Debate Between Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States and James E. Carter, Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party [Ford Speech or Statement]

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1

I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

OCR

Digitized from Box 31 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 23, 1976
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
THE WHITE HOUSE
DEBATE BETWEEN
GERALD R. FORD
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND
JAMES E. CARTER
THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE OF
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
THE WALNUT STREET THEATRE
9:31 P.M. EDT
THE MODERATOR: I am Edwin Newman, moderator of
this first debate of the 1976 campaign between Gerald R.
Ford of Michigan, Republican candidate for President,
and Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Democratic candidate for
President.
We thank you, "President Ford, and we thank
you, Governor Carter, for being with us tonight.
There are to be three debates between the
Presidential candidates, and one between the Vice
Presidential candidates. All are being arranged by
the League of Women Voters Education Fund.
Tonight's debate, the first between Presidential
candidates in 16 years and the first ever in which an
incumbent President has participated, is taking place
before an audience in the Walnut Street Theatre in
Philadelphia, just three blocks from Independence Hall.
The television audience may reach 100 million in the
United States and many millions overseas.
Tonight's debate focuses on domestic issues
and economic policy. Questions will be put by Frank
Reynolds of ABC News, James Gannon of The Wall Street
Journal, and Elizabeth Drew of The New Yorker magazine.
Under the agreed rules, the first question will
go to Governor Carter. That was decided by the toss of
a coin. He will have up to three minutes to answer. One
follow-up question will be permitted with up to two
minutes to reply. President Ford will then have two
minutes to respond.
MORE
Page 2
The next question will go to President Ford,
with the same arrangements, and questions will continue
to be alternated between the candidates. Each man will
make a three-minute statement at the end, Governor
Carter to go first.
President Ford and Governor Carter do not have
any notes or prepared remarks with them this evening.
Mr. Reynolds, your question for Governor
Carter?
MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. President, Governor Carter.
Governor, in an interview with the Associated
Press last week, you said you believed these debates
would alleviate a lot of concern that some voters have
about you. Well, one of those concerns -- not an uncommon
one about candidates in any year -- is that many voters
say they don't really know where you stand.
Now, you have made jobs your number one priority
and you have said you are committed to a drastic reduction
in unemployment. Can you say now, Governor, in specific
terms, what your first step would be next January, if you
are elected, to achieve that?
MR. CARTER: Yes. First of all is to recognize
the tremendous economic strength of this country and
to set putting back to work our people as a top priority.
This is an effort that ought to be done primarily by
strong leadership in the White House, the inspiration
of our people and the tapping of business, agriculture,
industry, labor and Government at all levels to work on this
project.
We will never have an end to the inflationary
spiral and we will never have a balanced budget until
we get our people back to work.
There are several things that can be done
specifically that are not now being done; first of all,
to channel research and development funds into areas
that will provide a large number of jobs. Secondly,
we need to have a commitment in the private sector to
cooperate with Government in matters like housing.
Here a very small investment of taxpayer's
money in the housing field can bring large numbers of
extra jobs in the guarantee of mortgate loans and in the
putting forward of 202 programs for housing for older
people and so forth to cut down the roughly 20 percent
unemployment that now exists in the construction
industry.
MORE
Page 3
Another thing is to deal with our needs in the
central cities, where the unemployment rate is extremely
high, sometimes among minority groups and those who don't
speak English or who are black or young people a 40
percent unemployment. Here a CCC type program would be
appropriate, to channel money into the sharing with
private sector and also local and State Governments to
employ young people who are now out of work.
Another very important aspect of our economy
would be to increase production in every way possible,
to hold down taxes on individuals and to shift the tax
burden on to those who have avoided paying taxes in the
past.
These kinds of specific things, none of which
are being done now, would be a great help in reducing
unemployment.
An additional factor that needs to be done can
be covered very succinctly, and that is to make sure that
we have a good relationship between management and business
on the one hand and labor on the other.
In a lot of places where unemployment is very
high, we might channel specific targeted job oppor-
tunities by paying part of the salary of unemployed
people and also sharing with local Governments the pay-
ment of salaries which would let us cut down the
unemployment rate much lower before we hit the
inflationary level.
But, I believe by the end of the first four years
of the next term we could have the unemployment rate down
to 3 percent, adult unemployment, which is about 4 to
4-1/2 percent overall, a controlled inflation rate and
have a balanced growth of about 4 to 6 percent, around
5 percent, which would give us a balanced budget.
MORE
Page 4
MR. REYNOLDS: Governor, in the event you are
successful and you do achieve a drastic drop in unemployment
that is likely to create additional pressure on prices, how
willing are you to consider an income policy; in other
words, wage and price controls?
MR. CARTER: Well, we now have such a low utilization
of our productive capacity, about 73 percent-- think is about
the lowest since the great Depression years -- and such a high
unemployment rate now, 7.9 percent, that we have a long way
to go in getting people to work before we have the inflationary
pressures, and I think this would be easy to accomplish to
get jobs now without having the strong inflationary pressures
that would be necessary.
I would not favor the payment of a given fixed income
to people unless they are not able to work, but with tax
incentives for the low income groups we could build up their
income levels above the poverty level and not make welfare
more profitable than work.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. President, your response?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't believe that Mr. Carter has
been any more specific in this case than he has been on many
other instances. I notice particularly that he didn't endorse
the Humphrey-Hawkins bill which he has on occasions and
which is included as a part of the Democratic platform. That
legislation allegedly would help our unemployment but we
all know that it would have controlled our economy; it
would have added $10 to $30 billion each year in additional
expenditures by the Federal Government.
It would have called for export controls on agri-
cultural products. In my judgment, the best way to get jobs
is to expand the private sector where five out of six jobs
today exist in our economy. We can do that by reducing
Federal taxes as I proposed about a year ago when I called
for a tax reduction of $28 billion, three-quarters of it to
go to private taxpayers and one-quarter to the business
sector.
We could add to jobs in the major metropolitan
areas by a proposal that I recommended that would give
tax incentives to business to move into the inner city
and to expand or to build new plants so that they would take a
plant or expand a plant where people are and people are
currently unemployed.
We could also help our youth with some of the
proposals that would give to young people an opportunity
to work and learn at the same time just like we give money
to young people who are going to college, Those are the
kinds of specifics that I think we have to discuss on these
debates and these are the kinds of programs that I will
talk about on my time.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Gannon, your question to
President Ford.
MORE
Page 5
MR. GANNON: Mr. President, I would like to
continue for a moment on this question of taxes which
you have just raised. You have said that you favor more
tax cuts for middle income Americans, even those earning
up to $30,000 a year. That presumably would cost the
Treasury quite a bit of money in lost revenue.
In view of the very large budget deficits that
you have accumulated and that are still in prospect, how
is it possible to promise further tax cuts and to reach your
goal of balancing the budget?
THE PRESIDENT: At the time, Mr. Gannon, that I
made the recommendation for a $28 billion tax cut--three-
quarters of it to go to individual taxpayers and 25 percent
to American business--I said at the same time that we had
to hold the lid on Federal spending; that for every dollar
of a tax reduction we had to have an equal reduction in Federal
expenditures--a one for one proposition--and I recommended
that to the Congress with a budget ceiling of $395 billion,
and that would have permitted us to have a $28 billion tax
reduction.
In my tax reduction program for middle income tax-
payers, I recommended that the Congress increase personal
exemptions from $750 per person to $1,000 per person. That
would mean, of course, that for a family of four that that
family would have $1,000 more personal exemption, money
that they could spend for their own purposes, money that the
Government would not have to spend. But, if we keep the
lid on Federal spending, which I think we can with the help
of the Congress, we can justify fully a $28 billion tax
reduction.
In the budget that I submitted to the Congress in
January of this year, I recommended a 50 percent cutback
in the rate of growth of Federal spending. For the last 10
years the budget of the United States has grown from about
11 percent per year. We cannot afford that kind of growth
in Federal spending and in the budget that I recommended we
cut it in half -- a growth rate of 5 to 5-1/2 percent. With
that kind of limitation on Federal spending, we can fully
justify the tax reductions that I have proposed, and it seems
to me with the stimulant of more money in the hands of the
taxpayer and with more money in the hands of business to expand,
to modernize, to provide more jobs, our economy will be
stimulated so that we will get more revenue and we will have
a more prosperous economy.
MR. GANNON: Mr. President, to follow up a moment,
the Congress has passed a tax bill which is before you now
which did not meet exactly the sort of outline that you
requested. What is your intention on that bill since it
does not meet your requirements? Do-you plan to sign that
bill?
MORE
Page 6
THE PRESIDENT: That tax bill does not entirely
meet the criteria that I established. I think the Congress
should have added another $10 billion reduction in personal
income taxes, including the increase of personal exemptions
from $750 to $1,000, and Congress could have done that if
the budget committees of the Congress and the Congress as
a whole had not increased the spending that I recommended
in the budget.
I am sure you know that in the resolutions
passed by the Congress, they have added about $17 billion
in more spending by the Congress over the budget that I
recommended. So, I would prefer in that tax bill to have
an additional tax cut and a further limitation on Federal
spending.
Now this tax bill that hasn't reached the
White House yet -- but is expected in a day or two -- it
is about 1,500 pages. It has some good provisions in it.
It has left out some that I have recommended, unfortunately.
On the other hand, when you have a bill of that
magnitude, with those many provisions, a President has to sit
and decide if there is more good than bad, and from the
analysis that I have made so far it seems to me that that
tax bill does justify my signature and my approval.
MORE
Page 7
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter, your response.
MR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford, of course, is
changing considerably his previous philosophy. The present
tax structure is a disgrace to this country. It is a welfare
program for the rich. As a matter of fact, 25 percent of
the total tax deductions go for only one percent of the
richest people of this country and over 50 percent of
the tax credits go for the 14 percent of the richest people
in this country.
When Mr. Ford first became President, in August
of 1974, the first thing he did in October was to ask for
a $4.7 billion increase in taxes on our people in the
midst of the heaviest recession since the Great Depression
of the 1940s. In January of 1975, he asked for a tax
change, a $5.6 billion increase on low and middle income
private individuals, and a $6.5 decrease on the corporations
and the special interests.
In December of 1975, he vetoed the roughly $18 to
$20 billion tax reduction bill that had been passed by the
Congress and he came back later in January of this year and
did advocate a $10 billion tax reduction, but it would
be offset by a $6 billion increase this coming January in
deductions for Social Security payments and for unemployment
compensation.
The whole philosophy of the Republican Party,
including my opponent, has been to pile on taxes on
low income people, to take them off on the corporations.
As a matter of fact, since the late 1960s, when Mr. Nixon
took office, we have had a reduction in the percentage
of taxes paid by corporations from 30 percent down to about
20 percent. We have had an increase in taxes paid by
individuals, payroll taxes, of 14 percent up to 20 percent.
This is what the Republicans have done to us.
This is why tax reform is so important.
THE MODERATOR: Ms. Drew, your question to
Governor Carter.
MS. DREW: Governor Carter, you proposed a number
of new and enlarged programs, including jobs and health,
welfare reform, child care, aid to education, aid to
cities, changes in Social Security and housing subsidies.
You have also said you want to balance the budget by
the end of your first term. You haven't put a price tag
on this program, but even if we priced them conservatively
and we count for full employment by the end of your first
term, and we count for the economic growth that would
occur during that period, there still isn't enough money
to pay for those programs and balance the budget by
any estimates I have been able to see.
So, in that case, what would give?
MORE
Page 8
MR. CARTER: As'a matter of fact, there is, if we
assume a rate of growth of our economy equivalent to what
it was during President Johnson's and President Kennedy's
terms and even before the Vietnamese war, and if we assume
that at the end of the 4-year period, we can cut our
unemployment rate down to 4 or 4-1/2 percent.
Under those circumstances, even assuming no
elimination of unnecessary programs and assuming an increase
in the allotment of money to finance programs, increasing
it as the inflation rate does, my economic projections,
I think confirmed by the House and the Senate committees,
have been with a $60 billion extra mount ofmoney that can
be spent in fiscal year 1981, which would be the last year
of this next term.
Within that $60 billion increase, there would be
fit the programs that I promised the American people. I
might say, too, that if we see these goals cannot be
reached -- and I think they are reasonable goals --
then I would cut down on the amount of implementation of
new programs in order to accommodate a balanced budget
by fiscal year 1981, which is the last year of the next
term.
I believe we ought to have a b lanced budget
during normal economic circumstances and these projections
have been very carefully made. I stand behind them and if
there should be an error slightly on the down side, then
I will phase in the programs that we have advocated more
slowly.
MS. DREW: Governor, according to the budget
committees of the Congress that you referred to, if we
get to full employment, what they project is a 4 percent
unemployment and as you say, even allowing for the
inflation in the programs, there would not be anything
more than a surplus of $5 billion by 1981.
Conservative estimates of your programs would
be that they would be about $85 to $100 billion. So,
how do you say that you are going to be able to do
these things and balance the budget?
MR. CARTER: Well, the asumption that you have
described, the difference is in the rate of growth of our
economy.
MS. DREW: They took that into account in those
figures.
MR. CARTER: I believe the committees to whom
you referred, with the unemployment rate that you sate
and with the 5 to 5-1/2 percent growth rate in our
economy, that the projections would be a $60 billion
increase in the amount of money that we have to spend
in 1981 compared to now.
MORE
Page 9
In that framework would be fit any improvements
in the program. This does not include any extra control
over unnecessary spending, the weeding out of obsolete
or obsolescent programs. We vill have a safety version
built in with complete reorganization of the Executive
Branch of Government, which I am pledged to do.
The present bureatcratic structure of the
Federal Government is a mess, and if I am elected President,
that is going to be a top priority of mine, to completely
revise the structure of the Federal Government to make
it economical, efficient, purposeful and manageable for
a change, and also, I am going to institute zero
base budgeting, which we put into effect in Georgia, which
assesses every program every year and eliminates those
programs that are obsolete or obsolescent.
With these projections, we will have a balanced
budget by fiscal year 1981, if I am elected President and
keep my promises to the American people. It is just
predicated upon very modest, but I think accurate, projections
of employment increases and a growth in our national economy
equal to what was experienced under Kennedy and Johnson
before the Vietnam War.
MORE
Page 10
THE MODERATOR: President Ford?
THE PRESIDENT: If it is true that there will
be a $60 bil .ion surplus by fiscal year 1981, rather
than spend t at money for all the new programs that
Governor Car ter recommends and endorses and which are
included in the Democratic platform, I think the American
taxpayer ou; :ht to get an additional tax break, a tax
reduction of that magnitude.
I feel that the taxpayers are the ones that
need the r :lief. I don't think we should add additional
programs cî the magnitude that Governor Carter talks
about.
It seems to me that our tax structure today
has rates that are too high, but I am very glad to point
out that since 1969, during a Republican Administration,
we have had ten million people taken off of the tax
rolls at the lower end of the taxpayer area and, at the
same tin e, assuming that I sign the tax bill that was
mention d by Mr. Gannon, we will in the last two tax
bills have increased the minimum tax on all wealthy
taxpayers.
I believe that by eliminating ten million
taxpayers in the last eight years and by putting a
heavier tax burden on those in the higher tax brackets,
plus the other actions that have been taken, we can give
taxpayers adequate tax relief.
Now, it seems to me that as we look at the
