tv 1976 Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN September 3, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
ford and jimmy carter. it was held in philadelphia and focused on domestic issues, taxes and the economy, and marked the first time since 1960 the major party nominees squared off in a presidential debate. it was best remember for technical problems with the audio feed, causing a 28 minute delay where the candidates remained in the podiums. jimmy carter defeated president ford in 1976 general election, winning 50% of the popular vote to ford's 48%. the league of women voters sponsor the event. our coverage is from nbc news. it is just under two hours. edwin newman: good evening. i'm 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 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 sixteen years and the first ever in which an incumbent president has participated, is taking place before an audience in the walnut street theater in philadelphia, just three blocks from independence hall. the television audience may reach a hundred 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. answer. one follow-up question will be permitted with up to two
minutes to reply. president ford will then have two minutes to respond. the next question will go to president ford with the same time 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 president ford and governor first. 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 a tremendous economic strength in this country and to set the putting back to work of 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, the tapping of business, agriculture, industry, labor and government at all levels to work work on this project. we'll never have an end to the inflationary spiral, and we'll 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 uh large numbers 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, and the guarantee of mortgage loans, and the putting forward of two-0-two programs for housing for older people and so forth to cut down the roughly 20 percent unemployment that now exists in the construction industry. another thing is to deal with our needs in the central cities, where the unemployment rate is extremely high. sometimes among minority groups, or those who don't speak english, or who're black, or young people with 40% unemployment. here a ccc type program would be appropriate to channel money into the the sharing with the 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 burdens onto those who have avoided paying taxes in the
past. these kind of specific things none of which are being done , now, would be a great help in reducing uh unemployment. there is an additional factor that needs to be done and covered very succinctly, and that is, to make sure that we have a good relationship between management - business on the one hand, and labor on the other. in a lot of places on a planet is very high and we must channel specific targeted job opportunities by paying part of the salary of unemployed people and also sharing with local governments the payment of salaries which would let us cut down the unemployment rate much lower, before we hit the inflationary level. i believe that by the end of the first four years of uh - of the next term we could have the on a claimant rate down to 3% adult unemployment, which is about four and a half percent overall controlled inflation balance ofhave a growth at about 4% to 6%, around
5% which would give us a balanced budget. 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 incomes policy, in other words, wage and price mr. carter: we now have such uh a low utilization of our productive capacity, about 70% i , think it's about the lowest since the great depression years - and such a high unemployment that we have a long way to go in getting people to work before we have the inflationary pressures. payment of favor the a given fixed income for people unless they are not able to work. but with tax incentives for the low-income groups we could build
build up their income levels above the poverty level and not uh make welfare more uh - profitable than work. mr. newman: mr. president, your response? mr. ford: i don't believe that that mr. carter's 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 uh - -- we all know that it would've controlled our economy, it would've added ten to thirty billion dollars each year in additional expenditures by the federal government. it would've called for export controls on agricultural 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 uh 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 youths 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 kind of specifics that i think we have to discuss on these debates, and these are the kind of programs that i'll talk about on my time. mr. newman: mr. gannon, your question to president ford. 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? mr. ford: 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% to american business. i said at the time that we had to hold the lid an federal spending, that for every dollar of a tax reduction we had to have an equal reduction in federal expenditures - a one for one post -- proposition. and i recommended that to the congress with a budget ceiling $395 billion, and that would have permitted us to have a $25 billion tax reduction. in my tax reduction program for middle-income taxpayers, i recommended that the congress personal exemptions from $750 per person to $1000 per person. that would mean, of course, that for a family of four that that family would have $1000 more personal exemption money that , they could spend for their own purposes, money that the government wouldn't 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 this year, i recommended a 50% cutback in the rate of growth of federal spending here it for the last ten years the budget of the united states has grown from uh -- about 11% per year. we can't afford that kind of growth in federal spending. and in the budget that i recommended we cut it in half - a growth rate of five to 5.5%. 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 taxpayers, and with more money in the hands of business to expand, to
modernize, to provide more jobs, power economy will be stimulated so that we'll get more revenue and we'll 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 doesn't meet your requirements? do you plan to sign that bill? mr. ford: 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 seven -- $750 to $1000. 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'm sure that you know that in the resolutions passed by the congress, that 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's about 1500 pages. it has some good provisions in it. it has left out some that i have recommended, unfortunately. on when you have a bill of that magnitude those many provisions, , a president has to sit and decide if there's more good than bad. and from the a- analysis
that i've made so far, it seems to me that that tax bill does uh - justify my signature and my approval. mr. newman: governor carter, your response. mr. carter: well, mr. ford is uh changing considerably his previous philosophy. the present tax structure is a disgrace to this country; it's just a welfare program for the rich. as matter of fact, 25 percent of the total tax deductions, go for only 1 percent of the richest people in this country, and over 50 percent of the tax uh 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 since the great depression of the 1940's. in january of 1975 he asked for a tax change: a $5.6 billion increase on low-and-middle-income private
individuals, a $6.5 billion decrease on the corporations and the special interests. -- in december of he vetoed 1975 the roughly 18 to 20 billion dollar uh tax-reduction bill that had been passed by the congress, and then he came back later on in january of this year and he 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 'em off on the corporations. as a matter fact, since the late sixties when mr. nixon took office, we've had a reduction in in the percentage of taxes paid by corporations from 30 percent down to about 20%. we've had an increase in taxes paid by individuals, payroll taxes, from 14 percent up to 20 percent. and this is what the republicans have done to us. and this is why a tax reform is so important. mr. newman: mrs. drew, your question to governor carter.
