tv 1980 Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN November 6, 2016 10:00am-11:37am EST
hostage crisis, and other issues. one -- won that election. our coverage is courtesy of nbc news. >> good evening. i'm the national president of the league of women voters. welcome to the houston forum, the third event in our 1980 presidential forum series. this series is part of a very important league tradition providing the public with nonpartisan election information about issues and candidates. tonight, i am particularly pleased to be able to tell you the league of women voters is
going to continue on with that tradition. we announced we are going to sponsor the 1980 presidential debate. a series of debates that will be held next september and october. the enthusiastic response of the public to the 1976 debate and to our current series provides evidence of the fact that americans will expect candidates to participate in face-to-face debates next fall. now, on with tonight's event and our moderator, the distinguished howard k smith. howard: thank you. good evening. we are pleased tonight to have two candidates for the republican nomination for the -- two candidates for the office of the president of united states. we have a fine array of panelists gathered. this asnd rules for agreed by you gentlemen are these, each panelist down here will ask a question to each of the two candidates. after the two candidates have answered, the panelists will ask
follow-up questions to try and sharpen the answers. the candidates will then have an opportunity to make a rebuttal. that is what will constitute the first half of the debate. i will stay to rules for the second half later on. the candidates are not allowed to bring prepared notes to the podium, but they are allowed to make notes during the debate. his candidate goes over time, i will politely interrupt. we asked the audience to abide by one ground rule. please do not applied or expressed approval or disapproval during the debate. based on the toss of a coin, governor reagan will respond to the first question. aware,rnor, as you are the question of war and peace has emerged as a central question in this debate. president carter has been criticized for responding late and aiet impulses,
paralysis and iran. you have been criticized and advocating the use of a lot of muscle to do it for a crisis. specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of american military power? president reagan: i do not know what the differences might be. i do not know what president carter's policies are. i just know what i have in mind. our first priority must be world peace. force is always and only a last resort and everything else has failed. and then only with regard to our national security. i believe also that this
responsibility for preserving the peace is a responsibility particular to our country that we cannot shirk. we are the only one that can do it. the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. to maintain that peace requires strength. america has never gotten into a war because we were too strong. lettinget into a war by event get out of hand as they have in the last three in a half years. policies of president .arter good management of preserving we tryce requires that to intercept before these of its become a crisis. i have seen for wars in my lifetime. i am a father of sons. i have a grandson.
i do not ever want to see another generation of young intocans believe the lies the beachhead on the pacific. >> mr. stone, you have a follow-up question for the governor? >> the plan you speak of would of dollars.s assuming that the american people are ready to bear this cost, they nevertheless keep asking the following question -- how do you reconcile the huge increases in military spending with your promise of substantial tax cuts and balancing the budget which in this fiscal year ran more than $60 billion in the red. i havent reagan: submitted an economic plan that
i have worked out in concert with a number of fine economist in this country. all of them approve it. they believe in a five-year projection that this plan can permit the extra spending for needed refurbished spending on our financial posture. that it can provide for a balanced budget by 1983 if not earlier. that we can afford the cut i have proposed in government spending. we can afford the tax cuts i proposed. has -- mr. carter's policy has built into it a tax increase that will take $86 billion more next year out of people's pockets and was taken this year. my tax that does not come close to eliminating that $86 billion increase. i'm only reducing the amount of the increase. that -- words, i am not i am trying to cut the increase
in spending. >> the same question now goes to president carter. >> i will repeat the question. in the question of war and peace, you have been criticized for responding late to the aggression of soviet impulses and insufficient buildup of our armed forces and a paralysis for dealing with afghanistan and iran. governor reagan has been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle to deal with a foreign crisis. specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of american military power? carter: i have had to make thousands of decisions while serving in the oval office. . have learned in the process
i believe i'm a much more wiser and experienced men than it was when i debated or years ago -- four years ago. i have learned that there is no simple answer to a complicated question. it would be plausible and wrong to assume otherwise. the fact is that this nation had its own military strength decrease seven out of eight years before i was in office. the budget for defense went down. since i have been in office, we have had a steady, carefully planned, methodical increase in our commitment for defense. what we have done is used that enormous power and prestige and military strength of the united states to preserve the peace. it is not only kept peace for our own country, but we have
been able to extend the benefits of peace to others. in the middle east, we have worked towards a peace treaty between the warring parties successfully. between israel and egypt. forwarda very good step for our nation's security. we will continue to do as we have done in the past. i would also add that there are decisions made in the oval office by every president which are profound in nature. there are always trouble spots in the war. how those -- in the world. how those trouble spots are addressed by the president alone in the oval office affects our nation directly. the involvement of the united states and american interests -- that is a basic decision has to be made so frequently by every president that serves. that is what i've tried to do successfully by keeping our country at peace. >> mr. stone, you have a follow-up?