recommendations of the budget committees and our own
projections, there is not going to be any $60 billion
dividend. I have heard of those dividends in the past.
It always happens. We expected one at the time of the
Vietnam War, but it was used up before we ever ended
the war, and taxpayers never got the adequate relief they
deserved.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Reynolds?
MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. President, when you came
into office, you spoke very eloquently of the need for
a time for healing and very early in your Administration
you went out to Chicago and you proposed a program of
case-by-case pardons for draft resisters to restore them
to full citizenship.
MORE
Page 11
Some 14,000 young men took advantage of your
offer, but another 90,000 did not. In granting the
pardon to former President Nixon, sir, part of your
rationale was to put Watergate behind us, to, if I may
quote you again, "truly end our long national
nightmare.'
Why does not the same rationale apply now today
in our Bicentennial year to the young men who resisted
in Vietnam, many of them still in exile abroad?
THE PRESIDENT: The amnesty program that I
recommended in Chicago in September of 1974 would
give to all draft evaders and military deserters the
opportunity to earn their good record back, and about
14,000 to 15,000 did take advantage of that program.
We gave them ample time.
I am against an across the board pardon of
draft evaders or military deserters.
Now, in the case of Mr. Nixon, the reason that
the pardon was given was that when I took office this
country was in a very, very divided condition. There
was hatred, there was divisiveness, people had lost
faith in their Government in many, many respects. Mr.
Nixon resigned and I became President.
It seemed to me that if I was to adequately
and effectively handle the problems of high inflation,
a growing recession, the involvement of the United
States still in Vietnam, that I had to give 100 percent
of my time to those two major problems.
Mr. Nixon resigned. That is disgrace. The
first President out of 38 that ever resigned from public
office under pressure.
So, when you look at the penalty that he paid
and when you analyze the requirements that I had to
spend all of my time working on the economy, which was
in trouble, that I inherited, working on our problems
in Southeast Asia, which were still plaguing us, it
seemed to me that Mr. Nixon had been penalized enough
by his resignation and disgrace and the need and
necessity for me to concentrate on the problems of the
country fully justified the action that I took.
MR. REYNOLDS: I take it, then, sir, that you
do not believe that you are going to reconsider and
think about those 90,000 who are still abroad? Have
they not been penalized enough? Many of them have
been there for years.
MORE
Page 12
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Carter has indicated that
he would give a blanket pardon to all draft evaders.
I do not agree with that point of view. I gave in
September of 1974 an opportunity for all draft evaders,
all deserters to come in voluntarily, clear their
records by earning an opportunity to restore their good
citizenship. I think we gave them a good opportunity.
I don't think we should go any further.
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?
MR. CARTER:
Well, I think it is very difficult
for President Ford to explain the difference between the
pardon of President Nixon and his attitude toward those
who violated the draft laws. As a matter of fact, now
I don't advocate amnesty, I advocate pardon. There is
a difference, in my opinion, in accordance with
the rulingof the Supreme Court and the definition in
the dictionary.
Amnesty means that what you did was right.
Pardon means what you did, whether it is right or wrong,
you are forgiven for it. I do advocate a pardon for
draft evaders. I think it is accurate to say that
two years ago, when Mr. Ford put in this amnesty that
three times as many deserters were excused as were the
ones who evaded the draft.
But, I think that now is the the time to
heal our country after the Vietnam War and I think
what the people are concerned about is not the pardon or
the amnesty of those who evaded the draft, but whether
or not our crime system is fair.
We have got a short distinction drawn between
white collar crime. The bigshots who are rich, who are
influential, have seldom gone to jail. Those who are
poor and who have no influence quite often are the
ones who are punished and the whole subject of crime is
one that concerns our people very much.
I believe that the fairness of it is what is
the major problem that addresses our leader, and this is
something that has not been addressed adequately by
this Administration.
But, I hope to have a complete responsibility
on my shoulders to help bring about a fair criminal
justice system and also to bring about an end to the
devisiveness that has occurred in our country as a
result of the Vietnam War.
MORE
Page 13
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Gannon.
MR. GANNON: Governor Carter, you have promised a
sweeping overhaul of the Federal Government including a
reduction in the number of Government agencies you say
would go down to about 200 from some 1,900. That sounds
indeed like a very deep cut in the Federal Government. But,
isn't it a fact that you are not really talking about fewer
Federal employees or less Government spending but rather
that you are talking about reshaping the Federal Government,
not making it smaller?
MR. CARTER: Well, I have been through this before,
Mr. Gannon, as the Governor of Georgia. When I took over
we had a bureaucratic mess like we have in Washington now,
and we had 300 agencies, department, bureaus, commissions --
some fully budgeted, some not -- but all having responsibilities
to carry out that were in conflict, and we cut those 300
agencies and so forth down substantially; we eliminated 278
of them. We set up a simple structured government that was
to be administered fairly, and it was a tremendous success.
It hasn't been undone since I was there.
It resulted also in an ability to reshape our
court system, prison system, our educational system, our
mental health programs, and a clear assignment of responsibility
and authority and also to have our people once again
understand and control our Government.
I intend to do the same thing if I am elected
President. When I get to Washington, coming in as an outsider
one of the major responsibilities that I will have on
my shoulders is a complete reorganization of the Executive
Branch of Government.
We now have a greatly expanded White House staff.
When Mr. Nixon went in office we had $3-1/2 million spent on
the White House and the staff that has escalated now to
$16-1/2 million in the last Republican Administration. This
needs to be changed. We need to put the responsibilities
back on the Cabinet members.
We also need to have a great reduction in agencies
and programs. For instance, we now have in the health area
302 different programs administered by 11 major departments
and agencies. Sixty other advisory commissions are responsible
for this. Medicaid is in one agency, Medicare is in a
different one, the check on the quality of health care is
in a different one.
Another thing, our responsibility for health care
itself, this makes it almost impossible for us to have a
good health program.
MORE
Page 14
We have just advocated this past week a consolidation
of the responsibilities for energy. Our country now has no
comprehensive energy program or policy. We have 20 different
agencies in the Federal Government responsible for the
production, the regulation, the information about energy,
the conservation of energy spread all over Government. This
is a gross waste of money for tough, competent management of
Government. Giving us a simple, efficient, purposeful
management of Government will be a great step forward, and if
I am elected -- and I intend to be -- then it is going to
be done.
MR. GANNON: I would like to press my question on
the number of Federal employees, whether you would really plan
to reduce the overall number or merely put them in different
departments and relabel them? In your energy plan, you
consolidate a number of agencies into one, or you would,
but does that really change the overall?
MR. CARTER: I can't say for sure that we would have
fewer Federal employees when I go out of office than when I
come in. It took me about three years to completely
reorganize the Georgia Government. The last year I was in
office our budget was actually less than it was a year
before, which showed a great improvement.
Also, we had a 2 percent increase in the number
of employees last year, but it was a tremendous shift from
the administrative jobs into the delivery of services. For
instance, we completely revised our prison system. We
established 84 new mental health treatment centers and we
shifted people out of the administrative jobs into the field
to deliver better services.
The same thing will be done at the Federal
Government level. I accomplished this with substantial
reductions in employees in some departments. For instance,
in the Transportation Department we cut back about 25 percent
of the total number of employees.
In giving our people better mental health care,
we increase the number of employees, but the efficiency
of it, the simplicity of it, the ability of people to under-
stand their own Government and control it was a substantial
benefit derived from complete reorganization.
We have got to do this at the Federal Government
level. If we don't, the bureaucratic mess is going to
continue. There is no way now for our people to understand
what their Government is; there is no way to get the
answer to a question.
When you come to Washington to try to, as a
Governor begin a new program for your people, like the
treatment of drug addicts, I found there were 13 different
Federal agencies that I had to go to to manage the drug
treatment program and in the Georgia Government we only had
one agency responsible for a drug treatment program.
MORE
Page 15
This is the kind of thing that would be made
and it would be a tremendous benefit in long-range
planning and tight budgeting, saving the taxpayers money,
making the Government more efficient, cutting down on
bureaucratic waste, having a permanent curb on the use
of authority and responsibility of employees, and giving
our people a better chance to understand and control
the Federal Government.
MORE
Page 16
THE MODERATOR: President Ford?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the record will show,
Mr. Newman, that the Bureau of Census -- we checked it
just yesterday -- indicates that in the four years that
Governor Carter was Governor of the State of Georgia,
expenditures by the Government went up over 50 percent.
Employees of the Government in Georgia during his term of
office went up over 25 percent and the figures also show
that the bonded indebtedness of the State of Georgia,
during his Governorship, went up over 20 percent.
There was some very interesting testimony given
by Governor Carter's successor, Governor Busby, before
a Senate committee a few months ago on how he found the
Medicaid program, when he came into office following
Governor Carter.
He testified, and these are his words, the
present Governor of Georgia. He says he found the
Medicaid program in Georgia in shambles.
Now, let me talk about what we have done in
the White House as far as Federal employees are concerned.
The first order that I issued after I became President
was to cut or eliminate the prospective 40,000 increase
in Federal employees that had been scheduled by my
predecessor.
In the term that I have been President -- some
two years -- we have reduced Federal employment by 11,000.
In the White House staff, itself, when I became President,
we had roughly 540 employees. We now have about 485
employees. So, we have made a rather significant reduction
in the number of employees on the White House staff
working for the President.
So, I think our record of cutting back employees,
plus the failure on the part of the Governor's program to
actually save on employment in Georgia, shows which is
the better plan.
THE MODERATOR: Ms. Drew?
MS. DREW: Mr. President, in Vail, after the
Republican Convention, you announced you would now emphasize
five new areas. Among those were jobs and housing, health,
improved recreational facilities for Americans, and you also
added crime. You also mentioned education.
For two years you have been telling us we
couldn't do very much in these areas because we couldn't
afford it and, in fact, we do have a $50 billion deficit
now. In rebuttal to Governor Carter a little bit
earlier, you said if there were to be any surplus in the
next few years, you thought it should be turned back
to the people in the form of tax relief. So, how are
you going to pay for any new initiatives in these areas
you announced in Vail you were now going to stress?
MORE
Page 17
THE PRESIDENT: In the last two years, as I
indicated before, we had a very tough time. We were faced
with heavy inflation of over 12 percent. We were faced with
substantial unemployment. But in the last 24 months,
we have turned the economy around and we have brought
inflation down to under 6 percent, and we have added
employment of about 4 million in the last 17 months
to the point where we have 88 million people working in
America today, the most in the history of the country.
The net result is we are going to have some
improvement in our receipts, and I think we will have some
decrease in our disbursements. We expect to have a lower
deficit in fiscal year 1978.
We feel that with this improvement in the
economy, we feel with more receipts and fewer disbursements,
we can, in a more moderate way, increase, as I recommended,
over the next 10 years a new parks program that would cost
$1.5 billion, doubling our national park system.
We have recommended that in the housing program,
we can reduce down payments and moderate monthly payments
but that doesn't cost any more as far as the Federal
Treasury is concerned.
We believe that we can do a better job in the
area of crime, but that requires tougher sentencing,
mandatory serving prison sentences for those who violate
our criminal laws. We believe that you can revise the
Federal Criminal Code, which has not been revised in a
good many years. That doesn't cost any more money.
We believe that you can do something more
effectively with a moderate increase of money in the drug
abuse program.
We feel that in education, we can have a slight
increase, not a major increase. It is my understanding
that Governor Carter has indicated that he approved of a
$30 billionexpenditure by the Federal Government as
far as education is concerned.
At the present time, we are spending roughly
$3billion 500 million. I don't know where that money
would come from.
But, as we look at the quality of life programs --
jobs, health, education, crime and recreation -- we feel
that as we move forward with a healthier economy, we can
absorb the smallest costs that will be required.
MS. DREW: Sir, in the next few years, when you
try to reduce the deficit, would you spend money for
these programs that you have just outlined or would
you, as you said earlier,return whatever surplus you got
to the people in the form of tax relief?
MORE
Page 18
THE PRESIDENT: We feel that with the programs
that I have recommended, the additional $10 billion tax
cut, with the moderate increases in the quality of life
area, we can still have a balanced budget, which I will
submit to the Congress in January of 1978. We won't wait
one year or two years longer, as Governor Carter indicates.
As the economy improves -- and it is improving --
our Gross National Product this year will average about 6
percent increase over last year: We will have a lower rate of
inflation for the calendar year this year, something slightly
under 6 percent; employment will be up, revenues will be up;
we will keep the lid on some of these programs that we
can hold down. And so we will have a little extra money
to spend for those quality of life programs, which I think
are needed and necessary.
Now, I cannot and would not endorse the kind of
programs that Governor Carter recommends. He endorses the
Democratic platform, which, as I read it, calls for
approximately 60 additional programs.
We estimate that those programs would add
$100 billion minimum and probably $200 billion maximum
each year to the Federal budget. Those programs you
cannot afford and give tax relief.
We feel that you can hold the line and restrain
Federal spending, give a tax reduction and still have a
balanced budget by 1978.
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?
MR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford takes the same
attitude that the Republicans always take. In the last
three months before an election, they are always for
the programs that they fight during the other years.
I remember when Herbert Hoover was against jobs for people.
Alf Landon was against Social Security, And later President
Nixon -- 16 years ago -- was telling the public that John
Kennedy's program would bankrupt the country and double
the cost.
The best thing to do is look at the record of
Mr. Ford's Administration and Mr. Nixon's before his.
MORE
Page 19
We had last year a $65 billion deficit, the
largest deficit in the history of our country, more of
a deficit spending than we had in the entire eight-year
period under President Johnson and President Kennedy.
We have got 500,000 more Americans out of jobs today
than we had out of work three months ago.
Since Mr. Ford has been in office, in two years
we have had a 50 percent increase in unemployment, from
five million people out of work to two and a half more
million, or a total of seven and a half million.
We have also got a comparison between himself
and Mr. Nixon. He has four times the size of the
deficit that Mr. Nixon even had himself.
This talking about more people at work is
distorted because with the 14 percent increase in the
cost of living in the last two years, it means that
women and young people have had to go to work when they
didn't want to because their fathers couldn't make
enough to pay the increased cost of food and of housing
and clothing.
We have in this last two years alone $120
billion total deficits under President Ford and, at
the same time, we have had in the last eight years a
doubling in the number of bankruptcies for small
businesses. We have had a negative growth in our
national economy, measured in real dollars.
The take-home pay of a worker in this country
is actually less now than it was in 1968, measured in
real dollars. This is the kind of record that is
there.
They talk about the future and a drastic change
or conversion on the part of Mr. Ford at the last minute,
and it is one that just doesn't go.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Reynolds?
MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to turn to what we
used to call the energy crisis. Just yesterday a
British Government commission on air pollution, but one
headed by a nuclear physicist, recommended that any
further expansion of nuclear energy be delayed in Britain
as long as possible.
This is a subject that is quite controversial
among our own people, andthere seems to be a clear
difference between you and the President on the use of
nuclear power plants.
Would you say you would use it as a last
priority and why, sir? Are they unsafe?
MORE
Page 20
MR. CARTER: Among my other experiences in the
Dast I am a nuclear engineer, and I worked in this field.
I think that I know the capability and limitation of
atomic power. But, the energy policy of our nation is
