendly Workplace Act. We can't afford to take time out. It's too important to people's lives. I'll tell you this, first things first. In the battleground states, I hope that Ralph's supporters will support Al Gore for the reasons I've stated. And after we win this election, then we do the organizing that you're talking about, and we make sure that Vice President Gore and then President Gore walks his talk. I agree with you on the issues. And I agree with you on the importance of organizing for power. But this is... The stakes are too high, and it's too dear a price to see George W. Bush and his supporters take over the national government. I don't want to see that. You don't want to see that, Jim.

JIM HIGHTOWER: That is the argument that has been made throughout history. You just wait. Sit back, don't challenge King George III. You suffer, you abolitionists, you populists, you laborists, don't push. We'll get to you later. I'm tired of pie in the sky when we die.

GWEN IFILL: Ifill: Can I jump back in for a second. Mr. Hightower, do you think there's a chance that Ralph Nader could surprise the nation the way that Jesse Ventura did in Paul Wellstone's home state of Minnesota?

JIM HIGHTOWER: Certainly if he had been allowed into the presidential debates rather than being shut out and done so rudely and physically by this private entity, this corporate funded - that controlled debate, controlled under the two parties. I believe he definitely would have. But even without that, Nader is going to surprise people. It is going to be more than the 4% or 5% that he's showing right now, because people are looking for something they can be for. They're looking for some integrity in the political process, and that's why Ralph is doing well. It's not about him. It's about the people themselves.

GWEN IFILL: Flip side of that, Senator, is people will suddenly wake up on November 6 and have a different change of heart and realize they're going to vote for Al Gore after all. How much can you count on that?

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: You can't count on that. The Vice President has to earn their support. And again, Ralph has introduced a lot of important perspectives into the political dialogue. But, you know, Jim talks about history. The other argument I've heard is, it doesn't make any difference. Then if you get George W. Bush in and you turn the clock back on a lot of issues that are important to people's lives, the most vulnerable citizens in this country, then people will get out, galvanized and make things better. I don't want to take that chance for our country. I really don't want to take that chance for our country. And I do believe that a lot of Ralph supporters come election day in the battleground states, they will vote for Vice President Gore, because they understand this.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Paul Wellstone and Jim Hightower, thank you both very much.

FINALLY - BLOOD SHORTAGE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, hospitals and the problem of blood shortages. Tom Bearden reports.

DR. PAULA GRONCI: Hi, Oshonda, how are you doing today?

OSHONDA TAYLOR: Fine.

DR. PAULA GRONCI: Having any problems that I should know about?

TOM BEARDEN: 12-year-old Oshonda Taylor has sickle cell anemia. She requires regular blood transfusions. Normally she gets two units of blood once a month. But things aren't normal. Last time, Dr. Paula Gronci was only able to give Oshonda one unit. That's because the shelves in the blood bank at the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center just south of Los Angeles, are extremely short on blood.

DR. PAULA GRONCI: This is the first time in the 20 years that I've been practicing that I've been asked by our blood bank to only administer one unit of blood. We've had shortages before, particularly at the holiday seasons, Christmas and New Years', but I've never been asked to not transfuse or to transfuse only a partial aliquot to a child.

TOM BEARDEN: Oshonda is caught up in what the red cross called, "one of the worst blood shortages in recorded history." The agency said the problem was particularly acute in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New England, and the mid-Atlantic states. The Red Cross likes to have a four-day supply, 80,000 pints on hand. Last month the reserve shrunk to just 36,000. The shortage could have a devastating effect on people like Oshonda Taylor. Dr. Gronci says getting just one unit at a time puts her at greater risk for a stroke that could cause brain damage or even kill her.

OSHONDA TAYLOR: What's scary about is that... to know that the fact that at any time or any point I can

drop into pain, maybe die. It's scary knowing that I can go just like that.

TOM BEARDEN: So now Oshonda's mother has to take her to the hospital twice as often. After each transfusion, Oshonda also must take medications which make her violently ill for up to three days, so that ordeal is doubled, too. And Oshonda is not the only person at greater risk. Long Beach Memorial is a level- one trauma center, a place where badly injured people are taken after accidents. Treating them can consume enormous quantities of blood, especially type "o" blood, which can be given to anyone regardless of their own blood type. Type "o" is one of the types where supplies are critically low.

SPOKESMAN: Sections demonstrate a biopsy...

TOM BEARDEN: Dr. Emanuel Ferro runs the hospital's blood bank.

DR. EMANUEL FERRO: We are literally a car wreck away from having no blood on our shelves. Support traumas can sometimes take, 10, 20, 30 units just for one trauma, and we don't have that on the shelves to support a trauma. So we're really at risk for a trauma or series of traumas to sort of wipe us out and then leave us without blood for other patients that may need blood.

TOM BEARDEN: Long Beach Memorial is one of 150 hospitals in the Los Angeles area that depends on the American Red Cross to supply most of its blood. Dr. Peter Page runs the Los Angeles blood bank.

DR. PETER PAGE: This is the room where we have the red cells available for transfusion to our hospitals, and ordinarily the room is full. There's more than three times as much blood as there is here now. The little bit of blood that we have is some "a" and some "ab," a little bit more "a," but "b" and "o" aren't here.