>> under what circumstances would you use military force is to deal with the shut off of the protrusion --f -- gulf?an oil i ask this question because it is said that we are woefully unable to maintain power in that part of the world. president carter: in my address earlier this year, i pointed out that any threat to the stability gulfecurity of the persian would be a threat for our own country. we now have a series of task forces and access to facilities in five different areas of that region. we have made it clear that we are prepared to address any foreseeable eventuality.
sureing this, we have made that we address this question peacefully, and not injecting american military forces into congress but letting the force of our nation be felt in a beneficial way. this has assured that our interests will be protected in that region as we have done in the middle east and throughout the world. >> under reagan, you have a minute to comment. theident reagan: i question figure on the decline. i would call your attention that we were in a war that wound down during those eight years which of course made a difference in military spending because we were returning from war to peace. i would also like to point out that republican residents in those years were faced with a democratic majority in both houses of the congress. they found that their requests for the defense budget were often cut. a five-yearleft
projected plan for a military buildup to restore our defenses, and president carter's ministration reduce that by 38%. they stopped the b-1, delayed these missiles, and stop assembly line of other military means. question his assault on whether or not i am the one who is quick to use force. >> missed -- president carter, you have the last word. i hope we willr: get to nuclear weapons later on as that is the single most important issue in this campaign. the other is how to address problem areas in the world. president reagan has advocated
the injection of military forces into trouble spots when my predecessors and i have advocated for resolving those problems in the difficult areas of the world peacefully, diplomatically, and through negotiations. buildupion to that, the of military forces is crucial to our country because we need to have military force to ensure the piece. the best weapons are the ones that are never fired in combat. the best soldier is one that does not have to lay his life down on the field of battle. strength is imperative for peace, but the two must go hand-in-hand. x thank you, gentlemen. the next question is for president carter. president, when you were elected in 1976, the consumer roughlydex stood at around 8%. it now stands at about 12%. inflation rate
has gone up from 7% to 9%. part of that was due to external factors beyond u.s. control, notably the doubling of oil prices right opec last year. because the united states remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can't inflation be controlled -- can inflation be controlled? if so, what measures would you pursue in a second term? it isent carter: important to put the situation into perspective. we had an oil shock in which the price of opec oil was raised to an extraordinary degree. we had an even worse shock in 1979. in 1974, we had the worst recession. it was the deepest and most had recession since the world war -- the second world war. recession we had this time was the briefest sense the second world war.
earlier in the first quarter, we had a very severe inflation pressure that was part about by the opec price increase. in the second quarter, we had dropped it down to about 13%. -- most recent figures inflation rate is at 7%. it illustrates very vividly that in addition to providing an enormous number of jobs -- 9 million new jobs in the last three years. the inflation threat is still upon us. governor reagan recently proposed the rock proposal which his opponent described as "voodoo economics." businessweek said that the reagan rock proposal -- reagan-roth proposal would result in inflationary pressures
that would hurt this nation. so, our plan is to stimulate jobs, improve the industrial complex of this country, create work for american workers. so, we would add 9 million new jobs, control inflation, and plan for the future with an energy policy now in fact. that is our plan for the years ahead. >> do have a follow-up question for esther carter? -- four president carter? >> you mentioned 9 million new jobs, but the unemployment rate still hangs high as those the inflation rate. i wonder, can you tell us what additional policies you would pursue in a second administration in order to bring down that inflation rate? would it be an act of leadership to tell the american people that they are going to have to to
sacrifice to i got a leaner -- adopt a leaner lifestyle for years to come? president carter: we have asked the american people to sacrifice, and they have done quite well. lessw import one third amount of oil to me used to. at the same time, we have added about 9 million net new jobs in that. -- in that period of time. the new energy policy has been dedicated on two factors. one is conservation, and the other is increased of production of american energy. more oil and gas wells drilled this you than ever before in history. the new, economic revitalization program we have in mind would be implement it next year and would result in a tax credit that would allow business is to businessess mrs. --
to invest in new wells next year. ntures next year. >> the same question now goes to governor reagan. during the reagan, past four years the consumer price index has risen from 4.8% to currently around 12%. more significantly, the underlying rate of inflation has grown from 7% to 9%. part of that has been due to external factors beyond u.s. the moreand notably than doubling of opec oil prices last year. , if the me to ask you united states remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation be controlled? if so, what measures would you pursue?