one that has not yet been established under this
Administration.
I think almost every other developed nation in
the world has an energy policy except us. We have
seen the Federal Energy Agency established and, for
instance, in the crisis of 1973, it was supposed to
be a temporary agency. Now it is permanent and
enormous and growing every day, and I think the Wall
Street Journal reported not so long ago they have
112 public relations experts working for the Federal
Energy Agency to try to justify to the American people
its own existence.
We have got to have a firm way to handle the
energy question. The reorganizing of the present organi-
zation that I put forward was one first step.
In addition to that, we need to have a reali-
zation that we have got about 35 years worth of oil
left in the whole world. We are going to run out of oil.
When Mr. Nixon made his famous speech on Operation
Independence, we were importing about 35 percent of our
oil. Now we have increased that amount 25 percent, and
we now import about 44 percent of our oil.
We should have a shift from oil to coal and
concentrate on research and development effort on
coal-burning and extraction and safer mines and also
it is clean burning. We need to shift very strongly
toward solar energy and of strict conservation
measures and then, as a last resort only, continue to
use atomic power.
I would certainly not cut out atomic power
altogether. We can't afford to give up that opportunity
until later. But, to the extent we continue to use
atomic power, I would be responsible as President to
make sure that the safety precautions were initiated
and maintained.
For instance, some that have been forgotten:
We need to have the reactor core below ground level,
the entire power plant that uses atomic power tightly
sealed and a heavy vacuum maintained. There ought to
be a standardized design. There ought to be a full-time
atomic energy specialist, independent of the power company
and in the control room full-time, 24 hours a day, to
shut down a plant if an abnormality develops. These
kinds of procedures, along with evacuation procedures,
adequate insurance, ought to be initiated. So, shift
from oil to coal, emphasize research and development of
coal use and also solar power, strict conservation measures
and not yield every time the special interests put pressure
on the President, like this Administration has done, and use
atomic energy only as a last resort with the strictest possible
safety precautions. That isthe best overall energy program
in the brief time I have to discuss it.
MORE
Page 21
MR. REYNOLDS: Governor, on that same subject,
would you require mandatory conservation efforts to try to
conserve fuel?
MR. CARTER: Yes, I would. Some of the things
that can be done about this is a change in the rate structure
of electric power companies. We now encourage people to
waste electricity and by giving the lowest rates to the
biggest users. We don't do anything to cut down on peak
load requirements. We don't have an adequate requirement
for the insulation of homes, for the efficiency of auto-
mobiles, and whenever the automobile manufacturers come
forward and say they cannot meet the limits that the Congress
has put forth this Republican Administration has delayed
implementation dates.
In addition to that, we ought to have a shift of
the use of coal, particularly in the Appalachian regions
where the coal is located -- a lot of very high-quality
low-carbon coal, low-sulfur that is there -- it is where
our employment is needed. This would help a great deal.
So, mandatory conservation measures, yes.
Encouragement by the President for people to voluntarily
conserve, yes. And also the private sector ought to be
encouraged to bring forward to the public the benefit from
efficiency.
One bank in Washington, for instance, gives lower
interest loans for people who adequately insulate their
homes and who buy efficient automobiles. And some major
manufacturing companies, like Dow Chemical, have, through
very effective efficiency mechanisms, cut down the use of
energy by as much as 40 percent of the same out-product.
These kinds of things ought to be done, they
ought to be encouraged and supported, and even required
by the Government, yes.
THE MODERATOR: President Ford.
THE PRESIDENT: Governor Carter skims over a
very serious and a very broad subject. In January of 1975,
I submitted to the Congress and to the American people
the first comprehensive energy program recommended by any
President. It called for an increase in the production of
energy in the United States. It called for conservation
measures so that we would save the energy that we have.
If you are going to increase domestic oil and gas
production -- and we have to -- you have to give to those
producers an opportunity to develop their land or their
wells.
I recommended to the Congress that we should increase
coal production in this country from 600 million tons a
year to 1 billion 200 million tons by 1985. In order to
do that, we have to improve our extraction of coal from the
ground; we have to improve our utilization of coal, make
it more efficient, make it cleaner. In addition, we have
to expand our research and development.
MORE
Page 22
In my program for energy independence, we have
increased, for example, solar energy research from about
$84 million a year to about $120 million a year. We are
going as fast as the experts say we should.
In nuclear power, we have increased the research
and development under the Energy Research and Development
Agency very substantially to insure that our nuclear power
plants are safer, that they are more efficient, and that we
have adequate safeguards. I think you have to have greater
oil and gas production, more coal production, more nuclear
production and, in addition, you have to have energy
conservation.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Gannon.
MR. GANNON: Mr. President, I would like to return
for a moment to this problem of unemployment. You have
vetoed or threatened to veto a number of jobs bills passed
or in development in the Democratic-controlled Congress.
Yet, at the same time, the Government is paying out, I think
it is, $17 billion, perhaps $20 billion, a year in unemployment
compensation caused by the high unemployment.
Why do you think it is better to pay out unemploy-
ment compensation to idle people than to put them to work
in public service jobs?
THE PRESIDENT: The bills that I have vetoed,
the one for an additional $6 billion was not a bill that
would have solved our unemployment problems. Even the
proponents of it admitted that no more than 400,000 jobs
would be made available.
Our analysis indicates that something in the
magnitude of 150,000 to, 200,000 jobs would be made available.
Each one of those jobs would have cost the taxpayer $25,000.
In addition, the jobs would not be available right
now, they would not have materialized for about 9 to 18
months. The immediate problem we have is to stimulate our
economy now so that we can get rid of unemployment.
What we have done is to hold the lid of spending
in an effort to reduce the rate of inflation, and we have
proven, I think very conclusively, that you can reduce the rate
of inflation and increase jobs.
For example, as I have said, we have added some
4 million jobs in the last 17 months. We have now employed
88 million people in America -- the largest number in the
history of the United States. We have added 500,000 jobs
in the last 2 months.
Inflation is the quickest way to destroy jobs,
and by holding the lid of Federal spending we have been able
to do a good job, an affirmative job in inflation and, as
a result, have added to the jobs in this country.
MORE
Page 23
I think it is also appropriate to point out that
through our tax policies we have stimulated added employment
throughout the country -- the investment tax credit, the
tax incentives for expansion and modernization of our
industrial capacity. It is my opinion that the private
sector, where five out of the six jobs are, where you have
permanent jobs with the opportunity for advancement, is a
better place than make-work jobs under the program recommended
by the Congress.
MR. GANNON: Just to follow up, Mr. President,
the Congress has just passed a $3.7 billion appropriation
bill which would provide money for the public works jobs
program that you earlier tried to kill by your veto of the
authorization legislation.
In light of the fact that unemployment again
is rising or has in the past three months, I wonder if you
have re-thought that question at all, whether you would
consider allowing this program to be funded, or will you
veto that money bill?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that bill has not yet
come down to the Oval Office so I am not in a position
to make any judgment on it tonight. But that is an extra
$4 billion that would add to the deficit, which would add
to the inflationary pressures, which would help to destroy
jobs in the private sector, not make jobs where the jobs
really are. These make-work, temporary jobs, dead-end, as
they are, are not the kind of jobs that we want for our
people.
I think it is interesting to point out that in the
two years that I have been President I have vetoed 56 bills.
Congress has sustained 42 vetoes. As a result, we have saved
over $9 billion in Federal expenditures, and the Congress --
by overriding the bills that I did veto -- the Congress has
added some $13 billion to the Federal expenditures and to
the Federal deficit.
Now Governor Carter complains about the deficits
that this Administration has had, and yet he condemns the
vetoes that I have made that have saved the taxpayer $9
billion and could have saved an additional $13 billion. Now,
he can't have it both ways. And, therefore, it seems to
me that we should hold the lid as we have to the best of
our ability so we can stimulate the private economy and get
the jobs where the jobs are -- five out of six -- in this
economy.
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter.
MR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford does not seem to
put in perspective the fact that when 500,000 more people
are out of work than there were three months ago, where
we have 2-1/2 million more people out of work than when he
took office, that this touches human beings.
MORE
Page 24
I was in a city in Pennsylvania not too long ago
near here and there were about 4,000 or 5,000 people in the
audience -- that was on a train trip -- and I said, "How
many adults here are out of work?" About a thousand
raised their hands.
Mr. Ford actually has fewer people now in the
private sector in non-farm jobs than when he took office,
and still he talks about a success. 7.9 percent
unemployment is a terrible tragedy in this country.
He says he has learned how to match unemployment
with inflation. That is right. We have got the highest
inflation we have had in 25 years right now -- except under
this Administration -- and that was 50 years ago -- and
we have got the highest unemployment we have had under
Mr. Ford's Administration since the Great Depression. This
affects human beings, and his insensitivity in providing
those people a chance to work has made this a welfare
Administration and not a work Administration.
He has not saved $9 billion with his vetoes. It
has only been a net saving of $4 billion, and the cost in
unemployment compensation, welfare compensation and lost
revenues has increased $23 billion in the last two years.
This is a typical attitude that really causes havoc in
people's lives, and then it is covered over by saying that
our country has naturally got a 6 percent unemployment rate
or 7 percent unemployment rate, and a 6 percent inflation rate.
It is a travesty. It shows a lack of leadership.
And we have never had a President since the War between the
States that vetoed more bills.
MORE
Page 25
Mr. Ford has vetoed four times as many bills as
Mr. Nixon, for a year, and 11 of them have been overridden.
One of his bills that was overridden -- he only got one
vote in the Senate and seven votes in the House from
Republicans -- so, this shows a breakdown in leadership.
THE MODERATOR: Under the rules, I must stop
you.
Ms. Drew?
MS. DREW: Governor Carter, I would like to
return to the subject of taxes. You have said that you would
cut taxes for the middle and lower income groups.
MR. CARTER: Right.
MS. DREW: But unless you are willing to do such
things as reduce the itemized deductions for charitable
contributions, for home mortage payments, for interest, for
taxes or capital gains, you cannot really raise sufficient
revenue to provide an overall tax cut of any size, so
how are you going to provide that tax relief that you are
talking about?
MR. CARTER: Now, we have such a grossly un-
balanced tax system, as I said earlier, that it is a
disgrace. Of all the tax benefits now, 25 percent of
them go to one percent of the richest people in this
country. Over 50 percent -- 53 percent to be exact --
of the tax benefits go to the 14 percent richest people
in this country.
We have had a 50 percent increase in payroll
deductions since Mr. Nixon went in office eight years
ago. Mr. Ford has advocated, since he has been in
office, over $5 billion in reductions for corporations,
special interest groups and the very, very wealthy, to
derive their income not from labor, but from investments.
That has got to be changed. A few things can
be done.
We have now a deferral system so that the multi-
national corporations who invest overseas, if they make
$1 million in profits overseas, they don't have to pay
any of their taxes unless they bring their money back
into this country. Where they don't pay their taxes,
the average American pays the taxes for them. Not only
that, but it robs this country of jobs because instead
of coming back with that million dollars in creating
a shoe factory, say, in New Hampshire or Vermont, if
the company takes the money down to Italy and builds a
shoe factory, they don't have to pay any taxes on the
money.
MORE
Page 26
Another thing is a system called DISC, which
was originally designed and proposed by Mr. Nixon,
to encourage exports. This permits a company to
create a dummy corporation to export their products
and then not to pay the full amount of taxes on them.
This costs our Government about $1.4 billion
a year and when those rich corporations don't pay that
tax, the average American taxpayer pays it for them.
Another one that is very important is the
business deductions. Jet airplanes, first-class travel,
the $50 martini lunch, the average working person can't
take advantage of that but the wealthier people can.
Another system is where a dentist can invest
money in, say, raising cattle and can put in $100,000 of
his own money, borrow $900,000 -- $950,000 -- that
makes a million and marks off a great amount of loss
through that procedure. There was one example,
for instance, where somebody produced pornographic movies.
They put in $30,000 of their own money and got $120,000
in tax savings.
These special kinds of programs have robbed
the average taxpayer and have benefitted those who are
powerful and who can employ lobbyists and who can have
their CPAs and their lawyers to help them benefit from
the roughly 8,000 pages of the Tax Code. The average
American person can't do it. You cannot hire a lobbyist
out of unemployment compensation checks.
MS. DREW: Governor, to follow up on your
answer, in order for any kind of tax relief to really
be felt by the middle and lower income people, according
to Congressional committees on this, you need about
$10 billion. Now, you listed some things. The deferral
on foreign income is estimated it would save about
$500 million. DISC, you said, was $1.4 billion. The
estimate of the outside, if you eliminated all tax
shelters, is $5 billion.
So, where else would you raise the revenue to
provide this tax relief? Would you, in fact, do away with
all business deductions and what other kinds of
preferences would you do away with?
MR. CARTER: No, I would not do away with all
business deductions. I think that would be a very serious
mistake. But if you could just do away with the ones
that are unfair, you could lower taxes for everyone. I
would never do anything that would increase the taxes
for those who work for a living or who are presently
required to list all their income.
MORE
Page 27
What I want to do is not to raise taxes, but
to eliminate loopholes and this is the point of my first
statistic that I gave you, that the present tax benefits
that have been carved out over a long period of years, 50
years, by sharp tax lawyers and by lobbyists, have bene-
fitted just the rich.
The programs that I described to you earlier --
the tax deferrals for overseas, the DISC and the tax
shelters -- they only apply to people in the $50,000
a year bracket or up, and I think this is the best
way to approach it, is to make sure that everybody
pays taxes on the income that they earn and make sure
that you take whatever savings there is from the higher
income levles and give it to the lower and middle income
families.
THE MODERATOR: President Ford?
THE PRESIDENT: Governor Carter's answer tonight
does not coincide with the answer that he gave in an
interview to the Associated Presss a week or so ago.
In that interview, Governor Carter indicated that he would
raise the taxes on those in the medium or middle
income brackets, or higher. Now, if you take the medium
or middle income taxpayer, that is about $14,000 per person.
Governor Carter has indicated, publicly, in an interview,
that he would increase the taxes on about 50 percent of the
working people of this country.
I think the way to get tax equity in this
country is to give tax relief to the middle income people
who have an income from roughly $8,000 up to $25,000
or $30,000. They have been short-changed as we have taken
10 million taxpayers off the tax rolls in the last eight
years and as we have added to the minimum tax provision
to make all people pay more taxes.
I believe in tax equity for the middle income
taxpayer -- increasing the personal exemption. Mr. Carter
wants to increase taxes for roughly half of the tax-
payers of this country.
Now, the Governor has also played a little fast
and loose with the facts about vetoes. The records show
that President Roosevelt vetoed on an average of 55 bills
a year. President Truman vetoed on the average, while he
was President, about 38 bills a year. I understand that
Governor Carter, when he was Governor of Georgia, vetoed
between 35 and 40 bills a year. My average in two years
is 26, but in the process of that, we have saved $9 billion.
MORE
Page 28
One final comment. Governor Carter talks
about the tax bills and all of the inequities that
exist in the present law. I must remind him the
Democrats have controlled the Congress for the last
22 years and they wrote all the tax bills.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Reynolds.
MR. REYNOLDS: I suspect that we could continue
on this tax argument for some time, but I would like to
move on to another area.
Mr. President, everybody seems to be running
against Washington this year, and I would like to raise
two coincidental events and ask you whether you think
perhaps this may have a bearing on the attitude throughout
the country.
The House Ethics Committee has just now ended
its investigation of Daniel Schorr, after several months
and many thousands of dollars, trying to find out how he
obtained and caused to be published a report of the
Congress that probably is the property of the American
people. At the same time, the Senate Select Committee
on Standards and Conduct has voted not really to begin
an investigation of a United States Senator because
of allegations against him that he may have been receiving