mrs. drew: uh governor carter, you proposed a number of new or enlarged programs, including jobs, health, welfare reform, child care, aid to education, aid to cities, changes in social security and housing subsidies. you've also said that you wanna balance the budget by the end of your first term. now you haven't put a price tag on those programs, but even if we price 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 - any estimates that i've been able to see. so, in that case what would give? mr. carter: well, as a matter of fact there is. if we assume the a rate of growth of our economy, equivalent to what it was during president johnson, president kennedy, even before the vietnese war, and if we assume
that at the end of the four-year period we can cut our on a planet rate down to 4% to 4.5% under those circumstances, , even assuming no elimination of unnecessary programs and assuming an increase in the in the allotment of money to finance programs, increasing as the inflation rate does - my economic projections, i think confirmed by the house uh - and the senate committees, have been with the $60 billion extra amount of money that can be spent in fiscal year '81 which will 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 - that if we see that these goals cannot be reached - and i believe they're reasonable goals - then i would cut back on the rate of implementation of new programs in order to accommodate a balanced budget by fiscal year '81 which is the last year of the next term. i believe that we ought to have a balanced budget during normal economic and -- circumstances.
and these projections have been very carefully made. i stand behind them. and if they should be in error slightly on the down side, then i'll phase in the programs that we've advocated, more slowly. ms. drew: governor, according to the budget committees of the congress that you referred to, if we get to full employment - with a project that a 4% 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 the and of -- by 1981. and conservative estimates of your programs would be that they be about $85 billion to about $100 billion. how do you say that you're going to be able to do these things and balance the budget? mr. carter: well, the assumption that you have described as different is in the rate of growth of our economy. ms. drew: no, they took that into account in those figures. mr. carter: i believe that it's accurate to say that the - that
the committees to whom you refer with the - the employment that you state, and with the five to 5.5% growth rate in our economy that the projections would be a $60 billion increase in the amount of money that we'd have to spend in l981 compared to now. and in that framework would defend any improvements in the programs. now this does not include any extra control over unnecessary spending, the weeding out of obsolete or obsolescent programs. we'll have a safety version built in with complete reorganization of the executive branch of government which i am pledged to do. the present bureaucratic structure of the federal government is a mess. and if i'm elected president that's gonna 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'm going to institute zero-based budgeting which i used four years in georgia, which assesses every program every year, and eliminates those programs that are obsolete or
obsolescent. but with these projections, we will have a balanced budget by fiscal year 1981, if i'm elected president. keep my promises to the american people. and it's just predicated on very modest, but i think accurate, projections of employment increases and a growth in our national economy equal to what was experienced under kennedy, johnson, before the vietnam war. mr. newman: president ford. mr. ford: if it is true that there will be a $60 billion surplus by fiscal year 1981, rather than spend that money for all the new programs that governor carter recommends and endorses, and which are included in the democratic platform, i think the american taxpayer ought to get an additional tax break - a tax reduction of that magnitude. i feel that the taxpayers are
the ones that need relief. i don't think we should add additional programs of 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 administrations, we have had ten million people taken off of the tax rolls at the lower end of the taxpayer area. and at the same time, assuming that i sign the tax bill that was mentioned by mr. gannon, we will in the last two tax bills have increased the minimum tax on all wealthy taxpayers. and 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've 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 isn't going to be any $60 billion dividend. i've 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. mr. newman: 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 announced, you proposed a program of uh case-by-case pardons for draft resisters to restore them to
full citizenship. some young men took advantage of 14,000 your offer, but another did not. in granting the pardon 90,000 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, and many of them still in exile abroad? mr. ford: 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. about did take advantage of that 14,000 15,000 program. we gave them ample time. i am against an across-the-board pardon of draft evaders or military deserters. now in the
of mr. nixon, the reason 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 a hundred 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 in 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 that you are going to reconsider and think about those 90,000 who are still abroad. they have not been penalized enough - many of 'em been there for years? mr. ford: well, 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. mr. newman: governor carter. mr. carter: well i think it's 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 i don't advocate amnesty; i advocate pardon. there's a difference in my opinion. and in accordance with the ruling of the supreme court and accordance with the definition in the dictionary. amnesty means that you -- what you did was right. pardon means that what you did,
whether it's right or wrong, you're forgiven for it. and i do advocate a pardon for draft evaders. i think it's accurate to say that in two years ago when mr. nixon - mr. ford put in this uh amnesty that three times as many deserters were excused as were - as were the ones who evaded the draft. but i think that now is the time to heal our country after the vietnam war and i think that 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 got a sharp distinction drawn between white-collar crime and the big shots who are rich, who are influential uh very seldom go to jail. those who are poor and who have no influence quite often are the ones were punished. and the whole uh subject of
crime is one that concerns our people very much, and i believe that the fairness of it is - is a major problem that addresses our leader and this is something that hasn't been addressed adequately by this administration. but i hope to have a complete uh responsibility on my shoulders to help bring about a fair criminal justice system and also to bring about an and to the divisiveness that has occurred in our country uh as a result of the vietnam war. mr. newman: 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 it would go down to about 200 from some 1900. that sounds, indeed, like a very deep cut in the federal government. but isn't it a fact that you're 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've been through this before, mr. gannon, has the governor of georgia. when i took aver we had uh a bureaucratic mess, like we have in washington now, and we had 300 agencies, departments, bureaus, commissions, some fully budgeted, some not but all , having responsibility to carry out that was in conflict. and we cut those 300 agencies and so forth down substantially. we eliminated 278 of them. we set up a simple structure of government that could be administrated 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, our prison system, our education system, our mental health programs and a clear assignment of responsibility and - and authority and also to have uh our people once again understanding control our government. i intend to do the same thing if i'm elected president. when i get to washington, coming in as an outsider, one of the major responsibilities that i will have on my shoulder 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, have $3.5ce, we million to spend on the white house and its staff here at that is escalated now to in the last $16.5 million republican administration. this needs to be changed. we need to put the responsibilities back on the for instance, we now have in the health area three hundred and two different programs administered by eleven major departments and agencies, sixty other advisory commissions responsible for this. medicaid's in one agency; medicare is in a different one. the check on the quality of health care is in a different one. none of them are responsible for health care itself. this makes it almost impossible for us to have a good health program. 