i think thisgan: idea that has been spot in our country that inflation came upon us like a plague and is uncontrollable is entirely serious. it is dangerous to say this to the people. --n president carter became when mr. carter became president, inflation had been cut in two by president gerald ford. it is now running at around 12%. president carter has spoke about new jobs being created. we have always increase the number of jobs, and i cannot hide the fact that there are 8 million men and women out of work in america today. 2 million have lost their jobs in the last few months. said that heter would not use unemployment as a tool to fight against inflation. saidhis economic statement that we would take such measures
to reduce inflation which is to be more than 18%. since then, he has blamed opec, the federal reserve system, the american people, and he has accused people of living too well. he has said that we must it used get used tong -- sacrificing. we did not have inflation because people are doing too well. it is because the government is doing too well. in a speech a few days ago, he said that we have inflation because government revenues have not kept pace with government spending. my time is running out, so i will try to get this down fast. yes, you can defeat inflation by increasing productivity and decreasing the spending of government. we are no longer printing out money and flooding the market with it because our government is taking in that spending more
money than it can take in. because our government is spending more money than he can take in. take in. >> a follow-up? >> you have centered on government spending in your own policies. you have also said that you .ould increase defense spending specifically, where would you cut government spending if you were to increase defense spending and cut taxes so that presumably federal revenues would shrink? president reagan: when most people think about cutting government spending, they think about eliminating unnecessary programs or whipping out some service that a government is supposed to perform. i believe there is enough extravagance in government -- as a matter of fact, one secretary
under president carter testified that he felt that there was $7 billion worth of fraud and waste in welfare. we have had the general accounting office estimates that there is probably tens of billions of dollars that is lost in fraud alone. they have added that waste as even more onto that. we have a plan for the gradual reduction of the spending aced on these -- based on these theories. i am confident that it can be done and will reduce inflation because i didn't in california. our inflation went down -- i did it in california. our inflation would down below the national average, and i was able to reduce the government spending. >> president carter? his proposalter:
is one of the most counter inflationary proposals ever introduced to the american public. you would have to cut government spending by millions of dollars under this ridiculous proposal. i noticed that his task force had some of their ideas revealed in the wall street journal this week. one of those ideas was to repeal the minimum wage. year,l times this governor reagan has said that the major cause of unemployment is the minimum wage. this was a heartless kind of approach for the working families of our country which is typical of many republican leaders in the past. etiquette was accentuated under governor reagan. -- i think it was accentuated under governor reagan. in california, he had the three largest tax increases in that state's history under his administration. he added to a pretty percent to -- a 20% to 30%
increase in the government spending there. >> i am sorry, but your time is up. governor reagan? president reagan: the figures he used are a distortion of the situation in california. our spending in california increased less per capita then the spending of georgia when president carter was the governor there in four years. the size of the government only proportion --6 in 6 in proportion to what it was in georgia. it is not inflationary to let someone take the money and spend it the way they want. not wish that story had been rhetorical, but it must be because we have run out of time. the third question now to governor reagan.
reagan, the decline of our cities has been hastened by the continuing rise on crime. the falling quality of education, the insistence of poverty, the decline of services to the public, the signs seem to port -- point towards a deterioration that could lead to a permanent underclass in the cities. would you do in the next four years to reduce -- reverse this trend? president reagan: i have spoken with a number of congressmen who have the same ideas that i do. in the inner city areas, in cooperation with local government and national government, and using tax incentives with cooperation from the private sector, we had development -- we create development zones that the city can declare based on the
standards of people on welfare in that area. through tax incentives, we can induce the creation of businesses that provide jobs in those areas. government of through these tax incentives -- for example, a business would not have a. reflecting theme time of development. it would not be any loss to the city, because they are not getting any tax from that now. it would simply be a delay. many people would be given jobs. it would not hurt to give them a tax incentive, because that would not because thing the government -- that would not be costing the government anything either. i have stood in the bronx in the exact spot that present carter stood in in 19 77, and it looks
like a bond out city. windows where -- bombed out city. windows were smashed out. this is the spot where president carter promised to bring in a vast program to rebuild this area. there were whole blocks of land that was just left bear. it was bulldozed down flat. nothing has been done, and they are now charging tauris -- tourists to be taken through to see this area. >> follow-up? , blacks andreagan other nonwhites are increasing in number in our cities. many of them believe they are facing hostility from whites that is giving them from taking part in our society.
there's public at schools, in jobs, and housing that there is conflict at schools, in jobs, and in housing. -- there's conflict in the schools, in jobs, and in housing. i know thatagan: those things can grow out of despair in inner city. when there is hopelessness at home, a lack of work and so forth. i believe that all of us together -- i believe the presidency is what teddy roosevelt said it was, "a bully pulpit." the goal for all of us should be that one day things will be done either because of or in spite of any of the differences between us. ethnic differences or racial differences, whatever they may be. that we will have total, equal opportunity for all people.
i will do everything i can in my power to bring that about. hilliard, would you repeat your question for president carter? >> the decline of our city has been hastened by the continual rise in crime, strained race relations, the falling quality of education, the persistence of inequality in the cities. the signs seem to port -- two point towards a deterioration that could lead to a permanent underclass in the cities. what will you do in the next four years to reduce this trend? president carter: when i was campaigning in 1976, the mayors and local officials were in despair over the rapidly deteriorating central cities of our nation. we initiated a very fine urban renewal program that worked with the mayors and governors and other interested officials. this has been a very successful effort. it is one of the main reasons we
have had such an increase in the number of people employed. 9 million people put to work since i have been in office. 1.3 million of those has been among latin americans. another million among those that speak spanish. we are now planning to continue the revitalization program with increased commitments of rapid transit, mass transit. spendend -- we expect to millions of dollars in the here to rebuild the transportation systems of our country. we plan to revitalize housing programs. we have an increase in our federal funds to improve education. these are the kind of efforts that we do on a joint basis with community leaders especially in minority areas of the central cities that had been deteriorating so rapidly in the past. it is important to us that this be done with the full involvement of minority citizens.