corporate funds illegally over a period of years.
Do you suppose, sir, that events like this
contribute to the feeling in the country that maybe there
is something wrong in Washington, and I don't mean just
in the Executive Branch, but throughout the whole
Government?
MORE
Page 29
THE PRESIDENT: There is a considerable anti-
Washington feeling throughout the country, but I think
the feeling is misplaced. In the last two years we
have restored integrity in the White House and we have
set high standards in the Executive Branch of the
Government.
The anti-Washington feeling, in my opinion, ought
to be focused on the Congress of the United States.
For example, this Congress very shortly will spend $1
billion a year for its housekeeping, its salaries, its
expenses and the like. The next Congress will probably
be the first billion dollar Congress in the history of
the United States.
I don't think the American people are getting
their money's worth from the majority party that runs
this Congress.
In addition, we see that in the last four years
the number of employees hired by the Congress has gone
up substantially, much more than the Gross National
Product, much more than any other increase throughout
our society. Congress is hiring people by the drowes
and the cost, as a result, has gone up.
I don't see any improvement in the performance
of the Congress under the present leadership. So,
it seems to me instead of the anti-Washington feeling
being aimed at everybody in Washington, it seems to me
that the focus should be where the problem is, which
is the Congress of the United States, and particularly
the majority in the Congress.
They spend too much money on themselves. They
have too many employees. There is some question about
their morality. It seems to me that in this election
the focus should not be on the Executive Branch but the
correction should come as the voters vote for their
Members of the House of Representatives or for their
United States Senator.
That is where the problem is, and I hope there
will be some corrective action taken, so we can get
some new leadership in the Congress of the United States.
MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. President, if I may follow
up, I think you made it plain that you take a dim
view of the majority in the Congress. Isn't it quite
likely, sir, that you will have a Democratic Congress
in the next session' if you are elected President,
and hasn't the country a right to ask whether you can
get along with that Congress or whether we will have
continued confrontation?
MORE
Page 30
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it seems to me that we
have a chance, the Republicans, to get a majority in
the House of Representatives. We will make some gains in
the United States Senate, so there will be different
ratios in the House as well as in the Senate, and as
President I will be able to work with that Congress.
But, let me take the other side of the coin,
if I might. Supposing we had had a Democratic Congress
for the last two years and we had had Governor Carter as
President. He has, in effect, said that he would agree
that he would disapprove of the vetoes that I have made
and would have added significantly to expenditures and
the deficit in the Federal Government.
I think it would be contrary to one of the basic
concepts in our system of Government, a system of
checks and balances.
We have a Democratic Congress today and,
fortunately, we have had a Republican President to
check their excesses with my vetoes. If we have a
Democratic Congress next year and a President who wants
to spend an additional $100 billion a year or maybe $200
billion a year, with more programs, we will have, in my
judgment, greater deficits with more spending, more
dangers of inflation.
I think the American people want a Republican
President to check on any excesses that come out of the
next Congress if it is a Democratic Congress.
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?
MR. CARTER: It is not a matter of Republicans
and Democrats. It is a matter of leadership and no
leadership. President Eisenhower worked with a
Democratic Congress very well. Even President Nixon,
because he was a strong leader, at least, worked
with a Democratic Congress very well.
President Ford has vetoed, as I said earlier,
four times as many bills per year as Mr. Nixon. Mr.
Ford quite often puts forward a program just as a public
relations stunt and therefore tries to put it through
the Congress by working with the Congress.
I think under Presidents Nixon and Eisenhower
they passed about 60 to 75 percent of their legislation.
This year Mr. Ford will not pass more than 26 percent
of all of the legislative proposals he puts forward.
MORE
Page 31
This is Government by stalemate and we have
seen almost a complete breakdown in the proper
relationship between the President, who represents this
country, and the Congress, who collectively also represent
this country.
He have had Republican Presidents before who
tried to run against a Democratic Congress, and I don't
think it is the Congress which is Mr. Ford's pawn, but
if he insists that I be responsible for the Democratic
Congress, of which I have not been a part, then I
think it is only fair that he be responsible for the
Nixon Administration in its entirety, of which he was
a part.
That, I think, is a good balance, but the point
is that a President ought to lead this country. Mr.
Ford so far as I know, except for avoiding another
Watergate, has not accomplished one single major program
for this country, and there has been a constant squabbling
between the President and the Congress, and that is not the
way this country ought to be run.
Might I go back to one other thing. Mr. Ford
has misquoted an AP news story which was an error to
begin with. That story reported several times that I
would lower taxes for lower and middle income families
and that correction was delivered to the White House.
I am sure the President knows about this correction, but
he still insists on repeating an erroneous statement.
THE MODERATOR: President Ford and Governor
Carter, we no longer have enough time for two complete
sequences of questions. We have only about six minutes
left for questions and answers. For that reason we will
drop the follow-up questions at this point, but each
candidate will still be able to respond to the other's
answers.
To the extent that you can, gentlemen, please
keep your remarks brief.
MR. GANNON: Governor Carter, one important
part of the Government's economic policy apparatus we
haven't talked about is the Federal Reserve Board. I
would like to ask you something about what you have
said, and that is that you believe that a President
ought to have a Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
whose views are compatible with his own.
Based on the record of the last few years,
would you say that your views are compatible with
those of Chairman Arthur Burns, and if not, would you
seek his resignation if you are elected?
MORE
Page 32
MR. CARTER: What I have said is that the
President ought to have a chance to appoint a
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and to have
a coterminus term; in other words, both of them serve
the same four years.
The Congress can modify the supply of money
by modifying the income tax laws. The President can
modify the economic structure of the country by public
statement and general attitude in the budget and the
public press. The Federal Reserve has an independent
status that ought to be preserved.
I think Mr. Burns did take a typical erroneous
Republican attitude in the 1973 year when inflation
was so high. He assumed that the inflation rate was
because of excessive demand and, therefore, put into
effect tight restraints on the economy, very high
interest rates, which is typical, also, of
Republican Administrations, tried to increase the tax
payments by individuals, and cut the tax payments by
corporations. I would have done the opposite.
I think the problem should be addressed by
increasing productivity, by having put people back to
work so they can purchase more goods, lower income
taxes on individuals, perhaps raise them if necessary
on corporations in comparison.
But, Mr. Burns in that respect made a very
serious mistake. I would not want to destroy the
independence of the Federal Reserve Board, but I do
think we ought to have a cohesive economic policy with
at least the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and
the President's terms being the same and let the Congress
of course be the third entity with independence, subject
only to the President's veto.
MORE
Page 33
THE MODERATOR: President Ford, your response?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board should be independent. Fortunately, he has been
during Democratic as well as Republican Administrations.
As a result, in the last two years we have had a responsible
monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve Board indicated that the supply
of money would be held between 4 to 4-1/2 or 7 to 7-1/2.
They have done a good job in integrating the money supply
with the fiscal policy of the Executive and Legislative
Branches of Government.
It would be catastrophic if the Chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board became the tool of the political party
that was in power. It is important for our future economic
security that that job be nonpolitical and separate from
the Executive and Legislative Branches.
THE MODERATOR: Ms. Drew.
MS. DREW: The real problem with the FBI -- in fact,
all of the intelligence agencies -- is there is no real
long governing policy and such laws as there are tend to
be vague and open-ended. You have issued some Executive
Orders but we have learned that leaving these agencies to
Executive discretion and direction can get them, and in fact
the country, in a great deal of trouble. One President
may be a decent man and the next one might not be.
So, what do you think about trying to write in some
more protection by getting some laws governing these
agencies?
THE PRESIDENT: You are familiar, of course, with
the fact that I am the first President in 30 years who has
reorganized the intelligence agencies in the Federal
Government -- the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency,
the National Security Agency, and the others.
We have done that by Executive Order and I think
we have tightened it up. We have straightened out their
problems that developed over the last few years. It doesn't
seem to me that it is needed or necessary to have legislation
in this particular regard.
I have recommended to the Congress, however, I
am sure you are familiar with this, legislation that would
make it very proper and in the right way that the Attorney
General could go in and get the right for wiretapping under
security cases. This was an effort that was made by the
Attorney General and myself working with the Congress, but
even in this area where I think new legislation would be
justified, the Congress has not responded.
So I feel in that case, as well as in the
reorganization of the intelligence agencies -- as I have done --
we have to do it by Executive Order, and I am glad that
we have a good Director in George Bush, we have good
Executive Orders and the CIA and the NSA are now doing a
good job under proper supervision.
MORE
Page 34
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter.
MR. CARTER: Well, one of the very serious things
that has happened in our Government in recent years and
has continued up until now is a breakdown in the trust
among our people ---
(Audio interruption 10:53 p.m. Debate resumed
at 11:18 p.m.)
THE MODERATOR: These debates have been arranged
by the League of Women Voters Education Fund and are being
broadcast by the three commercial networks, and the public
television network and we hope that we have the audio.
Are we back on the air?
Ladies and gentlemen: Probably it is not necessary
for me to say that we had a technical failure during the
debates. It was not a failure in the debate itself, it
was a failure in the broadcasting of the debate. It occurred
27 minutes ago and the fault has been dealt with, and we
want to thank President Ford and Governor Carter for being
so patient and understanding while this delay went on.
We very much regret the technical failure, but
it was a loss of the sound as it was leaving the theater.
It occurred during Governor Carter's response to what would
have been and was the last question put to the candidates.
That question went to President Ford and dealt with the
control of Government intelligence agencies.
Governor Carter was making his response and had
very nearly finished it. He will conclude that response now,
after which President Ford and Governor Carter will make
their closing statements.
MORE
Page 35
MR. CARTER: Some of you are critics of too much
Government secrecy and not enough restraint for the
personal privacy of American citizens.
THE MODERATOR: It is now time for the closing
statements which are to be up to four minutes long.
Governor Carter, by the same toss of the coin
that directed the first question to you, you are to go
first now.
MR. CARTER: Tonight, we have had a chance to
talk a lot about the past, but I think it is time to
talk about the future. Our Nation, in the last eight years,
has been divided as never before. It is a time for unity.
It is a time to draw ourselves together, to have a Presi-
dent and a Congress that can work together with mutual
respect for a change, cooperating for a change, in the
open for a change, so the people can understand their
own Government.
It is time for Government, industry and labor,
manufacturing, agriculture, education, other entities in
our society, to cooperate. It is a time for Government
to understand and to cooperate with our people.
For a long time, our American citizens have been
excluded, sometimes misled, sometimes have been lied to.
This is not compatible with the purpose of our Nation. I
believe in our country. It needs tobe competent, the
Government needs to be well managed, efficient, economical.
We need to have a Government that is sensitive to our
people's needs, to those who are poor, who don't have
adequate health care, who have been cheated too long by
our tax programs, who have been out of jobs, whose families
have been torn apart, and we need to restore the faith
and the trust of the American people in their own
Government.
In addition to that, we have suffered because
we have not had leadership in this Administration. We
have got a Government of stalemate and we have lost the
vision of what our country can and ought to be. This is
not the America that we have known in the past. This is
not the America that we have to have in the future.
I don't claim to know all the answers, but I have
got confidence in my country. Our economic strength is
still there. Our system of Government, in spite of
Vietnam, Cambodia, CIA, Watergate, is still the best
system of Government on earth, and the greatest resource of
all of the 215 million Americans who still have within us
the strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience,
the patriotism, the idealism, the compassion, the sense of
brotherhood, on which we can rely in the future to restore
the greatness to our country.
MORE
Page 36
We ought not to be excluded from our Government
anymore. We need a President who can go in, who derives
his strength from. the people. I owe the special interests
nothing. I owe everything to you, the people of this
country, and I believe that we can bind our wounds. I
believe that we can work together and I believe that if
we can tap the tremendous untapped reservoir of innate
strength in this country that we can once again have a
Government as good as our people and let the world know
what we still know and hope for, that we still live in
the greatest and the strongest and the best country
on earth.
THE MODERATOR: President Ford?
MORE
Page 37
THE PRESIDENT: On November 2 all of you will
make a very, very important decision. One of the
major issues in this campaign is trust. A President
should never promise more than he can deliver and
a President should always deliver everything that he
has promised. A President can't be all things to all
people. A President should be the same thing to all
people.
Another issue in this campaign, Governor Carter
has endorsed the Democratic platform which calls for
more spending, bigger deficits, more inflation or more
taxes. Governor Carter has embraced the record of the
present Congress, dominated by his political party.
It calls for more of the same.
Governor Carter in his acceptance speech
called for more and more programs, which means more and
more Government. I think the real issue in this campaign--
and that which you must decide on November 2--is whether
you should vote for his promises or my performance in
two years in the White House.
On the Fourth of July we had a wonderful 200th
birthday for our great country. It was a superb
occasion. It was a glorious day.
In the first century of our nation's history,
our forefathers gave us the finest form of Government
in the history of mankind. In the second century of
our nation's history, our forefathers developed the
most productive industrial nation in the history of the
globe. Our third century should be the century of
individual freedom for all our 215 million Americans
today and all that join us.
In the last few years Government has gotten
bigger and bigger. Industry has gotten larger and
larger. Labor unions have gotten bigger and bigger,
and our children have been the victims of mass education.
We must make this next century the century of
the individual. We should never forget that a Government
big enough to give us everything we want is a Government
big enough to take from us everything we have.
The individual worker of a plant throughout
the United States should not be a small cog in a big
machine. The member of the labor union must have his
rights strengthened and broadened and our children
in their education should have an opportunity to
improve themselves based on their talents and their
ability.
MORE
Page 38
My mother and father during the Depression
worked very hard to give me an opportunity to do
better in our great country. Your mothers and
fathers did the same thing for you and others. Betty
and I have worked very hard to give our children a
brighter future in the United States, our beloved
country.
You and others in this great country have
worked hard and done a great deal to give your children
and your grandchildren the blessings of a better
America. I believe we can all work together to make
the individuals in the future have more, and all of us
working together can build a better America.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you, President Ford.
Thank you, Governor Carter. Our thanks also to the
questioners and to the audience in this theatre. We
much regret the technical failure that caused a 28-
minute delay in the broadcast of the debate. We believe, how-
ever that everyone will agree that it did not detract
from the effectiveness of the debate or from its fairness.
The next Presidential debate is to take place
on Wednesday, October 6, in San Francisco, at 9:30
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The topics are to be
foreign and defense issues. As with all three debates
between the Presidential candidates and the one between
the Vice Presidential candidates, it is being arranged
by the League of Women Voters Education Fund in the hope
of promoting a wider and better informed participation
by the American people in the election in November.
Now, from the Walnut Street Theatre in
Philadelphia, good night.
END
(AT 11:28 P.M. EDT)