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 twenty 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 a gross waste of money, so tough, competent management of government, giving us a simple efficient purposeful and manageable government would be a great step forward and if i'm elected and i intend to be then it's gonna be done. mr. gannon: well, i'd 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 a 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 was actually less than it was a year before, which showed a great improvement. also, we had a 2% increase in the number of employees the last year. but it was a tremendous shift from administrative jobs into the delivery of services. for instance, we completely revised our prison system. we established eighty-four new mental health treatment centers. and we shifted people out of administrative jobs into the field to deliver better services. the same thing will be done at the federal government level. i accomplished this with s substantial reductions in employees in some departments. for instance, in the transportation department we had
we cut back about 25 percent of the total number of employees. in giving our people better mental health care, we increased the number of employees. but the efficiency of it, the simplicity of it, the ability of people to understand their own government and control it was a substantial benefit derived from complete reorganization. we have got to do that at the federal government level. if we don't, the bureaucratic mess is going to continue. there's no way for our people now to understand what their government is. there's no way to get the answer to a question. when you come to washington to , as a governor, to try to begin a new program for your people, like the treatment of drug addicts, i found there were thirteen different federal agencies that i had to go to, to manage the drug treatment program. in the georgia government we only had one agency responsible for drug treatment. this is the kind of change that would be made. and it would be of of tremendous benefit in
long-range planning, in tight budgeting, saving the taxpayer'' money, making the government more efficient, cutting down on bureaucratic waste, having a clear delineation of authority and responsibility of employees, and giving our people a better chance to understand and control their government. mr. newman: president ford. mr. ford: i think the record should 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. and 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've 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 forty-thousand increase in federal employees that had been scheduled by my predecessor. and in the term that i've been president, some two years, we have reduced federal employment by eleven thousand. in the white house staff itself, when i became president, we had
roughly 540 employees. we now have about 485 employees, so we've 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 programs to actually save employment in georgia, shows which is the better plan. mr. newman: mrs. drew. ms. drew: mr. president, at vail, after the republican convention, you announced that you would now emphasize five new areas; among those were jobs and housing and health and improved recreational facilities for americans. and you also added crime. you also mentioned education. for two years you've been telling us that 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 that 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 at vail you were going to now stress?
mr. ford: well, in the last two years, as i indicated before, we had a very tough time. we were faced with heavy inflation, over 12%. we were faced with substantial unemployment. but in the last 24 months we've turned the economy around and we've brought inflation down to under 6%, and we have reduced the well, we have added employment of about four million in the last seventeen 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'll 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 moderate way increase, as i recommended, over the next ten years a new parks program that would cast a billion and a half dollars, 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 a tougher sentencing, mandatory certain 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 in money in the drug abuse program. we feel that in education we can have a slight increase not a major increase. it's my understanding that governor carter has indicated that he approves of a $30 billion expenditure by the federal government as far as education is concerned. at the present time we're spending roughly $3.5 billion. i don't know where that money would come from. but as we look at the quality-of-life programs jobs, health, education, crime, recreation we feel that as we move forward with a healthier economy, we can absorb the small necessary cost that will be required. ms. drew: sir, in the next few years would you try to reduce
the deficit, would you spend more money far 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? mr. ford: 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% increase over last year. we will have the lower rate of inflation for the calendar year this year
something slightly under 6%. employment will be up, revenues will be up. we'll keep the lid on some of these programs that we can hold down as we 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 program that governor carter recommends. he endorses the democratic platform which, as i read it, calls for approximately sixty 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. mr. newman: 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're always for the programs that they always fight the other three-and-one-half years. i remember when herbert hoover was against jobs for people. i remember when alf landon was against social security and later president nixon, sixteen years ago, was telling the public that john kennedy's proposals would bankrupt the country and would double the cost. the best thing to do is to look at the record of mr. ford's administration and mr. nixon's before his. 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've got 500,000 more americans out of jobs today than were out
of work three months ago and since mr. ford's been in office two years, we've had a 50 % increase in unemployment from five million people out of work to two and a half million more people out of work and a total of seven and a half million. we've also got a comparison between himself and mr. nixon. he's got four times the size of the deficits that mr. nixon even had himself. this talking about more people at work is distorted because with a 14% 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 didn't make enough to pay the increased cost of food and housing and clothing. we have in this last two years alone a hundred and twenty
billion dollars total deficits under president ford and at the same time we've had, in the last eight years, a doubling in the number of bankruptcies for small business. we've had a negative growth in our 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's there and talk about the future and a drastic change or conversion on the part of mr. ford as of last minute is one that just doesn't go. mr. newman: mr. reynolds. mr. reynolds: governor carter, i'd like to turn to what we used to call the energy crisis. 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. now this is a subject that is quite controversial among our own people and there seems to be a clear difference between you and the president on the use of nuclear power plants, which you say you would use as a last priority. why, sir, are they unsafe? mr. carter: well, among my other
experiences in the past, i've been a nuclear engineer, and did graduate work in this field. i think i know the the capabilities and limitations 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, for instance. in the crisis of 1973 it was supposed to be a temporary agency, now it's permanent, it's enormous, it's growing every day. i think the wall street journal reported not too 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've got to have a a firm way to handle the energy question. the reorganization proposal that i have put forward is one first step. in addition to that, we need to have a realization that we've got about 35 years worth of oil left in the whole world.