i have brought into the top levels of office and administrative offices of the executive branch -- into the judicial system, highly qualified black and spanish citizens and women that has in the past been excluded. i noticed that when governor reagan said that as a young man there was no problem of racial problems in our country. those that suffer from sigrid -- discrimination from race or sex certainly knew that we had a problem. towardscome a long way correcting these problems, but we still have a long way to go. >> president carter, i would like to repeat the same follow-up question to you. and other nonwhites are increasing in number in our cities. many of them till they are facing hostility from white that keeps them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. what is your assessment?
president carter: ours is a nation of refugees and immigrants. almost all of our citizens came from other lands. they now have hopes which are being realized for a better life. they are preserving their ethnic commitments, the religious beliefs, and their relationships with their relatives in foreign countries. they are still pulling themselves together into a very coherent society that gives our nation strength. in the past, those minority groups have been excluded from the participation in affairs of the government. more than twice as many lack, federal governments -- black federal judges have been appointed, as have women and
spanish-speaking americans. we have involved the more in government. it is a very important commitment that i'm trying to we lies and continue to do so in the future. >> governor reagan, you have a minute for rebuttal. president reagan: the president speaks of government programs. they have their place. wasovernor, when i receiving some of these government programs, i saw that many of them were dead ends. spoke a moment ago that i was against the minimum wage. i wish he could have been with me when i sat with a group of teenagers who were black and who were telling me about their unemployment problems. they said that it was the minimum wage that has done away with the jobs that the good ones the jobs that they could
once get. therefore, i have been in favor of a separate minimum for them. in regards to the great progress that has been made with government spending, the rate of unemployment for african-americans in michigan is 56%. president carter, you have the last word. president carter: it is clear that we still have a long way to go in incorporating minority groups into the mainstream of american life. we have made good progress, and there is no doubt in my mind that the commitment to minimum are and welfare programs very important element of the future. in all of those elements, president -- governor reagan has consistently spoken out against them which shows to me a great which to me shows a
great lack of care. there is no doubt in my mind that in the downtown, central cities with a new commitment to an energy policy, with a chance to revitalize homes in that the more fuel-efficient, with a chance for a synthetic fuel program, solar power, this will give us a new outlet for jobs that will favor dividends. forow to the next question president carter from barbara walters. >> the eyes of the country tonight are on the hostages in iran. the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this current crisis. other countries have policies that would determine how they will respond. president,ure, mr.
the country has the right to know if you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen? what have we learned from this experience in iran that would cause us to do something differently if something similar happens again? one of thearter: plates on this world is the world -- blights on this is the threat and activities of terrorists. myself and other leaders of the western world have committed ourselves to defend against acts of terrorism. there is no doubt that we have seen in recent years, in recent months, additional acts of violence against jews in france, and against those that live in a result of high other -- in jerusalem by members of other terrorist organizations.
one of the biggest threat is that if one of those radical nations should receive a common question -- receive atomic weapons. both myself and my predecessors have had a deep commitment in controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons in countries like libya or iraq. we have aided some of our to insistade partners on the control of nuclear weapons to those countries. when elna reagan is asked about them, he makes a disturbing comment -- when governor reagan is asked about that, he makes a disturbing comment about their proliferation. when asked about iraq, he said, "there is nothing we can do about it." is therrorist threat most significant of all, and it is part of a pattern where our country must then firm to control terrorism of all kinds. >> mr. -- ms. walters, a
follow-up? hostages,n not taken i would have assumed that we would stop the flow of vital war materials between iraq and iran. doesn't this reward terrorism? possibly antagonized nations that are now from the to us in the middle east -- possibly antagonized nations that are neutral to us in the middle east? we will notrter: compromise our position of neutrality. when i made my decision to stop oil trade with iran as a result of taking our hostages -- as a result of their taking hostages, i have announced that if the hostages were released safely then we would make delivery on , thatitems that iran owns
they have bought and paid for. also that frozen iranian assets would be released. that has been my policy and one that i will carry out. >> would you repeat the question now for governor reagan? >> governor, the eyes of the country tonight remain on the hostages in iran. other countries that have policies that determine how they would respond to acts of terrorism. for the future, the country has the right to know if you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen? what have we learned from this experience in iran that would cause us to do something differently if something similar should happen again? ms. walters,gan: you have asked that question twice and i think you deserve one answer of it. i didn't accused lately of
having a secret plan in regards to the hostages. this comes from an answer i have made at least 30 times to the press. if i hadion would be any ideas on what i would do if i was there. i said, "well, yes. i think anyone that is seeking this position have thought to themselves what about this or that?" these are just ideas that i would think of it i were in that position in half access to information on all the options open to me. questionr answered the second that follows. what are some of those ideas? take anywould not actions that would endanger the lives of those hostages. involvemy actions would quite diplomacy which you do not say in advance what you are thinking of doing.
