WSJ: What does it mean to be a fiscally responsible Democrat over the next 10 years and also deal with Social Security and Medicare?... In the case of Social Security, if you reject privatization, as you do, isn't it pretty obvious there are limited amounts of choices? We know what needs to be done. The question is how can we do them when you've taken things like raising the retirement age off the table?
KERRY: Because I don't believe that that is a necessary response or action to any of the things. I just don't believe it is. First of all, right now, the reason Social Security is challenged is because George Bush has an unaffordable tax-cut plan in place, an irresponsible, unaffordable tax plan. And that's why we're losing 10 years of Medicare. We were in a good position to be responsible about Social Security. We put ourselves there. And that's what I intend to try to get back to. And it begins with a strong economy. It also extends to being willing to be bipartisan, and trying to pull people together and find out what we need to do. I've heard the Cassandras of these programs for the 20 years I've been in the Senate, an each time we've been able to respond without doing the draconian things everybody suggests.
WSJ: Do you think there's an argument for removing the federal subsidy from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
KERRY: I don't know the answer to that. I have not examined that. They are enormously successful, enormously powerful entities with a huge share of the market. They've done a lot though for housing and to provide for the economic growth of the country. On the other hand they're pretty big. You know, I just haven't made any decision on that. I really would want to have a review and have some smart people weigh in and see what the implications are.