we're gonna 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've increased that amount 25 percent. we now import about 44 percent of our oil. we need to shift from oil to coal. we need to concentrate our research and development effort on coal burning and extraction, with safer mines, but also it's clean burning. we need to shift very strongly toward solar energy and have 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 that 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 in the control room, full time, twenty-four 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. there ought to be a standardized design. there ought to be a full-time so, shift from oil to coal, emphasize research and development on coal use and also on solar power, strict conservation measures, not yield every time that the special interest groups 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's the best overall energy policy in the brief time we have to discuss it. mr. reynolds: well 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 automobiles. and whenever the automobile manufacturers come forward and say they can't meet the limits that the congress has put forward, this republican administration has delayed the implementation dates. in addition to that, we ought to have a a shift toward 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 coal is there, it's 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 to bring forward to the public the benefits from efficiency.
of energy by as much as 40%with 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. mr. newman: president ford. mr. ford: 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're going to increase domestic oil and gas production and you have to give those producers an opportunity to develop their land or their wells. i recommended to the congress that we should increase production in this country from
600 million tons a year to 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. in my program for energy independence we have increased, for example, solar energy research from about $84 million a year to about a hundred and twenty million dollars a year. we're 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. mr. newman: mr. gannon. mr. gannon: mr. president, i'd like to return for a moment to
this problem of unemployment. you have vetoed or threatened to veto number of job 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 unemployment compensation to idle people than to put them to work in public service jobs? mr. ford: the bills that i 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 four hundred thousand jobs would be made available. our analysis indicates that something in the magnitude of of about 150,000 to 200,000 jobs
would be made available. each one of those jobs would've would be made available. cost the taxpayers $25,000. in addition, the jobs would not be available right now. they would not have materialized for about nine to eighteen 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 on 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 four million jobs in the last seventeen months. we have now employed 88 million people in america, the largest number in the history of the united states. we've added 500,000 jobs in the last two months. inflation is the quickest way to destroy jobs. and by holding the lid on 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. i think it's 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's my opinion that the private sector, where five out of 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 the congress has just passed a three point seven billion dollar 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 rethought that question at all; whether you would consider allowing this program to be funded, or will you veto that money bill? mr. ford: 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's interesting to point out that in the two years that i've been president i've
vetoed 56 bills. congress has sustained forty-two 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. mr. newman: governor carter.
mr. carter: well, mr. ford doesn't seem to put into perspective the fact that when 500,000 more people are out of work than there were three months ago, while we have two and a half million more people out of work than were when he took office, that this touches human beings. i was in a city in pennsylvania not too long ago, near here, and there were about four or five thousand people in the audience it was on a 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 success. 7.9% unemployment is a terrible tragedy in this country. he says he's learned how to match unemployment with inflation.
that's right. we've got the highest inflation we've had in twenty-five years right now, except under this administration, and that was 50 years ago. and we've got the highest unemployment we've 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 hasn't saved $9 billion with his vetoes. there's only been a net savings 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's covered over by saying that our country has naturally got a 6%unemployment rate, or 7% unemployment rate and a
6% inflation. it's a travesty. it shows a lack of leadership. and we've never had a president since the war between the states that vetoed more bills. mr. ford has vetoed four times as many bills as mr. nixon per year. and eleven of 'em 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. mr. newman: governor carter. so this shows a breakdown in leadership. mr. newman: under the rules, i must stop you there. and mrs. drew. ms. drew: governor carter, i'd like to come back to the subject of taxes. you have said that you want to cut taxes for the middle and lower income groups. mr. carter: right. ms. drew: but unless you're willing to do such things as reduce the itemized deductions for charitable contributions or home mortgage payments, or interest, or taxes, or capital gains, you can't really raise sufficient revenue to provide an overall tax cut of any size. so how are you gonna provide
to the 14% richest people in this country, and we've had a 50% increase in payroll deductions since mr. nixon went in office eight years ago. mr. ford has has advocated since he's been in office over $5 billion in reductions for corporations, special interest groups, and the very, very wealthy who derive their income not from labor but from investments. that's got to be changed. a few things that can be done: we have now a deferral system so that the multinational 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. when 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 and creating a shoe factory, say in new hampshire or vermont, if the company takes the money down to italy and and builds a shoe factory, they don't have to pay any taxes on the money. another thing is a system called disc which was originally designed, 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's that's very important is the is the business deductions, jet airplanes, first class travel, the fifty-dollar 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 that makes a million and mark off a great amount of of loss through that procedure. uh there was one example, for instance, where somebody produced pornographic movies. they put in $30 thousand of their own money and got a hundred and twenty thousand dollars in tax savings. well, these special kinds of programs have have robbed the average taxpayer and have benefited 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 eight thousand pages of the tax code. the average american person can't do it. you can't hire a lobbyist out of unemployment compensation checks. ms. drew: ah 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 mr. carter: yes. you need about, according to congressional committees on this, you need about $10 billion. now you listed some things the deferral on foreign income as estimated: that would save about $500 million. disc, you said, was about 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 wouldn't do away with all business deductions. i think that would be a a very serious mistake. 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. what i wanna do is not to raise taxes, but to eliminate loopholes. and this is the point of my first statistics that i gave you that the present tax benefits that have been carved out over a long period of years fifty years by sharp tax lawyers and by lobbyists have benefited just the rich. these 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 very
best way to approach it. it's 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 levels and give it to the lower- and middle-income families. mr. newman: president ford. mr. ford: governor carter's answer tonight does not coincide with the answer that he gave in an interview to the associated press 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's about $14,000 per person. governor carter has indicated, publicly, in an interview that he would increase the taxes on about 50% 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 $8000 up to $25,000 to $30,000. they have been short-changed as we have taken ten 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 taxpayers 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 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 a year. my average in two years is twenty-six. but in the process of that we have saved $9 billion. and 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 twenty-two years and they wrote all the tax bills. mr. newman: mr. reynolds. mr. reynolds: i suspect that we could continue on this tax argument for some time. but i'd like to move on to another area. mr. president, everybody seems to be running against washington this year. and i'd 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's something wrong in washington, and i don't mean just in the executive branch but throughout the whole government?