the question is difficult to answer them up because, in the situation right now, no one wants to say anything that could inadvertently delay the return there is astages if chance they are returning home soon. nor do we want to cause them harm. once they are safely back here with their families and the tragedy is over, we have endorsed this he million for over a year now, then i think it is time for us to have a complete investigation -- this humiliation for over a year now, and then i think it is time for us to have a complete investigation into how this happened, why they were there for so long, and what we had to do to bring them home. i would suggest that congress should hold such an investigation. in the meantime, i will continue rain for the return. for their safe
return. >> neither can it really gave a specific answer. i will ask governor race and that i will ask governor reagan -- i will ask governor reagan a different question. my question is not whether the regime was preferable to the ayatollah, but whether the united states has the power or right to determine what form of government any country should have? do we pop -- do we back unpopular regimes whose only merit is that they are friendly to the united states? if thent reagan: 202-748-8000 alternative is -- it the alternative is to tally -- if so did not meet our standard for human rights
even if they were an ally of ours, instead of asking them to change their ways, we have a number of ways aided in a revolutionary overflow that totalitarianism for those people. i sometimes, we are maintaining a good time -- there was a second phase in the iranian affair in which we had something to do with that. we had adequate warning that there was a threat to our embassy, and we could have done what other embassies have done -- either strengthen our security or remove our personnel before the kidnapping took place. >> governor, i must interrupt. president carter, you have a minute for rebuttal. president carter: i did not hear any comments of the white governor reagan would do to -- i did notism
hear any comments about what governor reagan would do to reduce the chances of a terroristic -- a terrorism attack in the future. myself and all my predecessors in the oval office have made sure not to allow the spread of nuclear weapons to any country that could use them for a terrorism attack. deal -- until they recognize israel's right to exist and they recognize the un's revolution for the basis of peace. -- resolution for the basis of peace. these are commitments that we have recognized, and commitments that we will continue with. >> governor reagan, you have the last word. president reagan: i think it is about time that the civilized
nations of this world make sure there is no room for terrorism. there will be no negotiation with terrorists of any kind. while a half the last word, i would like to correct a misstatement of fact by the president. comment hemade the suggested about nuclear proliferation or trying to t it through any major policy of mine. >> that is the first half of our debate. in the second half, the panelists will ask no follow-up questions. instead, after they asked a question i'm a the candidate will each desk after they ask a question -- after they ask a question, the commits will each get a chance to respond. both of you have expressed a
desire to end the nuclear arms race with russia. by method, you are vastly different. -- suggest that we strapped scrap a treaty already negotiated. you have advocated the use of american power to induce russians to sign a tree that is more agreeable to us. president carter has said that he would try to convince a reluctant congress to ratify the present treaty on the grounds that it is the best we can hope to get. both of you cannot be right. will you tell us why you believe you are? i believe wegan: need to have a consistent policy of a strong america and a strong economy. as we build up our national security and restore our margin of safety, we have to restrain
the soviet buildup that has been going on towards a rapid pace and for quite some time. the treaty was a result of negotiations that mr. -- that president carter and his team had entered into after he had asked the soviet union for the reduction of nuclear, strategic weapons. his emissary came home in 12 hours with having heard a very definite no. in taking that one know from the soviet union, we then went into the negotiations on their terms. president carter had stopped the b-1 bomber, delayed the cruise missiles, delayed the three-man missile production line, and other things that might have been done. the soviet union sat at the table knowing that we have gone forward with unilateral concessions without any
reciprocation from them whatsoever. treatyhave not block the as mr. carter and mr. mondale had suggested that i have. it was blocked by a senate in which there is a democratic majority. they declared that the treaty was not in the national security interests of the united states. besides which, it is illegal. the law of the land passed by congress says that we cannot accept a treaty in which we are not equal. we are not equal in this treaty for one reason alone. our b-52 bombers are considered to be strategic weapons, and their backfire bombers are not. >> the time is up. same question now to president carter. >> president carter, both of you have expressed a desire to end the nuclear arms race with
russia but through vastly different methods. the governor suggest that we scrap a treaty negotiated and signed in the anna. that we intensify the buildup -- sign in vienna. that we intensify the buildup of inducen military and russia to come back to the table on a treaty that is more favorable to us. you have said that the treaty that we currently received is the best we can get from the russians. you cannot both be right. you tell us why you believe you are? inflation,arter: unemployment, the cities, they are all important issues. they pale in significance when compared to the control of nuclear weapons. every president that has served in the oval office since kerry truman has been dedicated to the
-- every president who has served in the oval office since president truman has been dedicated to the control and reduction of atomic weaponry. there is a disturbing pattern in the attitude of governor reagan. he has never supported any of those arms control agreements. , theited test ban ,nti-ballistic missile treaty and now, he wants to throw into the waste basket a treaty to control nuclear weapons on an equal basis between ourselves and the soviet union. it is been negotiated over the course of seven years by myself and to republican predecessors. the senate has not yet voted on the strategic arms treaty.