Page data

Page: 1
Source index: 0
Type: document
Media ID: 5bbcadb0575212ca
Size: unknown

Document data

ID: 7345830
Core: doc
Type: document

DTO data

{
    "id": "7345830",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7345830",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Debate Between Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States and James E. Carter, Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party [Ford Speech or Statement]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7345830",
    "collections": [
        "White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)",
        "Press Releases"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/3458/7345830/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760923-016.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/3458/7345830/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760923-016.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/3458/7345830/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760923-016.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity

{
    "localId": "7345830",
    "label": "Debate Between Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States and James E. Carter, Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party [Ford Speech or Statement]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7345830"
}

Document source metadata

{
    "id": "7345830",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7345830",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Debate Between Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States and James E. Carter, Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party [Ford Speech or Statement]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7345830",
    "collections": [
        "White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)",
        "Press Releases"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/3458/7345830/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760923-016.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/3458/7345830/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760923-016.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/3458/7345830/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760923-016.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Document source extras

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7345830",
    "naId": 7345830,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "day": 23,
            "logicalDate": "1976-09-23",
            "month": 9,
            "year": 1976
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

Page context

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/30/3458/7345830/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760923-016.pdf",
    "mediaId": "5bbcadb0575212ca",
    "ocrText": "Digitized from Box 31 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nSEPTEMBER 23, 1976\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\n(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nDEBATE BETWEEN\nGERALD R. FORD\nTHE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES\nAND\nJAMES E. CARTER\nTHE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE OF\nTHE DEMOCRATIC PARTY\nTHE WALNUT STREET THEATRE\n9:31 P.M. EDT\nTHE MODERATOR: I am Edwin Newman, moderator of\nthis first debate of the 1976 campaign between Gerald R.\nFord of Michigan, Republican candidate for President,\nand Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Democratic candidate for\nPresident.\nWe thank you, \"President Ford, and we thank\nyou, Governor Carter, for being with us tonight.\nThere are to be three debates between the\nPresidential candidates, and one between the Vice\nPresidential candidates. All are being arranged by\nthe League of Women Voters Education Fund.\nTonight's debate, the first between Presidential\ncandidates in 16 years and the first ever in which an\nincumbent President has participated, is taking place\nbefore an audience in the Walnut Street Theatre in\nPhiladelphia, just three blocks from Independence Hall.\nThe television audience may reach 100 million in the\nUnited States and many millions overseas.\nTonight's debate focuses on domestic issues\nand economic policy. Questions will be put by Frank\nReynolds of ABC News, James Gannon of The Wall Street\nJournal, and Elizabeth Drew of The New Yorker magazine.\nUnder the agreed rules, the first question will\ngo to Governor Carter. That was decided by the toss of\na coin. He will have up to three minutes to answer. One\nfollow-up question will be permitted with up to two\nminutes to reply. President Ford will then have two\nminutes to respond.\nMORE\nPage 2\nThe next question will go to President Ford,\nwith the same arrangements, and questions will continue\nto be alternated between the candidates. Each man will\nmake a three-minute statement at the end, Governor\nCarter to go first.\nPresident Ford and Governor Carter do not have\nany notes or prepared remarks with them this evening.\nMr. Reynolds, your question for Governor\nCarter?\nMR. REYNOLDS: Mr. President, Governor Carter.\nGovernor, in an interview with the Associated\nPress last week, you said you believed these debates\nwould alleviate a lot of concern that some voters have\nabout you. Well, one of those concerns -- not an uncommon\none about candidates in any year -- is that many voters\nsay they don't really know where you stand.\nNow, you have made jobs your number one priority\nand you have said you are committed to a drastic reduction\nin unemployment. Can you say now, Governor, in specific\nterms, what your first step would be next January, if you\nare elected, to achieve that?\nMR. CARTER: Yes. First of all is to recognize\nthe tremendous economic strength of this country and\nto set putting back to work our people as a top priority.\nThis is an effort that ought to be done primarily by\nstrong leadership in the White House, the inspiration\nof our people and the tapping of business, agriculture,\nindustry, labor and Government at all levels to work on this\nproject.\nWe will never have an end to the inflationary\nspiral and we will never have a balanced budget until\nwe get our people back to work.\nThere are several things that can be done\nspecifically that are not now being done; first of all,\nto channel research and development funds into areas\nthat will provide a large number of jobs. Secondly,\nwe need to have a commitment in the private sector to\ncooperate with Government in matters like housing.\nHere a very small investment of taxpayer's\nmoney in the housing field can bring large numbers of\nextra jobs in the guarantee of mortgate loans and in the\nputting forward of 202 programs for housing for older\npeople and so forth to cut down the roughly 20 percent\nunemployment that now exists in the construction\nindustry.\nMORE\nPage 3\nAnother thing is to deal with our needs in the\ncentral cities, where the unemployment rate is extremely\nhigh, sometimes among minority groups and those who don't\nspeak English or who are black or young people a 40\npercent unemployment. Here a CCC type program would be\nappropriate, to channel money into the sharing with\nprivate sector and also local and State Governments to\nemploy young people who are now out of work.\nAnother very important aspect of our economy\nwould be to increase production in every way possible,\nto hold down taxes on individuals and to shift the tax\nburden on to those who have avoided paying taxes in the\npast.\nThese kinds of specific things, none of which\nare being done now, would be a great help in reducing\nunemployment.\nAn additional factor that needs to be done can\nbe covered very succinctly, and that is to make sure that\nwe have a good relationship between management and business\non the one hand and labor on the other.\nIn a lot of places where unemployment is very\nhigh, we might channel specific targeted job oppor-\ntunities by paying part of the salary of unemployed\npeople and also sharing with local Governments the pay-\nment of salaries which would let us cut down the\nunemployment rate much lower before we hit the\ninflationary level.\nBut, I believe by the end of the first four years\nof the next term we could have the unemployment rate down\nto 3 percent, adult unemployment, which is about 4 to\n4-1/2 percent overall, a controlled inflation rate and\nhave a balanced growth of about 4 to 6 percent, around\n5 percent, which would give us a balanced budget.\nMORE\nPage 4\nMR. REYNOLDS: Governor, in the event you are\nsuccessful and you do achieve a drastic drop in unemployment\nthat is likely to create additional pressure on prices, how\nwilling are you to consider an income policy; in other\nwords, wage and price controls?\nMR. CARTER: Well, we now have such a low utilization\nof our productive capacity, about 73 percent-- think is about\nthe lowest since the great Depression years -- and such a high\nunemployment rate now, 7.9 percent, that we have a long way\nto go in getting people to work before we have the inflationary\npressures, and I think this would be easy to accomplish to\nget jobs now without having the strong inflationary pressures\nthat would be necessary.\nI would not favor the payment of a given fixed income\nto people unless they are not able to work, but with tax\nincentives for the low income groups we could build up their\nincome levels above the poverty level and not make welfare\nmore profitable than work.\nTHE MODERATOR: Mr. President, your response?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I don't believe that Mr. Carter has\nbeen any more specific in this case than he has been on many\nother instances. I notice particularly that he didn't endorse\nthe Humphrey-Hawkins bill which he has on occasions and\nwhich is included as a part of the Democratic platform. That\nlegislation allegedly would help our unemployment but we\nall know that it would have controlled our economy; it\nwould have added $10 to $30 billion each year in additional\nexpenditures by the Federal Government.\nIt would have called for export controls on agri-\ncultural products. In my judgment, the best way to get jobs\nis to expand the private sector where five out of six jobs\ntoday exist in our economy. We can do that by reducing\nFederal taxes as I proposed about a year ago when I called\nfor a tax reduction of $28 billion, three-quarters of it to\ngo to private taxpayers and one-quarter to the business\nsector.\nWe could add to jobs in the major metropolitan\nareas by a proposal that I recommended that would give\ntax incentives to business to move into the inner city\nand to expand or to build new plants so that they would take a\nplant or expand a plant where people are and people are\ncurrently unemployed.\nWe could also help our youth with some of the\nproposals that would give to young people an opportunity\nto work and learn at the same time just like we give money\nto young people who are going to college, Those are the\nkinds of specifics that I think we have to discuss on these\ndebates and these are the kinds of programs that I will\ntalk about on my time.\nTHE MODERATOR: Mr. Gannon, your question to\nPresident Ford.\nMORE\nPage 5\nMR. GANNON: Mr. President, I would like to\ncontinue for a moment on this question of taxes which\nyou have just raised. You have said that you favor more\ntax cuts for middle income Americans, even those earning\nup to $30,000 a year. That presumably would cost the\nTreasury quite a bit of money in lost revenue.\nIn view of the very large budget deficits that\nyou have accumulated and that are still in prospect, how\nis it possible to promise further tax cuts and to reach your\ngoal of balancing the budget?\nTHE PRESIDENT: At the time, Mr. Gannon, that I\nmade the recommendation for a $28 billion tax cut--three-\nquarters of it to go to individual taxpayers and 25 percent\nto American business--I said at the same time that we had\nto hold the lid on Federal spending; that for every dollar\nof a tax reduction we had to have an equal reduction in Federal\nexpenditures--a one for one proposition--and I recommended\nthat to the Congress with a budget ceiling of $395 billion,\nand that would have permitted us to have a $28 billion tax\nreduction.\nIn my tax reduction program for middle income tax-\npayers, I recommended that the Congress increase personal\nexemptions from $750 per person to $1,000 per person. That\nwould mean, of course, that for a family of four that that\nfamily would have $1,000 more personal exemption, money\nthat they could spend for their own purposes, money that the\nGovernment would not have to spend. But, if we keep the\nlid on Federal spending, which I think we can with the help\nof the Congress, we can justify fully a $28 billion tax\nreduction.\nIn the budget that I submitted to the Congress in\nJanuary of this year, I recommended a 50 percent cutback\nin the rate of growth of Federal spending. For the last 10\nyears the budget of the United States has grown from about\n11 percent per year. We cannot afford that kind of growth\nin Federal spending and in the budget that I recommended we\ncut it in half -- a growth rate of 5 to 5-1/2 percent. With\nthat kind of limitation on Federal spending, we can fully\njustify the tax reductions that I have proposed, and it seems\nto me with the stimulant of more money in the hands of the\ntaxpayer and with more money in the hands of business to expand,\nto modernize, to provide more jobs, our economy will be\nstimulated so that we will get more revenue and we will have\na more prosperous economy.\nMR. GANNON: Mr. President, to follow up a moment,\nthe Congress has passed a tax bill which is before you now\nwhich did not meet exactly the sort of outline that you\nrequested. What is your intention on that bill since it\ndoes not meet your requirements? Do-you plan to sign that\nbill?\nMORE\nPage 6\nTHE PRESIDENT: That tax bill does not entirely\nmeet the criteria that I established. I think the Congress\nshould have added another $10 billion reduction in personal\nincome taxes, including the increase of personal exemptions\nfrom $750 to $1,000, and Congress could have done that if\nthe budget committees of the Congress and the Congress as\na whole had not increased the spending that I recommended\nin the budget.\nI am sure you know that in the resolutions\npassed by the Congress, they have added about $17 billion\nin more spending by the Congress over the budget that I\nrecommended. So, I would prefer in that tax bill to have\nan additional tax cut and a further limitation on Federal\nspending.\nNow this tax bill that hasn't reached the\nWhite House yet -- but is expected in a day or two -- it\nis about 1,500 pages. It has some good provisions in it.\nIt has left out some that I have recommended, unfortunately.\nOn the other hand, when you have a bill of that\nmagnitude, with those many provisions, a President has to sit\nand decide if there is more good than bad, and from the\nanalysis that I have made so far it seems to me that that\ntax bill does justify my signature and my approval.\nMORE\nPage 7\nTHE MODERATOR: Governor Carter, your response.\nMR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford, of course, is\nchanging considerably his previous philosophy. The present\ntax structure is a disgrace to this country. It is a welfare\nprogram for the rich. As a matter of fact, 25 percent of\nthe total tax deductions go for only one percent of the\nrichest people of this country and over 50 percent of\nthe tax credits go for the 14 percent of the richest people\nin this country.\nWhen Mr. Ford first became President, in August\nof 1974, the first thing he did in October was to ask for\na $4.7 billion increase in taxes on our people in the\nmidst of the heaviest recession since the Great Depression\nof the 1940s. In January of 1975, he asked for a tax\nchange, a $5.6 billion increase on low and middle income\nprivate individuals, and a $6.5 decrease on the corporations\nand the special interests.\nIn December of 1975, he vetoed the roughly $18 to\n$20 billion tax reduction bill that had been passed by the\nCongress and he came back later in January of this year and\ndid advocate a $10 billion tax reduction, but it would\nbe offset by a $6 billion increase this coming January in\ndeductions for Social Security payments and for unemployment\ncompensation.\nThe whole philosophy of the Republican Party,\nincluding my opponent, has been to pile on taxes on\nlow income people, to take them off on the corporations.\nAs a matter of fact, since the late 1960s, when Mr. Nixon\ntook office, we have had a reduction in the percentage\nof taxes paid by corporations from 30 percent down to about\n20 percent. We have had an increase in taxes paid by\nindividuals, payroll taxes, of 14 percent up to 20 percent.\nThis is what the Republicans have done to us.\nThis is why tax reform is so important.\nTHE MODERATOR: Ms. Drew, your question to\nGovernor Carter.\nMS. DREW: Governor Carter, you proposed a number\nof new and enlarged programs, including jobs and health,\nwelfare reform, child care, aid to education, aid to\ncities, changes in Social Security and housing subsidies.\nYou have also said you want to balance the budget by\nthe end of your first term. You haven't put a price tag\non this program, but even if we priced them conservatively\nand we count for full employment by the end of your first\nterm, and we count for the economic growth that would\noccur during that period, there still isn't enough money\nto pay for those programs and balance the budget by\nany estimates I have been able to see.\nSo, in that case, what would give?\nMORE\nPage 8\nMR. CARTER: As'a matter of fact, there is, if we\nassume a rate of growth of our economy equivalent to what\nit was during President Johnson's and President Kennedy's\nterms and even before the Vietnamese war, and if we assume\nthat at the end of the 4-year period, we can cut our\nunemployment rate down to 4 or 4-1/2 percent.\nUnder those circumstances, even assuming no\nelimination of unnecessary programs and assuming an increase\nin the allotment of money to finance programs, increasing\nit as the inflation rate does, my economic projections,\nI think confirmed by the House and the Senate committees,\nhave been with a $60 billion extra mount ofmoney that can\nbe spent in fiscal year 1981, which would be the last year\nof this next term.\nWithin that $60 billion increase, there would be\nfit the programs that I promised the American people. I\nmight say, too, that if we see these goals cannot be\nreached -- and I think they are reasonable goals --\nthen I would cut down on the amount of implementation of\nnew programs in order to accommodate a balanced budget\nby fiscal year 1981, which is the last year of the next\nterm.\nI believe we ought to have a b lanced budget\nduring normal economic circumstances and these projections\nhave been very carefully made. I stand behind them and if\nthere should be an error slightly on the down side, then\nI will phase in the programs that we have advocated more\nslowly.\nMS. DREW: Governor, according to the budget\ncommittees of the Congress that you referred to, if we\nget to full employment, what they project is a 4 percent\nunemployment and as you say, even allowing for the\ninflation in the programs, there would not be anything\nmore than a surplus of $5 billion by 1981.\nConservative estimates of your programs would\nbe that they would be about $85 to $100 billion. So,\nhow do you say that you are going to be able to do\nthese things and balance the budget?\nMR. CARTER: Well, the asumption that you have\ndescribed, the difference is in the rate of growth of our\neconomy.\nMS. DREW: They took that into account in those\nfigures.\nMR. CARTER: I believe the committees to whom\nyou referred, with the unemployment rate that you sate\nand with the 5 to 5-1/2 percent growth rate in our\neconomy, that the projections would be a $60 billion\nincrease in the amount of money that we have to spend\nin 1981 compared to now.\nMORE\nPage 9\nIn that framework would be fit any improvements\nin the program. This does not include any extra control\nover unnecessary spending, the weeding out of obsolete\nor obsolescent programs. We vill have a safety version\nbuilt in with complete reorganization of the Executive\nBranch of Government, which I am pledged to do.\nThe present bureatcratic structure of the\nFederal Government is a mess, and if I am elected President,\nthat is going to be a top priority of mine, to completely\nrevise the structure of the Federal Government to make\nit economical, efficient, purposeful and manageable for\na change, and also, I am going to institute zero\nbase budgeting, which we put into effect in Georgia, which\nassesses every program every year and eliminates those\nprograms that are obsolete or obsolescent.