mr. ford: 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've 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 a billion dollars 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 run this congress. we, in addition, 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 droves, and the cost as a result has gone up. and 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's some question about their morality.
it seems to me that in this election, the focus should not be on the executive branch but the corrections should come as the voters vote for their members of the house of representatives or for their united states senator. that's where the problem is and i hope there'll 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've 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'll have continued confrontation? mr. ford: 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'd had governor carter as president. he has, in effect, said that he would agree with all of 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've 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 one hundred billion dollars a year, or maybe two hundred billion dollars 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. mr. newman: governor carter. mr. carter: well, it's not a matter of republican and democrat. it's a matter of leadership or 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. mr. 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 never 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% of their legislation. this year mr. ford will not pass more than 26% of all the legislative proposals he puts forward. this is government by stalemate, and we've 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. we've had republican presidents before who've tried to run against a democratic congress. and i don't think it's the congress is mr. ford's opponent; but if if if he insists that that i be responsible for the democratic congress, of which i'm have not been a part, then i think it's 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 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's been a constant squabbling between the president and the congress, and that's not the way this country ought to be run. i might go back to one other thing. mr. ford has misquoted an ap news story that was in error to begin with. that story reported several times that i would lower taxes for low and middle-income families and that correction was delivered to the white house and i am sure that the president knows about this correction, but he still insists on repeating an erroneous statement. mr. newman: president ford, 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. 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'd like to ask you something about what you've 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? mr. carter: what i have said is that the president ought to have a chance to appoint a chairman of the federal reserve board to have a coterminous term; in other words, both of them serve the same four four years. the congress can modify the supply of money by modifying the income tax laws. the president can modify the economic structure of a country by public statements and general attitudes in the budget that he proposes. the federal reserve has an independent status that ought to be preserved; i think that mr. burns did take a typical, erroneous republican attitude in the 1973 year when inflation was so high.
they assumed that the inflation rate was because of excessive demand and therefore put into effect tight constraint on the economy, very high interest rates, which is typical also of the republican administration, tried to increase the the tax payments by individuals, and cut the tax payments by corporations. i would have done it opposite. i think the problem should've been addressed by increasing productivity, by having put people back to work so they could 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 wanna 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 letting the congress, of course, be the third entity with with independence subject only to the president's veto. mr. newman: president ford, your response. mr. ford: the chairman of the federal reserve board should be independent. fortunately, he has been during democratic as well as republican administrations. as the 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 4 to 4.5 and 7 to 7.5. they have done a good job in integrating the money supply with the fiscal policy of the executive and legislative branches of the 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's important for our future economic security that that job be nonpolitical and separate from the executive and the
legislative branches. mr. newman: mrs. drew. ms. drew: mr. president, the real problem with the fbi and, in fact, all of the intelligence agencies is there are no real laws governing them. such laws as there are tend to be vague and open-ended. now, you have issued some executive orders, but we've 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, 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? mr. ford: you are familiar, of course, with the fact that i am the first president in thirty 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've done that by executive order. and i think we've tightened it up; we've straightened out their problems that developed over the last few years. it doesn't seem to me that it's needed or necessary to have legislation in this particular regard. i have recommended to the congress, however i'm sure you're familiar with legislation that would make it very proper in 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've done, we have to do it by executive order. and i'm glad that we have a good director in george bush. we have good executive orders, and the cia and the dia and nasa nsa are now doing a good job under proper supervision. mr. newman: governor carter. mr. carter: well, one of the very serious things that's happened in our government in recent years, and has continued up until now, is a breakdown in the trust among our people in -- of broadcasters have temporarily lost the audio. it is not a conspiracy against
governor carter or president for. this debate is within about eight minutes of its close. despite the fact that this was under the auspices of the league of women voters, the pool audio from philadelphia has been lost momentarily. we hope to have it back any minute. we don't know what's happened to it. again, the pool audio from the walnut street theater in philadelphia has been lost. moment. for the
we are trying to restore it. we do not know what has happened to it. morecandidates have lost a or less equal number of their words. i cannot hear them either. i don't know what it is we are not hearing. i think they have stopped because they have been told that the sound has been lost. i think they have stopped talking. whatever happened, we hope to have it fixed shortly. i wish that i could tell you more, but that is all that i know. i might say a word here that i planned to say later when the
debate was over. it is that at 11:30 eastern time, we will be back here with a special program in which we leave,k people as they to ask others in the area and whoever we can find whose views might the interesting, what they think about the debate, who they think won. john chancellor and other members of our news staff are ready with this. we will be back with that, whatever happens to the audio from the theater at this time. all i know is that we are not getting it, nobody is scanning
it. everywhere, the same on all of them. it is still out? where is doug? he's in the lobby just outside of the hall. doug, you cannot tell us what has happened? david, we don't know what has happened. they were talking and suddenly they quit. we jumped out here too. as you know this was a pool arrangement with one network responsible so we are just standing by the way that you are. with the problem is and how long it will take to fix it -- we just don't know. in theblem is not
theater, the problem as you know is in the technical trucks outside the auditorium. someone said it is not a conspiracy but how long it will take to fix it, we don't know. david: you don't have a screwdriver and a pair of pliers? doug: i do not, david, no. david: it seems to me that both candidates are pretty much saying the same thing that they have been saying in the early parts of these campaigns. very tough, sometimes even rough tonight. both of them heavy on their facts. new that governor carter intended to come here to convince the american public that he did know the facts and has the knowledge.