the treaty has never come to the floor of the senate for a debate or vote. it is understandable that a senator in the preliminary debates can make any responsible statement or possibly in televised statement. you have 99 other senators to correct that mistake if it is a mistake. when a man that hopes to be present says, take this treaty -- when a man who hopes to be take thissays, treaty, do not debate, do not do not the issues, capitalize on this long negotiation, the net is a very disturbing thing. >> governor reagan, your bottle -- rebuttal? president reagan: first of all, i have been critical on some of the negotiations -- on some of the previous treaties is that we have been out negotiated by the soviet union for some time.
they have gone forward with the largest military buildup in the history of man. to suggest that to republican presidents have tried to advocate for a treaty -- president ford who has been involved in a treaty that we could have made agreement with, he said he was emphatically against this new treaty. i would like to went out that senators like henry jackson are taking the lead in the fight against this particular treaty. i'm not talking about scrapping the treaty but taking it back and going back into negotiations with the soviet union. i will tell them that we will sit in negotiate with them as long as it takes to ensure that we have legitimate arms limitation and a reduction of these nuclear weapons to which neither one of us represents a threat to the other.
aat is hardly throwing away treaty or being opposed to arms limitation. >> president carter? president carter: governor reagan is making some misleading and disturbing statements. he not only advocate for the scrapping of the treaty, but he also advocates the possibility of playing a trump card against the soviet union of a nuclear arms race and increase -- and insisting upon nuclear superiority of our own nation as a predication for another debate with the soviet union in the future. if they insist with a nuclear believing that the launching of a nuclear arms race is a good basis for future
negotiations, it is obvious that i as president and all other americans would suggest a proposition. the beginning of a very dangerous nuclear arms race. it would be very disturbing to the american people. it would change the very tone that our nation has experienced ever since world war ii. it would also be very disturbing to our allies. all of whom support this nuclear arms treaty. in addition, the adversarial relationship between ourselves and the soviet union would deteriorate very rapidly. this attitude is very dangerous and belligerent in town while being said in a quiet voice. president reagan: i've a hard time sometimes connecting with the present is saying with what i have said or my positions are.
my point that i have made already in regards to does notng that it call for nuclear superiority on the part -- in regards to negotiating, it does not call for the nuclear superiority on the part of the united states. to suggest that the saw to based in negotiated all the preceding efforts of previous presidents is just not true. negotiation, because president ford was within 10% of having a solution that would have been acceptable. i believe our allies would of been ok to go along with a fair and verifiable agreement. >> mr. president, you have the final word. president carter: i think it would be better to put into perspective what we are talking about.
amy,ke with my daughter, about which he believed the most important conversation was. she said nuclear weaponry. the control of nuclear arms. have 10these weapons megatons of explosion. if you put 50 tons of tnt in railroad cars, you would have a car load of tnt -- 80 trainload of tnt stretching across this nation. explosion in aor single warhead. -- thousands. is the equivalent of millions of -- it is the equivalent of millions of pounds of tnt. to cast out this commitment of all presidents because of some slight technicalities that can be corrected is a very dangerous
approach. >> we have to go to in other question now for present carter. >> mr. president, as you have said, americans are importing much less oil today and we were we were a -- than year ago. -- for some time to come, the loss of substantial amounts could oil -- arab oil plunge the u.s. into a depression. can the united states develop synthetic fuels and other alternative energy sources without damage to the environment? this process mean steadily higher fuel bills for american families? president carter: in the future, the cost of oil is going to go
up. what i have had as a basic commitment as resident, is to reduce our -- as president, is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. first to restocked -- first is to stop the use of wasteful energy. we have now reduced the importing of foreign oil in the --t year alone i one third by one third. been openingnt has up a very bright this step for our nation in the future. we now have a basis to use american technology and american ability and natural resources to expand rapidly the use of synthetic fuels. to expand rapidly the use of solar energy. we will drill more oil and gas wells this year than any year in
history. we will produce more coal this year than any year in history. we are exporting more coal this year than any year in history. we have an opportunity now to improve transportation systems and see a very good opportunity use broad market to american coal as a basic energy source. this exciting feature will not only give us more energy security, what it will also open up vast opportunities -- but it will also open up vast opportunities for americans to have new jobs in this dynamic, new industry because they mr. ellis: governor reagan, americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. and yet, u.s. reliance on arab oil as a percentage of total imports is much higher today
than it was during the 1973 arab oil embargo. and, the substantial loss of arab oil could plunge the united states into depression. the question is whether the development of alternative energy sources, in order to reduce this dependence, can be done without damaging the environment, and will it mean for american families steadily higher fuel bills? mr. reagan: i'm not so sure that it means steadily higher fuel costs, but i do believe that this nation has been portrayed for too long a time to the people as being energy-poor when it is energy-rich. the coal that the president mentioned, yes, we have it and yet one-eighth of our total coal resources is not being utilized at all right now.