\nWith these projections, we will have a balanced\nbudget by fiscal year 1981, if I am elected President and\nkeep my promises to the American people. It is just\npredicated upon very modest, but I think accurate, projections\nof employment increases and a growth in our national economy\nequal to what was experienced under Kennedy and Johnson\nbefore the Vietnam War.\nMORE\nPage 10\nTHE MODERATOR: President Ford?\nTHE PRESIDENT: If it is true that there will\nbe a $60 bil .ion surplus by fiscal year 1981, rather\nthan spend t at money for all the new programs that\nGovernor Car ter recommends and endorses and which are\nincluded in the Democratic platform, I think the American\ntaxpayer ou; :ht to get an additional tax break, a tax\nreduction of that magnitude.\nI feel that the taxpayers are the ones that\nneed the r :lief. I don't think we should add additional\nprograms cî the magnitude that Governor Carter talks\nabout.\nIt seems to me that our tax structure today\nhas rates that are too high, but I am very glad to point\nout that since 1969, during a Republican Administration,\nwe have had ten million people taken off of the tax\nrolls at the lower end of the taxpayer area and, at the\nsame tin e, assuming that I sign the tax bill that was\nmention d by Mr. Gannon, we will in the last two tax\nbills have increased the minimum tax on all wealthy\ntaxpayers.\nI believe that by eliminating ten million\ntaxpayers in the last eight years and by putting a\nheavier tax burden on those in the higher tax brackets,\nplus the other actions that have been taken, we can give\ntaxpayers adequate tax relief.\nNow, it seems to me that as we look at the\nrecommendations of the budget committees and our own\nprojections, there is not going to be any $60 billion\ndividend. I have heard of those dividends in the past.\nIt always happens. We expected one at the time of the\nVietnam War, but it was used up before we ever ended\nthe war, and taxpayers never got the adequate relief they\ndeserved.\nTHE MODERATOR: Mr. Reynolds?\nMR. REYNOLDS: Mr. President, when you came\ninto office, you spoke very eloquently of the need for\na time for healing and very early in your Administration\nyou went out to Chicago and you proposed a program of\ncase-by-case pardons for draft resisters to restore them\nto full citizenship.\nMORE\nPage 11\nSome 14,000 young men took advantage of your\noffer, but another 90,000 did not. In granting the\npardon to former President Nixon, sir, part of your\nrationale was to put Watergate behind us, to, if I may\nquote you again, \"truly end our long national\nnightmare.'\nWhy does not the same rationale apply now today\nin our Bicentennial year to the young men who resisted\nin Vietnam, many of them still in exile abroad?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The amnesty program that I\nrecommended in Chicago in September of 1974 would\ngive to all draft evaders and military deserters the\nopportunity to earn their good record back, and about\n14,000 to 15,000 did take advantage of that program.\nWe gave them ample time.\nI am against an across the board pardon of\ndraft evaders or military deserters.\nNow, in the case of Mr. Nixon, the reason that\nthe pardon was given was that when I took office this\ncountry was in a very, very divided condition. There\nwas hatred, there was divisiveness, people had lost\nfaith in their Government in many, many respects. Mr.\nNixon resigned and I became President.\nIt seemed to me that if I was to adequately\nand effectively handle the problems of high inflation,\na growing recession, the involvement of the United\nStates still in Vietnam, that I had to give 100 percent\nof my time to those two major problems.\nMr. Nixon resigned. That is disgrace. The\nfirst President out of 38 that ever resigned from public\noffice under pressure.\nSo, when you look at the penalty that he paid\nand when you analyze the requirements that I had to\nspend all of my time working on the economy, which was\nin trouble, that I inherited, working on our problems\nin Southeast Asia, which were still plaguing us, it\nseemed to me that Mr. Nixon had been penalized enough\nby his resignation and disgrace and the need and\nnecessity for me to concentrate on the problems of the\ncountry fully justified the action that I took.\nMR. REYNOLDS: I take it, then, sir, that you\ndo not believe that you are going to reconsider and\nthink about those 90,000 who are still abroad? Have\nthey not been penalized enough? Many of them have\nbeen there for years.\nMORE\nPage 12\nTHE PRESIDENT: Mr. Carter has indicated that\nhe would give a blanket pardon to all draft evaders.\nI do not agree with that point of view. I gave in\nSeptember of 1974 an opportunity for all draft evaders,\nall deserters to come in voluntarily, clear their\nrecords by earning an opportunity to restore their good\ncitizenship. I think we gave them a good opportunity.\nI don't think we should go any further.\nTHE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?\nMR. CARTER:\nWell, I think it is very difficult\nfor President Ford to explain the difference between the\npardon of President Nixon and his attitude toward those\nwho violated the draft laws. As a matter of fact, now\nI don't advocate amnesty, I advocate pardon. There is\na difference, in my opinion, in accordance with\nthe rulingof the Supreme Court and the definition in\nthe dictionary.\nAmnesty means that what you did was right.\nPardon means what you did, whether it is right or wrong,\nyou are forgiven for it. I do advocate a pardon for\ndraft evaders. I think it is accurate to say that\ntwo years ago, when Mr. Ford put in this amnesty that\nthree times as many deserters were excused as were the\nones who evaded the draft.\nBut, I think that now is the the time to\nheal our country after the Vietnam War and I think\nwhat the people are concerned about is not the pardon or\nthe amnesty of those who evaded the draft, but whether\nor not our crime system is fair.\nWe have got a short distinction drawn between\nwhite collar crime. The bigshots who are rich, who are\ninfluential, have seldom gone to jail. Those who are\npoor and who have no influence quite often are the\nones who are punished and the whole subject of crime is\none that concerns our people very much.\nI believe that the fairness of it is what is\nthe major problem that addresses our leader, and this is\nsomething that has not been addressed adequately by\nthis Administration.\nBut, I hope to have a complete responsibility\non my shoulders to help bring about a fair criminal\njustice system and also to bring about an end to the\ndevisiveness that has occurred in our country as a\nresult of the Vietnam War.\nMORE\nPage 13\nTHE MODERATOR: Mr. Gannon.\nMR. GANNON: Governor Carter, you have promised a\nsweeping overhaul of the Federal Government including a\nreduction in the number of Government agencies you say\nwould go down to about 200 from some 1,900. That sounds\nindeed like a very deep cut in the Federal Government. But,\nisn't it a fact that you are not really talking about fewer\nFederal employees or less Government spending but rather\nthat you are talking about reshaping the Federal Government,\nnot making it smaller?\nMR. CARTER: Well, I have been through this before,\nMr. Gannon, as the Governor of Georgia. When I took over\nwe had a bureaucratic mess like we have in Washington now,\nand we had 300 agencies, department, bureaus, commissions --\nsome fully budgeted, some not -- but all having responsibilities\nto carry out that were in conflict, and we cut those 300\nagencies and so forth down substantially; we eliminated 278\nof them. We set up a simple structured government that was\nto be administered fairly, and it was a tremendous success.\nIt hasn't been undone since I was there.\nIt resulted also in an ability to reshape our\ncourt system, prison system, our educational system, our\nmental health programs, and a clear assignment of responsibility\nand authority and also to have our people once again\nunderstand and control our Government.\nI intend to do the same thing if I am elected\nPresident. When I get to Washington, coming in as an outsider\none of the major responsibilities that I will have on\nmy shoulders is a complete reorganization of the Executive\nBranch of Government.\nWe now have a greatly expanded White House staff.\nWhen Mr. Nixon went in office we had $3-1/2 million spent on\nthe White House and the staff that has escalated now to\n$16-1/2 million in the last Republican Administration. This\nneeds to be changed. We need to put the responsibilities\nback on the Cabinet members.\nWe also need to have a great reduction in agencies\nand programs. For instance, we now have in the health area\n302 different programs administered by 11 major departments\nand agencies. Sixty other advisory commissions are responsible\nfor this. Medicaid is in one agency, Medicare is in a\ndifferent one, the check on the quality of health care is\nin a different one.\nAnother thing, our responsibility for health care\nitself, this makes it almost impossible for us to have a\ngood health program.\nMORE\nPage 14\nWe have just advocated this past week a consolidation\nof the responsibilities for energy. Our country now has no\ncomprehensive energy program or policy. We have 20 different\nagencies in the Federal Government responsible for the\nproduction, the regulation, the information about energy,\nthe conservation of energy spread all over Government. This\nis a gross waste of money for tough, competent management of\nGovernment. Giving us a simple, efficient, purposeful\nmanagement of Government will be a great step forward, and if\nI am elected -- and I intend to be -- then it is going to\nbe done.\nMR. GANNON: I would like to press my question on\nthe number of Federal employees, whether you would really plan\nto reduce the overall number or merely put them in different\ndepartments and relabel them? In your energy plan, you\nconsolidate a number of agencies into one, or you would,\nbut does that really change the overall?\nMR. CARTER: I can't say for sure that we would have\nfewer Federal employees when I go out of office than when I\ncome in. It took me about three years to completely\nreorganize the Georgia Government. The last year I was in\noffice our budget was actually less than it was a year\nbefore, which showed a great improvement.\nAlso, we had a 2 percent increase in the number\nof employees last year, but it was a tremendous shift from\nthe administrative jobs into the delivery of services. For\ninstance, we completely revised our prison system. We\nestablished 84 new mental health treatment centers and we\nshifted people out of the administrative jobs into the field\nto deliver better services.\nThe same thing will be done at the Federal\nGovernment level. I accomplished this with substantial\nreductions in employees in some departments. For instance,\nin the Transportation Department we cut back about 25 percent\nof the total number of employees.\nIn giving our people better mental health care,\nwe increase the number of employees, but the efficiency\nof it, the simplicity of it, the ability of people to under-\nstand their own Government and control it was a substantial\nbenefit derived from complete reorganization.\nWe have got to do this at the Federal Government\nlevel. If we don't, the bureaucratic mess is going to\ncontinue. There is no way now for our people to understand\nwhat their Government is; there is no way to get the\nanswer to a question.\nWhen you come to Washington to try to, as a\nGovernor begin a new program for your people, like the\ntreatment of drug addicts, I found there were 13 different\nFederal agencies that I had to go to to manage the drug\ntreatment program and in the Georgia Government we only had\none agency responsible for a drug treatment program.\nMORE\nPage 15\nThis is the kind of thing that would be made\nand it would be a tremendous benefit in long-range\nplanning and tight budgeting, saving the taxpayers money,\nmaking the Government more efficient, cutting down on\nbureaucratic waste, having a permanent curb on the use\nof authority and responsibility of employees, and giving\nour people a better chance to understand and control\nthe Federal Government.\nMORE\nPage 16\nTHE MODERATOR: President Ford?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think the record will show,\nMr. Newman, that the Bureau of Census -- we checked it\njust yesterday -- indicates that in the four years that\nGovernor Carter was Governor of the State of Georgia,\nexpenditures by the Government went up over 50 percent.\nEmployees of the Government in Georgia during his term of\noffice went up over 25 percent and the figures also show\nthat the bonded indebtedness of the State of Georgia,\nduring his Governorship, went up over 20 percent.\nThere was some very interesting testimony given\nby Governor Carter's successor, Governor Busby, before\na Senate committee a few months ago on how he found the\nMedicaid program, when he came into office following\nGovernor Carter.\nHe testified, and these are his words, the\npresent Governor of Georgia. He says he found the\nMedicaid program in Georgia in shambles.\nNow, let me talk about what we have done in\nthe White House as far as Federal employees are concerned.\nThe first order that I issued after I became President\nwas to cut or eliminate the prospective 40,000 increase\nin Federal employees that had been scheduled by my\npredecessor.\nIn the term that I have been President -- some\ntwo years -- we have reduced Federal employment by 11,000.\nIn the White House staff, itself, when I became President,\nwe had roughly 540 employees. We now have about 485\nemployees. So, we have made a rather significant reduction\nin the number of employees on the White House staff\nworking for the President.\nSo, I think our record of cutting back employees,\nplus the failure on the part of the Governor's program to\nactually save on employment in Georgia, shows which is\nthe better plan.\nTHE MODERATOR: Ms. Drew?\nMS. DREW: Mr. President, in Vail, after the\nRepublican Convention, you announced you would now emphasize\nfive new areas. Among those were jobs and housing, health,\nimproved recreational facilities for Americans, and you also\nadded crime. You also mentioned education.\nFor two years you have been telling us we\ncouldn't do very much in these areas because we couldn't\nafford it and, in fact, we do have a $50 billion deficit\nnow. In rebuttal to Governor Carter a little bit\nearlier, you said if there were to be any surplus in the\nnext few years, you thought it should be turned back\nto the people in the form of tax relief. So, how are\nyou going to pay for any new initiatives in these areas\nyou announced in Vail you were now going to stress?\nMORE\nPage 17\nTHE PRESIDENT: In the last two years, as I\nindicated before, we had a very tough time. We were faced\nwith heavy inflation of over 12 percent. We were faced with\nsubstantial unemployment. But in the last 24 months,\nwe have turned the economy around and we have brought\ninflation down to under 6 percent, and we have added\nemployment of about 4 million in the last 17 months\nto the point where we have 88 million people working in\nAmerica today, the most in the history of the country.\nThe net result is we are going to have some\nimprovement in our receipts, and I think we will have some\ndecrease in our disbursements. We expect to have a lower\ndeficit in fiscal year 1978.\nWe feel that with this improvement in the\neconomy, we feel with more receipts and fewer disbursements,\nwe can, in a more moderate way, increase, as I recommended,\nover the next 10 years a new parks program that would cost\n$1.5 billion, doubling our national park system.\nWe have recommended that in the housing program,\nwe can reduce down payments and moderate monthly payments\nbut that doesn't cost any more as far as the Federal\nTreasury is concerned.\nWe believe that we can do a better job in the\narea of crime, but that requires tougher sentencing,\nmandatory serving prison sentences for those who violate\nour criminal laws. We believe that you can revise the\nFederal Criminal Code, which has not been revised in a\ngood many years. That doesn't cost any more money.\nWe believe that you can do something more\neffectively with a moderate increase of money in the drug\nabuse program.\nWe feel that in education, we can have a slight\nincrease, not a major increase. It is my understanding\nthat Governor Carter has indicated that he approved of a\n$30 billionexpenditure by the Federal Government as\nfar as education is concerned.\nAt the present time, we are spending roughly\n$3billion 500 million. I don't know where that money\nwould come from.\nBut, as we look at the quality of life programs --\njobs, health, education, crime and recreation -- we feel\nthat as we move forward with a healthier economy, we can\nabsorb the smallest costs that will be required.\nMS. DREW: Sir, in the next few years, when you\ntry to reduce the deficit, would you spend money for\nthese programs that you have just outlined or would\nyou, as you said earlier,return whatever surplus you got\nto the people in the form of tax relief?\nMORE\nPage 18\nTHE PRESIDENT: We feel that with the programs\nthat I have recommended, the additional $10 billion tax\ncut, with the moderate increases in the quality of life\narea, we can still have a balanced budget, which I will\nsubmit to the Congress in January of 1978. We won't wait\none year or two years longer, as Governor Carter indicates.\nAs the economy improves -- and it is improving --\nour Gross National Product this year will average about 6\npercent increase over last year: We will have a lower rate of\ninflation for the calendar year this year, something slightly\nunder 6 percent; employment will be up, revenues will be up;\nwe will keep the lid on some of these programs that we\ncan hold down. And so we will have a little extra money\nto spend for those quality of life programs, which I think\nare needed and necessary.\nNow, I cannot and would not endorse the kind of\nprograms that Governor Carter recommends. He endorses the\nDemocratic platform, which, as I read it, calls for\napproximately 60 additional programs.\nWe estimate that those programs would add\n$100 billion minimum and probably $200 billion maximum\neach year to the Federal budget. Those programs you\ncannot afford and give tax relief.\nWe feel that you can hold the line and restrain\nFederal spending, give a tax reduction and still have a\nbalanced budget by 1978.\nTHE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?\nMR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford takes the same\nattitude that the Republicans always take. In the last\nthree months before an election, they are always for\nthe programs that they fight during the other years.\nI remember when Herbert Hoover was against jobs for people.\nAlf Landon was against Social Security, And later President\nNixon -- 16 years ago -- was telling the public that John\nKennedy's program would bankrupt the country and double\nthe cost.\nThe best thing to do is look at the record of\nMr. Ford's Administration and Mr. Nixon's before his.\nMORE\nPage 19\nWe had last year a $65 billion deficit, the\nlargest deficit in the history of our country, more of\na deficit spending than we had in the entire eight-year\nperiod under President Johnson and President Kennedy.\nWe have got 500,000 more Americans out of jobs today\nthan we had out of work three months ago.\nSince Mr. Ford has been in office, in two years\nwe have had a 50 percent increase in unemployment, from\nfive million people out of work to two and a half more\nmillion, or a total of seven and a half million.\nWe have also got a comparison between himself\nand Mr. Nixon. He has four times the size of the\ndeficit that Mr. Nixon even had himself.\nThis talking about more people at work is\ndistorted because with the 14 percent increase in the\ncost of living in the last two years, it means that\nwomen and young people have had to go to work when they\ndidn't want to because their fathers couldn't make\nenough to pay the increased cost of food and of housing\nand clothing.\nWe have in this last two years alone $120\nbillion total deficits under President Ford and, at\nthe same time, we have had in the last eight years a\ndoubling in the number of bankruptcies for small\nbusinesses. We have had a negative growth in our\nnational economy, measured in real dollars.