president for his fact-filled. he has strongly defended his economic policies in these debates tonight. he's pointed to the fact that the improved economy is proof of their wisdom. mr. carter quebec and refuted this and in one of the tough segments charged that president ford is insensitive to the plight of the unemployed. do we have audio back now? we still do not have audio back. both candidates are waiting. they haven't told that they are on the air with the picture but off the air with her voices. president ford announced tonight that he will sign that new tax bill, even though he said he was
dissatisfied with the provisions in it. mr. carter called the tax program a welfare program for the rich. new also talked about the federal programs. newbut the choice between those programs being innovated or alan sing the budget that he would choose in favor of balancing the budget. president ford said that any surplus should go to federal tax relief. both outlined at great length their plans to curb unemployment . the democraticto platform and said if all the proposals were adopted it would create 60 new programs which he said would cost 100 to $200 billion more.
mr. carter recently rejoined by saying that richard nixon said the same things about programs are posed by the democrats 16 years ago. the men discussed draft evaders and what the programs should be. mr. ford says he does not believe in any across-the-board programs. mr. carter said he still would grant pardon and insisted that a difference between pardon and amnesty. jimmy carter as he has so often done this whole election year promised he would completely reorganize the federal government and wasted no time about it. president ford countered that and said he has looked into the facts and figures under governor
carter in georgia and the fact is that governor carter increased the georgia budget and the number of state employees while he was there. that medicaid in georgia when it was turned over to governor busby was in governor busby's words "in shambles." jimmy carter said other fed itcan presidents feasible and possible to work with democratic congresses. president at the eisenhower had done this and that richard nixon for all of his faults was a strong leader and managed to work with a democratic congress and imposed far fewer vetoes ban president ford had imposed. then he got very tough momentarily with president ford and said i'm not a member of congress. he said the democratic congress
is not under my control. blame me forng to that than i will blame you for watergate. >> what's going on in there >> i don't know any more than you do, doug. they were down to the last few minutes and the sound cut off, i don't know what the explanation is. >> will the debates continue? >> i don't know. we were listening upstairs on the monitor and ed newman wasn't quite clear what was going to happen either. >> you have no contingency plan for such a thing to happen? >> i think you're supposed to be the one with the contingency plan. we don't know what happened, the president will wait and let those putting on the debates decide what to do. >> you'll sitting in there with some members of the administration, ambassador of the united nations, you yourself, mr. hartman, the speechwriter. how do you think your guy is doing so far?
>> we think, we talked, we had a little time to talk after the sound went off and we sort of polled each other and everybody came to the same conclusion and that it was a clear-cut victory for the president. >> i don't think anyone would be surprised, being partisan, you are saying that. is this debate tougher in your opinion than you thought it would be, pretty tough exchanges it would seem to us. >> it seems the president came across. i agree the questions were touched and the reporters were prepared and did a lot of research. the president came across to us watching anyhow of being in command of the situation, being in control. it seemed to me he had the opportunity through the tough questions to devastate experience, his background, his knowledge, and his ability. >> well, the same thing, also, could be said for governor carter, at least he was batting a lot of facts and figures. we haven't had all of these debates at, at least the completion of this one. how much time did we get cut out on, 12, 15 minutes.
do you think that some provision could be made for the viewing public to hear what was left out? >> well, the president said from the very beginning, doug, and the reason that he wanted to do the debates in the first place and the reason he wanted them to be done at great length, 90 minutes at a minimum was because he felt the time was needed to explore issues in depth. i think they were explored in depth tonight. >> thank you very much. this is press secretary. over on the other side to the left is a man who i think will say that he thinks that jimmy carter was as clear a winner. that is the democratic party chairman robert strasburg who is already talking. let's listen into what he was saying. >> it was a good night for the american people, a great night for jimmy carter. >> was either man nervous or ill at ease? >> neither looked nervous or ill at ease. they handled both handled the
questions well. i thought the president looked programmed. i thought governor carter looked responsive and they both feeded the questions well. i think governor carter clearly demonstrated what he wanted to demonstrate, the ability to deal with issues in this country. >> thank you. >> are you calling winners and losers? you are saying that jimmy carter won the debate? >> two winners. the american public won because they got a chance to see the debate and see the two men. they handled the questions well. -- >> i understand we're back with the debate. let's go back to the auditorium for president ford and mr. arter. >> thank you for the kind words. [no audio]i -- >> well, we thought we had it,
but we don't. what is don't know wrong or where. we hoped we would have it back by now, but we don't nor do i know if they will continue the debates long enough to make up for the lost time, so this will be, we will all learn whatever we learn together. i don't know anything. , e president and mr. carter president and mr. carter are waiting while whatever is wrong wherever it is, it is not in our audio as you have heard from doug just outside the theater, it's in the sound coming from there and we don't know what the problem is. . ey are waiting
we're getting a lot of miscellaneous conversation from various places in the hall, but not the conversation we went there to listen to which was the president and mr. carter, of course. it was as you've heard a pretty lively debate, each one landing a few blows on the ortho i don't think anyone was permanently disabled politically speaking. much of the argument was about what new programs might be put to effect in the federal establishment in the next term, presidential term, four years, what they will cost and how they're going to be paid for, who is going to do the tax
paying in the next four years, whether the rich are going to pay it all, the middle class is going to pay it all or if not them, who. it is, i must say without offering any opinion about winners or losers, that question was not fully answered. perhaps some of the audience might be left unsatisfied on that score. on the one question that was dealt with very firmly and decisively and clearly was that of evaders and deserters, draftee vaders and military deserters. mr. ford thought the government shouldn't go any further than it has gone in his administration where carter thought that it should. his thought is if nixon could be pardoned, why not the evaders. ford said he gave them a chance to work back into american society, some accepted and some idn't.