TOM BEARDEN: One reason for the decline is that the demand for blood has risen 11% in the last two years while donations only increased by 8%.

DR. BERNADINE HEALY: Do you know we could not practice modern medicine without blood.

TOM BEARDEN: Dr. Bernadine Healy is the President of the American Red Cross. She says demand will continue to grow because the population is aging, and doctors are using more blood in ever more high- tech procedures.

DR. BERNADINE HEALY: It's called the wonders of modern medicine, because we are every day coming up with new approaches to solving difficult problems like cancer, liver transplantation, more complicated surgeries, caring for little babies in neonatal intensive care units. All of these call for blood, and that's in addition to the normal uses that people think about, the accident on the roadway or an elective surgical operation.

WORKER: You're going to feel a pinch and a burn.

TOM BEARDEN: Today only about 5% of the eligible population donates blood. It used to be higher, but donorship fell off in the 1980s because some people feared they could contract AIDS by giving blood. It was never true, but the numbers never recovered.

SPOKESMAN: You loading up blood to send it where?

SPOKESMAN: It's going to Washington Township Hospital.

TOM BEARDEN: Dr. Scott Murphy operates the Pennsylvania/New Jersey Blood Bank. He says lifestyle is also a factor.

DR. SCOTT MURPHY: I think we have a hectic kind of frenzied lifestyle in the United States. You look at married couples. 75% of the couples, both of them work. People have much less free time. I don't know how many people I've talked to in the last couple weeks who have said, "I just don't have time to give blood."

TOM BEARDEN: Donations usually pick up after Labor Day when people return from vacations. That didn't happen this time. Like most big cities, Los Angeles uses more blood than local residents donate. The area imports more than 45% of its supply from other Red Cross blood banks around the country. In the past, donations from rural areas have made up for most shortfalls. But now everyone is short, and outlying areas have to take care of their own needs first. On the opposite coast, the city of Philadelphia found itself in the same boat as Los Angeles. They also import about 30% of the blood they need. On September 14, the Pennsylvania/New Jersey Red Cross asked the 100 hospitals they serve to postpone elective surgeries to conserve blood. Their stockpile had dropped below 40%.

SPOKESMAN: We need a cat scan in ten minutes, please.

TOM BEARDEN: Like Long Beach, the Hahneman Medical Center is a level one trauma center, treating a steady stream of badly injured people on a daily basis.

SPOKESMAN: You're at Hahneman Hospital. We're going to take a-number one care of you.

TOM BEARDEN: No one was more concerned than Dr. Bartholomew Toltella, the chief of trauma surgery.

DR. BARTHOLOMEW TOLTELLA: It's a trauma surgeon's worst nightmare. We may go days without using it and then get a patient who requires an extraordinary amount. My personal best is 45 pints of blood, and the patient walked out of the hospital.

TOM BEARDEN: Across town at Einstein Medical Center, there was also concern.

SPOKESMAN: What do we have?

TOM BEARDEN: Dr. Ierachmiel Daskal runs that hospital's blood bank. He says he was consulting the surgery schedule four times a day instead of two and was negotiating with surgeons on their need for blood.

DR. IERACHMIEL DASKAL: Surgery consumes only 50% of our blood. The other 50% is medical use. So you always have to think about the other, the silent part of the hospital that uses the product.

TOM BEARDEN: Dr. Daskal says he sometimes loses sleep over the possibility that some time in the future, he may have to make a life or death decision on who will and who won't get blood.

DR. SCOTT MURPHY: Hello. I'm Dr. Scott Murphy with an important message from the American Red Cross.

TOM BEARDEN: But a Red Cross plea for donors put off that decision, at least for a while. The blood banks were overwhelmed with more than new donors, more than 2,000 in three weeks.

WOMAN: I should have done it a long time ago.

TOM BEARDEN: That surge of donors got Philadelphia over the hump, but blood has a limited shelf life, just 42 days at most, and if it isn't used, it must be discarded. Back in LA, more than three weeks after the national plea for blood, the shelves are still bare.

SPOKESMAN: An important message from the American Red Cross: Right now there is a blood

shortage in our community.

TOM BEARDEN: So the Red Cross has started airing these public service announcements to spur a steady stream of donors. Doctors in both cities say the shortage wasn't really a surprise because they've seen levels continue to drop for the last two years. Many surgeons have tried to find ways to conserve blood. One way is to use this machine called a cell saver. It collects the patient's blood from the operating field, processes it, and returns it to the body's system. But ultimately, doctors say the supply has to meet demand, and that means more people donating blood. But donations typically go down during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.

DR. EMANUEL FERRO: According to their projections about what they're drawing now, they don't really have a date where we see a light at the end of the tunnel, and that's a real big concern, because the holidays are sort of looming close.

TOM BEARDEN: You sound like you're worried.

DR. EMANUEL FERRO: I'm worried. I'm very worried.

TOM BEARDEN: A lot of blood bank directors and hospitals are wondering how they'll get through another looming crisis, much less deal with the longer- term problem of finding enough people willing to give what the Red Cross calls "the gift of life."

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday: Governor Bush warned President Clinton against getting into the presidential race, Vice President Gore pledged not to expand the federal government if elected, and North Korean Leader Kim Jong Il gave indications his country may curb its missile program. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.