\nThe take-home pay of a worker in this country\nis actually less now than it was in 1968, measured in\nreal dollars. This is the kind of record that is\nthere.\nThey talk about the future and a drastic change\nor conversion on the part of Mr. Ford at the last minute,\nand it is one that just doesn't go.\nTHE MODERATOR: Mr. Reynolds?\nMR. REYNOLDS: I would like to turn to what we\nused to call the energy crisis. Just yesterday a\nBritish Government commission on air pollution, but one\nheaded by a nuclear physicist, recommended that any\nfurther expansion of nuclear energy be delayed in Britain\nas long as possible.\nThis is a subject that is quite controversial\namong our own people, andthere seems to be a clear\ndifference between you and the President on the use of\nnuclear power plants.\nWould you say you would use it as a last\npriority and why, sir? Are they unsafe?\nMORE\nPage 20\nMR. CARTER: Among my other experiences in the\nDast I am a nuclear engineer, and I worked in this field.\nI think that I know the capability and limitation of\natomic power. But, the energy policy of our nation is\none that has not yet been established under this\nAdministration.\nI think almost every other developed nation in\nthe world has an energy policy except us. We have\nseen the Federal Energy Agency established and, for\ninstance, in the crisis of 1973, it was supposed to\nbe a temporary agency. Now it is permanent and\nenormous and growing every day, and I think the Wall\nStreet Journal reported not so long ago they have\n112 public relations experts working for the Federal\nEnergy Agency to try to justify to the American people\nits own existence.\nWe have got to have a firm way to handle the\nenergy question. The reorganizing of the present organi-\nzation that I put forward was one first step.\nIn addition to that, we need to have a reali-\nzation that we have got about 35 years worth of oil\nleft in the whole world. We are going to run out of oil.\nWhen Mr. Nixon made his famous speech on Operation\nIndependence, we were importing about 35 percent of our\noil. Now we have increased that amount 25 percent, and\nwe now import about 44 percent of our oil.\nWe should have a shift from oil to coal and\nconcentrate on research and development effort on\ncoal-burning and extraction and safer mines and also\nit is clean burning. We need to shift very strongly\ntoward solar energy and of strict conservation\nmeasures and then, as a last resort only, continue to\nuse atomic power.\nI would certainly not cut out atomic power\naltogether. We can't afford to give up that opportunity\nuntil later. But, to the extent we continue to use\natomic power, I would be responsible as President to\nmake sure that the safety precautions were initiated\nand maintained.\nFor instance, some that have been forgotten:\nWe need to have the reactor core below ground level,\nthe entire power plant that uses atomic power tightly\nsealed and a heavy vacuum maintained. There ought to\nbe a standardized design. There ought to be a full-time\natomic energy specialist, independent of the power company\nand in the control room full-time, 24 hours a day, to\nshut down a plant if an abnormality develops. These\nkinds of procedures, along with evacuation procedures,\nadequate insurance, ought to be initiated. So, shift\nfrom oil to coal, emphasize research and development of\ncoal use and also solar power, strict conservation measures\nand not yield every time the special interests put pressure\non the President, like this Administration has done, and use\natomic energy only as a last resort with the strictest possible\nsafety precautions. That isthe best overall energy program\nin the brief time I have to discuss it.\nMORE\nPage 21\nMR. REYNOLDS: Governor, on that same subject,\nwould you require mandatory conservation efforts to try to\nconserve fuel?\nMR. CARTER: Yes, I would. Some of the things\nthat can be done about this is a change in the rate structure\nof electric power companies. We now encourage people to\nwaste electricity and by giving the lowest rates to the\nbiggest users. We don't do anything to cut down on peak\nload requirements. We don't have an adequate requirement\nfor the insulation of homes, for the efficiency of auto-\nmobiles, and whenever the automobile manufacturers come\nforward and say they cannot meet the limits that the Congress\nhas put forth this Republican Administration has delayed\nimplementation dates.\nIn addition to that, we ought to have a shift of\nthe use of coal, particularly in the Appalachian regions\nwhere the coal is located -- a lot of very high-quality\nlow-carbon coal, low-sulfur that is there -- it is where\nour employment is needed. This would help a great deal.\nSo, mandatory conservation measures, yes.\nEncouragement by the President for people to voluntarily\nconserve, yes. And also the private sector ought to be\nencouraged to bring forward to the public the benefit from\nefficiency.\nOne bank in Washington, for instance, gives lower\ninterest loans for people who adequately insulate their\nhomes and who buy efficient automobiles. And some major\nmanufacturing companies, like Dow Chemical, have, through\nvery effective efficiency mechanisms, cut down the use of\nenergy by as much as 40 percent of the same out-product.\nThese kinds of things ought to be done, they\nought to be encouraged and supported, and even required\nby the Government, yes.\nTHE MODERATOR: President Ford.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Governor Carter skims over a\nvery serious and a very broad subject. In January of 1975,\nI submitted to the Congress and to the American people\nthe first comprehensive energy program recommended by any\nPresident. It called for an increase in the production of\nenergy in the United States. It called for conservation\nmeasures so that we would save the energy that we have.\nIf you are going to increase domestic oil and gas\nproduction -- and we have to -- you have to give to those\nproducers an opportunity to develop their land or their\nwells.\nI recommended to the Congress that we should increase\ncoal production in this country from 600 million tons a\nyear to 1 billion 200 million tons by 1985. In order to\ndo that, we have to improve our extraction of coal from the\nground; we have to improve our utilization of coal, make\nit more efficient, make it cleaner. In addition, we have\nto expand our research and development.\nMORE\nPage 22\nIn my program for energy independence, we have\nincreased, for example, solar energy research from about\n$84 million a year to about $120 million a year. We are\ngoing as fast as the experts say we should.\nIn nuclear power, we have increased the research\nand development under the Energy Research and Development\nAgency very substantially to insure that our nuclear power\nplants are safer, that they are more efficient, and that we\nhave adequate safeguards. I think you have to have greater\noil and gas production, more coal production, more nuclear\nproduction and, in addition, you have to have energy\nconservation.\nTHE MODERATOR: Mr. Gannon.\nMR. GANNON: Mr. President, I would like to return\nfor a moment to this problem of unemployment. You have\nvetoed or threatened to veto a number of jobs bills passed\nor in development in the Democratic-controlled Congress.\nYet, at the same time, the Government is paying out, I think\nit is, $17 billion, perhaps $20 billion, a year in unemployment\ncompensation caused by the high unemployment.\nWhy do you think it is better to pay out unemploy-\nment compensation to idle people than to put them to work\nin public service jobs?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The bills that I have vetoed,\nthe one for an additional $6 billion was not a bill that\nwould have solved our unemployment problems. Even the\nproponents of it admitted that no more than 400,000 jobs\nwould be made available.\nOur analysis indicates that something in the\nmagnitude of 150,000 to, 200,000 jobs would be made available.\nEach one of those jobs would have cost the taxpayer $25,000.\nIn addition, the jobs would not be available right\nnow, they would not have materialized for about 9 to 18\nmonths. The immediate problem we have is to stimulate our\neconomy now so that we can get rid of unemployment.\nWhat we have done is to hold the lid of spending\nin an effort to reduce the rate of inflation, and we have\nproven, I think very conclusively, that you can reduce the rate\nof inflation and increase jobs.\nFor example, as I have said, we have added some\n4 million jobs in the last 17 months. We have now employed\n88 million people in America -- the largest number in the\nhistory of the United States. We have added 500,000 jobs\nin the last 2 months.\nInflation is the quickest way to destroy jobs,\nand by holding the lid of Federal spending we have been able\nto do a good job, an affirmative job in inflation and, as\na result, have added to the jobs in this country.\nMORE\nPage 23\nI think it is also appropriate to point out that\nthrough our tax policies we have stimulated added employment\nthroughout the country -- the investment tax credit, the\ntax incentives for expansion and modernization of our\nindustrial capacity. It is my opinion that the private\nsector, where five out of the six jobs are, where you have\npermanent jobs with the opportunity for advancement, is a\nbetter place than make-work jobs under the program recommended\nby the Congress.\nMR. GANNON: Just to follow up, Mr. President,\nthe Congress has just passed a $3.7 billion appropriation\nbill which would provide money for the public works jobs\nprogram that you earlier tried to kill by your veto of the\nauthorization legislation.\nIn light of the fact that unemployment again\nis rising or has in the past three months, I wonder if you\nhave re-thought that question at all, whether you would\nconsider allowing this program to be funded, or will you\nveto that money bill?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, that bill has not yet\ncome down to the Oval Office so I am not in a position\nto make any judgment on it tonight. But that is an extra\n$4 billion that would add to the deficit, which would add\nto the inflationary pressures, which would help to destroy\njobs in the private sector, not make jobs where the jobs\nreally are. These make-work, temporary jobs, dead-end, as\nthey are, are not the kind of jobs that we want for our\npeople.\nI think it is interesting to point out that in the\ntwo years that I have been President I have vetoed 56 bills.\nCongress has sustained 42 vetoes. As a result, we have saved\nover $9 billion in Federal expenditures, and the Congress --\nby overriding the bills that I did veto -- the Congress has\nadded some $13 billion to the Federal expenditures and to\nthe Federal deficit.\nNow Governor Carter complains about the deficits\nthat this Administration has had, and yet he condemns the\nvetoes that I have made that have saved the taxpayer $9\nbillion and could have saved an additional $13 billion. Now,\nhe can't have it both ways. And, therefore, it seems to\nme that we should hold the lid as we have to the best of\nour ability so we can stimulate the private economy and get\nthe jobs where the jobs are -- five out of six -- in this\neconomy.\nTHE MODERATOR: Governor Carter.\nMR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford does not seem to\nput in perspective the fact that when 500,000 more people\nare out of work than there were three months ago, where\nwe have 2-1/2 million more people out of work than when he\ntook office, that this touches human beings.\nMORE\nPage 24\nI was in a city in Pennsylvania not too long ago\nnear here and there were about 4,000 or 5,000 people in the\naudience -- that was on a train trip -- and I said, \"How\nmany adults here are out of work?\" About a thousand\nraised their hands.\nMr. Ford actually has fewer people now in the\nprivate sector in non-farm jobs than when he took office,\nand still he talks about a success. 7.9 percent\nunemployment is a terrible tragedy in this country.\nHe says he has learned how to match unemployment\nwith inflation. That is right. We have got the highest\ninflation we have had in 25 years right now -- except under\nthis Administration -- and that was 50 years ago -- and\nwe have got the highest unemployment we have had under\nMr. Ford's Administration since the Great Depression. This\naffects human beings, and his insensitivity in providing\nthose people a chance to work has made this a welfare\nAdministration and not a work Administration.\nHe has not saved $9 billion with his vetoes. It\nhas only been a net saving of $4 billion, and the cost in\nunemployment compensation, welfare compensation and lost\nrevenues has increased $23 billion in the last two years.\nThis is a typical attitude that really causes havoc in\npeople's lives, and then it is covered over by saying that\nour country has naturally got a 6 percent unemployment rate\nor 7 percent unemployment rate, and a 6 percent inflation rate.\nIt is a travesty. It shows a lack of leadership.\nAnd we have never had a President since the War between the\nStates that vetoed more bills.\nMORE\nPage 25\nMr. Ford has vetoed four times as many bills as\nMr. Nixon, for a year, and 11 of them have been overridden.\nOne of his bills that was overridden -- he only got one\nvote in the Senate and seven votes in the House from\nRepublicans -- so, this shows a breakdown in leadership.\nTHE MODERATOR: Under the rules, I must stop\nyou.\nMs. Drew?\nMS. DREW: Governor Carter, I would like to\nreturn to the subject of taxes. You have said that you would\ncut taxes for the middle and lower income groups.\nMR. CARTER: Right.\nMS. DREW: But unless you are willing to do such\nthings as reduce the itemized deductions for charitable\ncontributions, for home mortage payments, for interest, for\ntaxes or capital gains, you cannot really raise sufficient\nrevenue to provide an overall tax cut of any size, so\nhow are you going to provide that tax relief that you are\ntalking about?\nMR. CARTER: Now, we have such a grossly un-\nbalanced tax system, as I said earlier, that it is a\ndisgrace. Of all the tax benefits now, 25 percent of\nthem go to one percent of the richest people in this\ncountry. Over 50 percent -- 53 percent to be exact --\nof the tax benefits go to the 14 percent richest people\nin this country.\nWe have had a 50 percent increase in payroll\ndeductions since Mr. Nixon went in office eight years\nago. Mr. Ford has advocated, since he has been in\noffice, over $5 billion in reductions for corporations,\nspecial interest groups and the very, very wealthy, to\nderive their income not from labor, but from investments.\nThat has got to be changed. A few things can\nbe done.\nWe have now a deferral system so that the multi-\nnational corporations who invest overseas, if they make\n$1 million in profits overseas, they don't have to pay\nany of their taxes unless they bring their money back\ninto this country. Where they don't pay their taxes,\nthe average American pays the taxes for them. Not only\nthat, but it robs this country of jobs because instead\nof coming back with that million dollars in creating\na shoe factory, say, in New Hampshire or Vermont, if\nthe company takes the money down to Italy and builds a\nshoe factory, they don't have to pay any taxes on the\nmoney.\nMORE\nPage 26\nAnother thing is a system called DISC, which\nwas originally designed and proposed by Mr. Nixon,\nto encourage exports. This permits a company to\ncreate a dummy corporation to export their products\nand then not to pay the full amount of taxes on them.\nThis costs our Government about $1.4 billion\na year and when those rich corporations don't pay that\ntax, the average American taxpayer pays it for them.\nAnother one that is very important is the\nbusiness deductions. Jet airplanes, first-class travel,\nthe $50 martini lunch, the average working person can't\ntake advantage of that but the wealthier people can.\nAnother system is where a dentist can invest\nmoney in, say, raising cattle and can put in $100,000 of\nhis own money, borrow $900,000 -- $950,000 -- that\nmakes a million and marks off a great amount of loss\nthrough that procedure. There was one example,\nfor instance, where somebody produced pornographic movies.\nThey put in $30,000 of their own money and got $120,000\nin tax savings.\nThese special kinds of programs have robbed\nthe average taxpayer and have benefitted those who are\npowerful and who can employ lobbyists and who can have\ntheir CPAs and their lawyers to help them benefit from\nthe roughly 8,000 pages of the Tax Code. The average\nAmerican person can't do it. You cannot hire a lobbyist\nout of unemployment compensation checks.\nMS. DREW: Governor, to follow up on your\nanswer, in order for any kind of tax relief to really\nbe felt by the middle and lower income people, according\nto Congressional committees on this, you need about\n$10 billion. Now, you listed some things. The deferral\non foreign income is estimated it would save about\n$500 million. DISC, you said, was $1.4 billion. The\nestimate of the outside, if you eliminated all tax\nshelters, is $5 billion.\nSo, where else would you raise the revenue to\nprovide this tax relief? Would you, in fact, do away with\nall business deductions and what other kinds of\npreferences would you do away with?\nMR. CARTER: No, I would not do away with all\nbusiness deductions. I think that would be a very serious\nmistake. But if you could just do away with the ones\nthat are unfair, you could lower taxes for everyone. I\nwould never do anything that would increase the taxes\nfor those who work for a living or who are presently\nrequired to list all their income.\nMORE\nPage 27\nWhat I want to do is not to raise taxes, but\nto eliminate loopholes and this is the point of my first\nstatistic that I gave you, that the present tax benefits\nthat have been carved out over a long period of years, 50\nyears, by sharp tax lawyers and by lobbyists, have bene-\nfitted just the rich.\nThe programs that I described to you earlier --\nthe tax deferrals for overseas, the DISC and the tax\nshelters -- they only apply to people in the $50,000\na year bracket or up, and I think this is the best\nway to approach it, is to make sure that everybody\npays taxes on the income that they earn and make sure\nthat you take whatever savings there is from the higher\nincome levles and give it to the lower and middle income\nfamilies.\nTHE MODERATOR: President Ford?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Governor Carter's answer tonight\ndoes not coincide with the answer that he gave in an\ninterview to the Associated Presss a week or so ago.\nIn that interview, Governor Carter indicated that he would\nraise the taxes on those in the medium or middle\nincome brackets, or higher. Now, if you take the medium\nor middle income taxpayer, that is about $14,000 per person.\nGovernor Carter has indicated, publicly, in an interview,\nthat he would increase the taxes on about 50 percent of the\nworking people of this country.\nI think the way to get tax equity in this\ncountry is to give tax relief to the middle income people\nwho have an income from roughly $8,000 up to $25,000\nor $30,000. They have been short-changed as we have taken\n10 million taxpayers off the tax rolls in the last eight\nyears and as we have added to the minimum tax provision\nto make all people pay more taxes.\nI believe in tax equity for the middle income\ntaxpayer -- increasing the personal exemption. Mr. Carter\nwants to increase taxes for roughly half of the tax-\npayers of this country.\nNow, the Governor has also played a little fast\nand loose with the facts about vetoes. The records show\nthat President Roosevelt vetoed on an average of 55 bills\na year. President Truman vetoed on the average, while he\nwas President, about 38 bills a year. I understand that\nGovernor Carter, when he was Governor of Georgia, vetoed\nbetween 35 and 40 bills a year. My average in two years\nis 26, but in the process of that, we have saved $9 billion.\nMORE\nPage 28\nOne final comment. Governor Carter talks\nabout the tax bills and all of the inequities that\nexist in the present law. I must remind him the\nDemocrats have controlled the Congress for the last\n22 years and they wrote all the tax bills.\nTHE MODERATOR: Mr. Reynolds.\nMR. REYNOLDS: I suspect that we could continue\non this tax argument for some time, but I would like to\nmove on to another area.