doug kiker is outside the theater and can still be heard from, though the participants inside cannot. doug. doug: we are with gym baker, president fort's campaign manager. did things go pretty well according to game plan tonight? tell us how the president prepared for this, how hard did he study and was he nervous going up there? i would be nervous talking to 120 million people or however many. jim: i talked to him last night. he was not nervous at all. he was quite relaxed and self-assured. looking at him as he went on stage it would be my judgment that he was quite relaxed and quite confident and quite self-assured. doug: any surprises tonight? jim: no surprises. i think the president did an excellent job. he was in command. he was decisive and more than anything else, doug, he answered the questions. doug: he gave them specifics?
the preparation, did president rd sit back and have questions give questions? jim: there was some of that. he worked on his preparation prepared. i'm sure there was some of that. doug: in the preparation, were the questions that you tried to brainstorm, did any of them really come prepared. i'm sure there was some up? jim: there were some that i think we anticipated very well, yes. doug: what do you think president ford, jimmy carter, but what do you think president ford got out of agreeing to debate? after all he is the incumbent with the powers of office and jimmy carter wasn't that well known? jim: that is true. his positions on the issues were less well known, dougment that's one of the reasons we wanted this debate so that governor carter would have to take some positions on the issues. the president's positions are well known. doug: we have a man over here, jody powell, i'll come in with you, leslie, you can do us
both. this is jimmy carter's press secretary jody powell who is about to go on the air with cbs, since we're hearing this thing all together, i'll ask you, how do you think your man did tonight? jody: the real winner tonight was the american people. they had a good discussion. i thought governor carter was very impressive. he demonstrated a clear command of the issues and the facts and the specifics that were involved in this discussion and i guess if in the debate between president ford and the democratic congress, the congress wasn't there, president ford won in the debate between the two presidential contenders, there is no doubt in my mind that there was a clear advantage all the way for him in terms of dealing directly with the issues in question. doug: he was pretty tough on president ford. he said he was insensitive to the problems of unemployed. if the president ford will
blame him for the congress, he should be blamed for watergate. jody: you misquoted him which is sometimes what happened. if the unjust acts of the democratic congress which he wasn't a part of. s that a bit of tongue and cheek for president ford to responsibility for the previous responsibility for the previous administration. >> how did this compare to 1960, were these as interesting on decisive? jody: there is no way i can compare these debates to 1960. i was a junior in high school. those kennedy nixon debates, there was some question about how decisive those debates were then. i don't think elections are decided on one night. it would suit me fine in the election were decided on this night, however. >> can you give us a real quick assessment of how your candidate did? jody: i thought he did really well. he showed a tremendous command
of the specifics of details of federal government. i think he made his points directly, the comparison between the republican rhetoric and their record and the white house came through very directly, so i'm very happy. >> thank you very much. doug: mr. powell, we have asked mr. necessarien, he doesn't know what went on. do you know why the mics went off? jody: i don't. i certainly would like to know. this took place in the middle of governor carter's rebuttal. i would like to know. technical problems sometimes happens. doug: it's been my experience there is a theory there was a conspiracy to cut him off. we have no proof of that. it was a technical foul-up as far as we can determine? jody: no proof and nobody has brought up the subject. perhaps it shows that everybody makes mistakes every now and then. doug: even the network. let me ask you this.
jody: i wouldn't ask you to criticize the networks. doug: how much consultation did you and other members of the staff have with jimmy carter in preparation for the debates? how much rest did he get tonight? i know you are going to say he was cool as a cucumber? what did he do the hour before he came here? jody: i don't know. he and mrs. carter were together for four, five hours this afternoon. i didn't bother him and neither did anybody else so far as i know. he has had two or three days of rest, i suppose the best way to determine if he was cool as a cucumber was to judge his performance. he primarily has had time to himself. we haven't engaged in rehearsals and we haven't done a lot of fancy gimmicks. we have given him time to do as he wished, to study, reflect and to think and that paid off this evening.