the mines are closed down, there are 22,000 miners out of work. most of this is due to regulations which either interfere with the mining of it or prevent the burning of it:. with our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the clean air act. i think, as technology improves, we'll be able to do even better with that. the other thing is that we have only leased out, begun to explore 2% of our outer continental shelf for oil, where it is believed, by everyone familiar with that fuel and that source of energy, that there are vast supplies yet to be found. our government has, in the last year or so, taken out of multiple use millions of acres of public lands that once were, well, they were public lands subject to multiple use exploration for minerals and so forth. it is believed that probably 70% of the potential oil in the united states is probably hidden in those lands, and no one is allowed to even go and explore to find out if it is there. this is particularly true of the recent efforts to shut down part
of alaska. nuclear power. there were 36 power plants planned in this country. and let me add the word safety; it must be done with the utmost of safety. but 32 of those have given up and canceled their plans to build, and again, because government regulations and permits, and so forth, take --make it take more than twice as long to build a nuclear plant in the united states as it does to build one in japan or in western europe. we have the sources here. we are energy rich, and coal is one of the great potentials we have. mr. smith: president carter, your comment? mr. carter: to repeat myself, we have this year the opportunity, which we'll realize, to produce 800 million tons of coal, an unequaled record in the history of our country. governor reagan says that this is not a good achievement, and
he blames restraints on coal production on regulations, regulations that affect the life and the health and safety of miners, and also regulations that protect the purity of our air and the quality our water and our land. we cannot cast aside these regulations. we have a chance in the next 15 years, insisting upon the health and safety of workers in the mines, and also preserving the same high air and water pollution standards, to triple the amount of coal we produce. governor reagan's approach to our energy policy, which has already proven its effectiveness, is to repeal, or to change substantially, the windfall profits ta -- profits tax, to return a major portion of $227 billion back to the oil companies, to do away with the department of energy, to short-circuit our synthetic fuels program, to put a minimal emphasis on solar power, to emphasize strongly nuclear power
plants as a major source of energy in the future. he wants to put all our eggs in one basket and give that basket to the major oil companies. mr. smith: governor reagan. mr. reagan: that is a misstatement, of course, of my position. i just happen to believe that free enterprise can do a better job of producing the things that people need than government can. the department of energy has a multi-billion-dollar budget in excess of $10 billion. it hasn't produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal, or anything else in the line of energy. and, for mr. carter to suggest that i want to do away with the safety laws and with the laws that pertain to clean water and clean air, and so forth, as governor of california, i took charge of passing the strictest air pollution laws in the united states, the strictest air quality law that has even been adopted in the united states. and we created an osha, an occupational safety and health agency, for the protection of
employees before the federal government had one in place. and to this day, not one of its decisions or rulings has ever been challenged. so, i think some of those charges are missing the point. i am suggesting that there are literally thousands of unnecessary regulations that invade every facet of business, and indeed, very much of our personal lives, that are unnecessary, that government can do without, that have added $130 billion to the cost of production in this country, and that are contributing their part to inflation. and i would like to see us a little more free, as we once were. mr. smith: president carter, another crack at that? mr. carter: sure. as a matter of fact, the air pollution standard laws that were passed in california were passed over the objections of governor reagan, and this is a very well-known fact. also, recently, when someone suggested that the occupational
safety and health act should be abolished, governor reagan responded, amen. the offshore drilling rights is a question that governor reagan raises often. as a matter of fact, in the proposal for the alaska lands legislation, 100% of all the offshore lands would be open for exploration, and 95% of all the alaska lands, where it is suspected or believed that minerals might exist. we have, with our five-year plan for the leasing of offshore lands, proposed more land to be drilled than has been opened up for drilling since this program first started in 1954. so we're not putting restraints on american exploration, we're encouraging it in every way we can. mr. smith: governor reagan, you have the last word on this question. mr. reagan: yes. if it is a well-known fact that i opposed air pollution laws in california, the only thing i can possibly think of is that the
president must be suggesting the law that the federal government tried to impose on the state of california -- not a law, but regulations that would have made it impossible to drive an automobile within the city limits of any california city, or to have a place to put it if you did drive it against their regulations. it would have destroyed the economy of california and, i must say, we had the support of congress when we pointed out how ridiculous this attempt was by the environmental protection agency. we still have the strictest air control, or air pollution laws in the country. as for offshore oiling, only 2% now is so leased and is producing oil. the rest, as to whether the lands are going to be opened in the next five years or so, we're already five years behind in what we should be doing. there is more oil now in the wells that have been drilled,
than has been taken out in 121 years that they've been drilled. mr. smith: thank you, governor. thank you, mr. president. the next question goes to governor reagan from william hilliard. mr. hilliard: governor reagan, wage earners in this country, especially the young, are supporting a social security system that continues to affect their income drastically. the system is fostering a struggle between the young and the old, and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. how much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the social security system? mr. reagan: the social security system was based on a false premise, with regard to how fast the number of workers would increase and how fast the number of retirees would increase.