\nMr. President, everybody seems to be running\nagainst Washington this year, and I would like to raise\ntwo coincidental events and ask you whether you think\nperhaps this may have a bearing on the attitude throughout\nthe country.\nThe House Ethics Committee has just now ended\nits investigation of Daniel Schorr, after several months\nand many thousands of dollars, trying to find out how he\nobtained and caused to be published a report of the\nCongress that probably is the property of the American\npeople. At the same time, the Senate Select Committee\non Standards and Conduct has voted not really to begin\nan investigation of a United States Senator because\nof allegations against him that he may have been receiving\ncorporate funds illegally over a period of years.\nDo you suppose, sir, that events like this\ncontribute to the feeling in the country that maybe there\nis something wrong in Washington, and I don't mean just\nin the Executive Branch, but throughout the whole\nGovernment?\nMORE\nPage 29\nTHE PRESIDENT: There is a considerable anti-\nWashington feeling throughout the country, but I think\nthe feeling is misplaced. In the last two years we\nhave restored integrity in the White House and we have\nset high standards in the Executive Branch of the\nGovernment.\nThe anti-Washington feeling, in my opinion, ought\nto be focused on the Congress of the United States.\nFor example, this Congress very shortly will spend $1\nbillion a year for its housekeeping, its salaries, its\nexpenses and the like. The next Congress will probably\nbe the first billion dollar Congress in the history of\nthe United States.\nI don't think the American people are getting\ntheir money's worth from the majority party that runs\nthis Congress.\nIn addition, we see that in the last four years\nthe number of employees hired by the Congress has gone\nup substantially, much more than the Gross National\nProduct, much more than any other increase throughout\nour society. Congress is hiring people by the drowes\nand the cost, as a result, has gone up.\nI don't see any improvement in the performance\nof the Congress under the present leadership. So,\nit seems to me instead of the anti-Washington feeling\nbeing aimed at everybody in Washington, it seems to me\nthat the focus should be where the problem is, which\nis the Congress of the United States, and particularly\nthe majority in the Congress.\nThey spend too much money on themselves. They\nhave too many employees. There is some question about\ntheir morality. It seems to me that in this election\nthe focus should not be on the Executive Branch but the\ncorrection should come as the voters vote for their\nMembers of the House of Representatives or for their\nUnited States Senator.\nThat is where the problem is, and I hope there\nwill be some corrective action taken, so we can get\nsome new leadership in the Congress of the United States.\nMR. REYNOLDS: Mr. President, if I may follow\nup, I think you made it plain that you take a dim\nview of the majority in the Congress. Isn't it quite\nlikely, sir, that you will have a Democratic Congress\nin the next session' if you are elected President,\nand hasn't the country a right to ask whether you can\nget along with that Congress or whether we will have\ncontinued confrontation?\nMORE\nPage 30\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, it seems to me that we\nhave a chance, the Republicans, to get a majority in\nthe House of Representatives. We will make some gains in\nthe United States Senate, so there will be different\nratios in the House as well as in the Senate, and as\nPresident I will be able to work with that Congress.\nBut, let me take the other side of the coin,\nif I might. Supposing we had had a Democratic Congress\nfor the last two years and we had had Governor Carter as\nPresident. He has, in effect, said that he would agree\nthat he would disapprove of the vetoes that I have made\nand would have added significantly to expenditures and\nthe deficit in the Federal Government.\nI think it would be contrary to one of the basic\nconcepts in our system of Government, a system of\nchecks and balances.\nWe have a Democratic Congress today and,\nfortunately, we have had a Republican President to\ncheck their excesses with my vetoes. If we have a\nDemocratic Congress next year and a President who wants\nto spend an additional $100 billion a year or maybe $200\nbillion a year, with more programs, we will have, in my\njudgment, greater deficits with more spending, more\ndangers of inflation.\nI think the American people want a Republican\nPresident to check on any excesses that come out of the\nnext Congress if it is a Democratic Congress.\nTHE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?\nMR. CARTER: It is not a matter of Republicans\nand Democrats. It is a matter of leadership and no\nleadership. President Eisenhower worked with a\nDemocratic Congress very well. Even President Nixon,\nbecause he was a strong leader, at least, worked\nwith a Democratic Congress very well.\nPresident Ford has vetoed, as I said earlier,\nfour times as many bills per year as Mr. Nixon. Mr.\nFord quite often puts forward a program just as a public\nrelations stunt and therefore tries to put it through\nthe Congress by working with the Congress.\nI think under Presidents Nixon and Eisenhower\nthey passed about 60 to 75 percent of their legislation.\nThis year Mr. Ford will not pass more than 26 percent\nof all of the legislative proposals he puts forward.\nMORE\nPage 31\nThis is Government by stalemate and we have\nseen almost a complete breakdown in the proper\nrelationship between the President, who represents this\ncountry, and the Congress, who collectively also represent\nthis country.\nHe have had Republican Presidents before who\ntried to run against a Democratic Congress, and I don't\nthink it is the Congress which is Mr. Ford's pawn, but\nif he insists that I be responsible for the Democratic\nCongress, of which I have not been a part, then I\nthink it is only fair that he be responsible for the\nNixon Administration in its entirety, of which he was\na part.\nThat, I think, is a good balance, but the point\nis that a President ought to lead this country. Mr.\nFord so far as I know, except for avoiding another\nWatergate, has not accomplished one single major program\nfor this country, and there has been a constant squabbling\nbetween the President and the Congress, and that is not the\nway this country ought to be run.\nMight I go back to one other thing. Mr. Ford\nhas misquoted an AP news story which was an error to\nbegin with. That story reported several times that I\nwould lower taxes for lower and middle income families\nand that correction was delivered to the White House.\nI am sure the President knows about this correction, but\nhe still insists on repeating an erroneous statement.\nTHE MODERATOR: President Ford and Governor\nCarter, we no longer have enough time for two complete\nsequences of questions. We have only about six minutes\nleft for questions and answers. For that reason we will\ndrop the follow-up questions at this point, but each\ncandidate will still be able to respond to the other's\nanswers.\nTo the extent that you can, gentlemen, please\nkeep your remarks brief.\nMR. GANNON: Governor Carter, one important\npart of the Government's economic policy apparatus we\nhaven't talked about is the Federal Reserve Board. I\nwould like to ask you something about what you have\nsaid, and that is that you believe that a President\nought to have a Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board\nwhose views are compatible with his own.\nBased on the record of the last few years,\nwould you say that your views are compatible with\nthose of Chairman Arthur Burns, and if not, would you\nseek his resignation if you are elected?\nMORE\nPage 32\nMR. CARTER: What I have said is that the\nPresident ought to have a chance to appoint a\nChairman of the Federal Reserve Board and to have\na coterminus term; in other words, both of them serve\nthe same four years.\nThe Congress can modify the supply of money\nby modifying the income tax laws. The President can\nmodify the economic structure of the country by public\nstatement and general attitude in the budget and the\npublic press. The Federal Reserve has an independent\nstatus that ought to be preserved.\nI think Mr. Burns did take a typical erroneous\nRepublican attitude in the 1973 year when inflation\nwas so high. He assumed that the inflation rate was\nbecause of excessive demand and, therefore, put into\neffect tight restraints on the economy, very high\ninterest rates, which is typical, also, of\nRepublican Administrations, tried to increase the tax\npayments by individuals, and cut the tax payments by\ncorporations. I would have done the opposite.\nI think the problem should be addressed by\nincreasing productivity, by having put people back to\nwork so they can purchase more goods, lower income\ntaxes on individuals, perhaps raise them if necessary\non corporations in comparison.\nBut, Mr. Burns in that respect made a very\nserious mistake. I would not want to destroy the\nindependence of the Federal Reserve Board, but I do\nthink we ought to have a cohesive economic policy with\nat least the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and\nthe President's terms being the same and let the Congress\nof course be the third entity with independence, subject\nonly to the President's veto.\nMORE\nPage 33\nTHE MODERATOR: President Ford, your response?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Federal Reserve\nBoard should be independent. Fortunately, he has been\nduring Democratic as well as Republican Administrations.\nAs a result, in the last two years we have had a responsible\nmonetary policy.\nThe Federal Reserve Board indicated that the supply\nof money would be held between 4 to 4-1/2 or 7 to 7-1/2.\nThey have done a good job in integrating the money supply\nwith the fiscal policy of the Executive and Legislative\nBranches of Government.\nIt would be catastrophic if the Chairman of the\nFederal Reserve Board became the tool of the political party\nthat was in power. It is important for our future economic\nsecurity that that job be nonpolitical and separate from\nthe Executive and Legislative Branches.\nTHE MODERATOR: Ms. Drew.\nMS. DREW: The real problem with the FBI -- in fact,\nall of the intelligence agencies -- is there is no real\nlong governing policy and such laws as there are tend to\nbe vague and open-ended. You have issued some Executive\nOrders but we have learned that leaving these agencies to\nExecutive discretion and direction can get them, and in fact\nthe country, in a great deal of trouble. One President\nmay be a decent man and the next one might not be.\nSo, what do you think about trying to write in some\nmore protection by getting some laws governing these\nagencies?\nTHE PRESIDENT: You are familiar, of course, with\nthe fact that I am the first President in 30 years who has\nreorganized the intelligence agencies in the Federal\nGovernment -- the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency,\nthe National Security Agency, and the others.\nWe have done that by Executive Order and I think\nwe have tightened it up. We have straightened out their\nproblems that developed over the last few years. It doesn't\nseem to me that it is needed or necessary to have legislation\nin this particular regard.\nI have recommended to the Congress, however, I\nam sure you are familiar with this, legislation that would\nmake it very proper and in the right way that the Attorney\nGeneral could go in and get the right for wiretapping under\nsecurity cases. This was an effort that was made by the\nAttorney General and myself working with the Congress, but\neven in this area where I think new legislation would be\njustified, the Congress has not responded.\nSo I feel in that case, as well as in the\nreorganization of the intelligence agencies -- as I have done --\nwe have to do it by Executive Order, and I am glad that\nwe have a good Director in George Bush, we have good\nExecutive Orders and the CIA and the NSA are now doing a\ngood job under proper supervision.\nMORE\nPage 34\nTHE MODERATOR: Governor Carter.\nMR. CARTER: Well, one of the very serious things\nthat has happened in our Government in recent years and\nhas continued up until now is a breakdown in the trust\namong our people ---\n(Audio interruption 10:53 p.m. Debate resumed\nat 11:18 p.m.)\nTHE MODERATOR: These debates have been arranged\nby the League of Women Voters Education Fund and are being\nbroadcast by the three commercial networks, and the public\ntelevision network and we hope that we have the audio.\nAre we back on the air?\nLadies and gentlemen: Probably it is not necessary\nfor me to say that we had a technical failure during the\ndebates. It was not a failure in the debate itself, it\nwas a failure in the broadcasting of the debate. It occurred\n27 minutes ago and the fault has been dealt with, and we\nwant to thank President Ford and Governor Carter for being\nso patient and understanding while this delay went on.\nWe very much regret the technical failure, but\nit was a loss of the sound as it was leaving the theater.\nIt occurred during Governor Carter's response to what would\nhave been and was the last question put to the candidates.\nThat question went to President Ford and dealt with the\ncontrol of Government intelligence agencies.\nGovernor Carter was making his response and had\nvery nearly finished it. He will conclude that response now,\nafter which President Ford and Governor Carter will make\ntheir closing statements.\nMORE\nPage 35\nMR. CARTER: Some of you are critics of too much\nGovernment secrecy and not enough restraint for the\npersonal privacy of American citizens.\nTHE MODERATOR: It is now time for the closing\nstatements which are to be up to four minutes long.\nGovernor Carter, by the same toss of the coin\nthat directed the first question to you, you are to go\nfirst now.\nMR. CARTER: Tonight, we have had a chance to\ntalk a lot about the past, but I think it is time to\ntalk about the future. Our Nation, in the last eight years,\nhas been divided as never before. It is a time for unity.\nIt is a time to draw ourselves together, to have a Presi-\ndent and a Congress that can work together with mutual\nrespect for a change, cooperating for a change, in the\nopen for a change, so the people can understand their\nown Government.\nIt is time for Government, industry and labor,\nmanufacturing, agriculture, education, other entities in\nour society, to cooperate. It is a time for Government\nto understand and to cooperate with our people.\nFor a long time, our American citizens have been\nexcluded, sometimes misled, sometimes have been lied to.\nThis is not compatible with the purpose of our Nation. I\nbelieve in our country. It needs tobe competent, the\nGovernment needs to be well managed, efficient, economical.\nWe need to have a Government that is sensitive to our\npeople's needs, to those who are poor, who don't have\nadequate health care, who have been cheated too long by\nour tax programs, who have been out of jobs, whose families\nhave been torn apart, and we need to restore the faith\nand the trust of the American people in their own\nGovernment.\nIn addition to that, we have suffered because\nwe have not had leadership in this Administration. We\nhave got a Government of stalemate and we have lost the\nvision of what our country can and ought to be. This is\nnot the America that we have known in the past. This is\nnot the America that we have to have in the future.\nI don't claim to know all the answers, but I have\ngot confidence in my country. Our economic strength is\nstill there. Our system of Government, in spite of\nVietnam, Cambodia, CIA, Watergate, is still the best\nsystem of Government on earth, and the greatest resource of\nall of the 215 million Americans who still have within us\nthe strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience,\nthe patriotism, the idealism, the compassion, the sense of\nbrotherhood, on which we can rely in the future to restore\nthe greatness to our country.\nMORE\nPage 36\nWe ought not to be excluded from our Government\nanymore. We need a President who can go in, who derives\nhis strength from. the people. I owe the special interests\nnothing. I owe everything to you, the people of this\ncountry, and I believe that we can bind our wounds. I\nbelieve that we can work together and I believe that if\nwe can tap the tremendous untapped reservoir of innate\nstrength in this country that we can once again have a\nGovernment as good as our people and let the world know\nwhat we still know and hope for, that we still live in\nthe greatest and the strongest and the best country\non earth.\nTHE MODERATOR: President Ford?\nMORE\nPage 37\nTHE PRESIDENT: On November 2 all of you will\nmake a very, very important decision. One of the\nmajor issues in this campaign is trust. A President\nshould never promise more than he can deliver and\na President should always deliver everything that he\nhas promised. A President can't be all things to all\npeople. A President should be the same thing to all\npeople.\nAnother issue in this campaign, Governor Carter\nhas endorsed the Democratic platform which calls for\nmore spending, bigger deficits, more inflation or more\ntaxes. Governor Carter has embraced the record of the\npresent Congress, dominated by his political party.\nIt calls for more of the same.\nGovernor Carter in his acceptance speech\ncalled for more and more programs, which means more and\nmore Government. I think the real issue in this campaign--\nand that which you must decide on November 2--is whether\nyou should vote for his promises or my performance in\ntwo years in the White House.\nOn the Fourth of July we had a wonderful 200th\nbirthday for our great country. It was a superb\noccasion. It was a glorious day.\nIn the first century of our nation's history,\nour forefathers gave us the finest form of Government\nin the history of mankind. In the second century of\nour nation's history, our forefathers developed the\nmost productive industrial nation in the history of the\nglobe. Our third century should be the century of\nindividual freedom for all our 215 million Americans\ntoday and all that join us.\nIn the last few years Government has gotten\nbigger and bigger. Industry has gotten larger and\nlarger. Labor unions have gotten bigger and bigger,\nand our children have been the victims of mass education.\nWe must make this next century the century of\nthe individual. We should never forget that a Government\nbig enough to give us everything we want is a Government\nbig enough to take from us everything we have.\nThe individual worker of a plant throughout\nthe United States should not be a small cog in a big\nmachine. The member of the labor union must have his\nrights strengthened and broadened and our children\nin their education should have an opportunity to\nimprove themselves based on their talents and their\nability.\nMORE\nPage 38\nMy mother and father during the Depression\nworked very hard to give me an opportunity to do\nbetter in our great country. Your mothers and\nfathers did the same thing for you and others. Betty\nand I have worked very hard to give our children a\nbrighter future in the United States, our beloved\ncountry.\nYou and others in this great country have\nworked hard and done a great deal to give your children\nand your grandchildren the blessings of a better\nAmerica. I believe we can all work together to make\nthe individuals in the future have more, and all of us\nworking together can build a better America.\nTHE MODERATOR: Thank you, President Ford.\nThank you, Governor Carter. Our thanks also to the\nquestioners and to the audience in this theatre. We\nmuch regret the technical failure that caused a 28-\nminute delay in the broadcast of the debate. We believe, how-\never that everyone will agree that it did not detract\nfrom the effectiveness of the debate or from its fairness.\nThe next Presidential debate is to take place\non Wednesday, October 6, in San Francisco, at 9:30\np.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The topics are to be\nforeign and defense issues. As with all three debates\nbetween the Presidential candidates and the one between\nthe Vice Presidential candidates, it is being arranged\nby the League of Women Voters Education Fund in the hope\nof promoting a wider and better informed participation\nby the American people in the election in November.\nNow, from the Walnut Street Theatre in\nPhiladelphia, good night.\nEND\n(AT 11:28 P.M. EDT)"
}

Survos folio page chat

Ask the Scholar

Page image

OCR

Page data

Document data

Context sent to Scholar