doug: mr. powell, a lot has been written in the last four or five days that jimmy carter's campaign is losing steam. the "playboy" article, the illinois poll which shows gerald ford running ahead, a general feeling among the press that is covering jimmy carter that his campaign may be losing a little steam. jody: fortunate for most campaigns, the election is held amongst the american people, not the day-to-day opinions of whatever they are, the press that happens to be covering the campaign. we have run a very active and aggressive campaign. governor carter has submitted himself to cross-examinations four or five times a day in the past 18 months. in those circumstances, there is no way that you can shield yourself from an ill chosen word here and there. we think in the long run, the people would rather have a candidate and a president who meets them and takes the hard knocks and tough questions and answers them as responsibly and directly as he can even though
he might make a mistake every now and then. doug: thank you very much. jody powell, the press secretary for governor carter. now back to david brinkley. david: i gather the debate is over, is that right? the league of women voters has decided not to go ahead with any more of the debate. it's now 11:15 in the east. it was scheduled to end 15 minutes ago. it wale ended almost a half hour ago because of some sound failure inside the hall. we do not know at the moment what happened or why nor exactly where. as i have said, our sound from the lobby of the theater and the outside of the theater has been normal and still is. the problem is somewhere inside the hall on or around the podium. that's all we know, which is in a great deal. again, the debate is over and that's it. we have had again, the debate i and that's it. we have had some discussion of
it. we have heard from some prominent democrats and some prominent republicans, each of whom thought his side won and gave his reasons why. our plan is to return to the air in about a half hour for a -- hat more extensive we'll be back later and in the meantime, katherine is talking to mrs. carter. >> mrs. carter, we were wondering, everybody has been following this sudden break-up in the debate, do you think this will have any effect on what is going on, do you think your husband will ride with the waves here? mrs. carter: i certainly think if we could have done anything about it -- i think it will come back on -- >> do you have any idea what he was going to say in his summation? mrs. carter: i have been campaigning all day. i have been in texas all day and got in late. i don't know. >> while you have been campaigning, have you noticed whether or not the interview in
"playboy" magazine is having any effect on your husband's campaign? mrs. carter: people are putting it in perspective. we haven't heard anything about it tonight and this afternoon. it was such a complete distortion of what jimmy said and completely out of context. everybody in the country will read it because there is so much publicity about it. when they do, they will see jimmy was talking about his christian religion. people that did not what christianity is, it's good for all of us to read it. >> when you were speaking with mrs. johnson this afternoon, did you iron things out with her about what your husband said about president johnson? mrs. carter: she met me in san antonio yesterday and received me at the library in austin today. >> thank you very much, mrs. jimmy carter. david: well, we are told the debate has ended. on the other hand, president ford and governor carter are still there waiting. all we know about the breakdown
on the sound is it's somewhere between the microphones you see clipped to their neckties and the network truck parked outside the hall. other than that i can't go. i don't know if anyone knows at the moment. if they did, he would fix it. e don't know whether they -- i keep telling you what i don't know which is a great deal. we don't know if they're going to continue the debate and wait for the sound to be fixed. ed newman is saying something no doubt interesting, but i haven't the faintest idea what it is because i can't hear it. , : it occurred 27 minutes ago 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 lost the sound as it was leaving this theater. it occurred during governor carter's response to what would have been and what was the last question put to the candidates, that question went to president ford. it 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. governor. president carter: there has been too much government secrecy and not enough respect for personal privacy of american citizens. ed: it is now time for the closing statements which are to e 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. president carter: tonight we had a chance to talk a lot about the past. it's time to talk about the future. our nation in the last eight years has been divided as never before. it's a time for unity, to draw ourselves together, to have a president and a congress that can work together with mutual respect for change, cooperating for a change and open for a change so people can understand their own government. it's time for government, industry, and labor, manufacturing, agriculture, education, other entities in our society to cooperate and it's a time for government to understand and cooperate with our people. for a long time 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 to be competent, the government needs to be well
managed, efficient, economical. we need a government who is sensitive to our needs, to those who are poor, who don't have adequate health care and cheated too long, our tax programs, who have been out of jobs, whose families are torn apart. we need to restore the faith and trust of the american people in their own government. in addition to that, we have suffered because we haven't had leadership in this administration. we have a government of stalemate. we have lost a vision of what our country can and ought to be. this is not the america that we have known in the past. it's not the america that we have to have in the future. i don't claim to know the answers, but i have confidence in my country, our economic strength is still there. our system of government in spite of vietnam, cambodia, c.i.a., watergate, is still the best system of government on earth and the greatest resource of all are the 215 million
americans who still have within us the strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience, patriotism, the idealism, the compassion, the sense of brotherhood for which we can rely on the future to restore the greatness to our country. we ought not be excluded from our government anymore. we need a president who can go in and derives his strength from the people. the special interests are owed nothing. i owe everything to the you, the people of this country. we can bind our wounds, i believe that we can work together and i believe that 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. ed: president ford. president ford: 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 eans 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 . e history of the globe our third century should be the century of individual freedom for all our 215 americans today nd 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 video. we should never forget that a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take
rom us everything we have. the video worker in the plants 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 abilities. my mother and father during the depression worked very hard to give me an opportunity to do country. our great 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 country. your mothers and fathers did the same great deal to give you 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. ed: thank you president ford, thank you, governor carter. our thanks to the questioners and to the audience in this theater. we much regret the technical failure that caused a 28-minute delay in the broadcast of the debate. we believe, however, 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 ought to be foreign and defense issues. as with all three debates between the presidential debates 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 theater in philadelphia, good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016 announcer: saturday september 24, join american history tv here on c-span 3. we'll be live at 10:00 a.m. eastern from the national museum of african-american history and culture. president obama is expected to join the opening ceremony for the smithsonian's newest museum on the national mall.
announcer: tonight on lectures in history, bakersfield professor teaches a class on latinos, the strike of the 18960's and their place in the civil rights of the period. here is a preview. >> so when you're looking at segregation in the american south, it's called segregation by law. that's where you have the drinking fountains, the signs or you have hard segregation by local ordinances. you didn't quite get that out west, right. it's what they call de facto segregation. i can even write the terms on the board because analytically they might be useful to you as you do some research. e facto versus dejuri. de facto segregation is segregation by custom, by practice or will.
what i found in doing my research, that is kind of not true. they are very much public policies in place that segregated kids of color. one of them obviously is labor, right. so you tend to live near your job and if your job doesn't hire people of color or only hires people of color, you live in a certain part of town. so that's one commonality that segregated blacks and latinos in southeast becamersfield was a hiring practice. another that was even more critical was something called racial covenants and we talked about racial covenants before. i just want to remind you what they are. these were agreements, right, between people who were buying property and selling property that again you would not sell your property to a person of color, right, if you were to sell the deed on your house. announcer: you can watch the entire lecture tonight starting at 8:00 eastern and midnight
eastern here on c-span 3's american history tv. next on history bookshelf, co-authors mark jacob and stephen case on their book "treacherous beauty". the two talk about the role thatthe two talk about the role socialite peggy shippen, benedict arnold's second wife, played in the effort to harm george washington's forces during the revolutionary war. this is just under an hour. [applause] mark: thank you for coming. i am mark jacob. to my left. is we started studying a couple discovered- stephen many years