it is actuarially out of balance, and this first became evident about 16 years ago, and some of us were voicing warnings then. now, it is trillions of dollars out of balance, and the only answer that has come so far is the biggest single tax increase in our nation's history, the payroll tax increase for social security which will only put a band-aid on this and postpone the day of reckoning by a few years at most. what is needed is a study that i have proposed by a task force of experts to look into this entire problem as to how it can be reformed and made actuarially sound, but with the premise that no one presently dependent on social security is going to have the rug pulled out from under them and not get their check. we cannot frighten, as we have with the threats and the campaign rhetoric that has gone on in this campaign, our senior citizens, leave them thinking that in some way, they're endangered and they would have no place to turn. they must continue to get those checks, and i believe that the system can be put on a sound actuarial basis. but it's going to take some study and some work, and not just passing a tax increase to let the load or the roof fall in on the next administration.
mr. smith: would you repeat that question for president carter? mr. hilliard: yes. president carter, wage earners in this country, especially the young, are supporting a social security system that continues to affect their income drastically. the system is fostering a struggle between young and old and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. how much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the social security system? mr. carter: as long as there is a democratic president in the white house, we will have a strong and viable social security system, free of the threat of bankruptcy. although governor reagan has changed his position lately, on four different occasions, he has advocated making social security a voluntary system, which would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. i noticed also in the "wall street journal" early this week, that a preliminary report of his task force advocates making social security more sound by
reducing the adjustment in social security for the retired people to compensate for the impact of inflation. these kinds of approaches are very dangerous to the security, the well being and the peace of mind of the retired people of this country and those approaching retirement age. but, no matter what it takes in the future to keep social security sound, it must be kept that way. and, although there was a serious threat to the social security system and its integrity during the 1976 campaign and when i became president, the action of the democratic congress working with me has been to put social security back on a sound financial basis. that is the way it will stay. mr. smith: governor reagan? mr. reagan: well, that just isn't true. it has, as i said, delayed the actuarial imbalance falling on us for just a few years with that increase in taxes, and i don't believe we can go on increasing the tax, because the problem for the young people today is that they are paying in far more than they can ever expect to get out. now, again this statement that
somehow, i wanted to destroy it and i just changed my tune, that i am for voluntary social security, which would mean the ruin of it. mr. president, the voluntary thing that i suggested many years ago was that a young man, orphaned and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for social security insurance because she was not his mother. and i suggested that if this is an insurance program, certainly the person who is paying in should be able to name his own beneficiary. that is the closest i have ever come to anything voluntary with social security. i, too, am pledged to a social security program that will reassure these senior citizens of ours that they are going to continue to get their money. there are some changes that i
would like to make. i would like to make a change in the regulation that discriminates against a wife who works and finds that she then is faced with a choice between her father's or her husband's benefits, if he dies first, or what she has paid in, but it does not recognize that she has also been paying in herself, and she is entitled to more than she presently can get. i'd like to change that. mr. smith: president carter's rebuttal now. mr. carter: these constant suggestions that the basic social security system should be changed does cause concern and consternation among the aged of our country. it is obvious that we should have a commitment to them, that social security benefits should not be taxed and that there would be no peremptory change in the standards by which social security payments are made to retired people. we also need to continue to index social security payments, so that if inflation rises, the social security payments would rise a commensurate degree to
let the buying power of a social security check continue intact. in the past, the relationship between social security and medicare has been very important to providing some modicum of aid for senior citizens in the retention of health benefits. governor reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against medicare. now, we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance, with an emphasis on the prevention of disease, an emphasis on out-patient care, not in-patient care, an emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of hospital care far those who are ill, an emphasis on catastrophic health insurance, so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. these are the kinds of elements of a national health insurance, important to the american people. governor reagan, again, typically, is against such a proposal.
mr. smith: governor? mr. reagan: when i opposed medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the congress. i happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. i was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. i was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. there is something else about social security. of course, it doesn't come out of the payroll tax. it comes out of a general fund, but something should be done about it. i think it is disgraceful that the disability insurance fund in social security finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institutions for crime or for mental illness,
and they are receiving disability checks from social security every month while a state institution provides for all of their needs and their care. mr. smith: president carter, you have the last word on this question. mr. carter: i think this debate on social security, medicare, national health insurance typifies, as vividly any other subject tonight, the basic historical differences between the democratic party and the republican party. the allusions to basic changes in the minimum wage is another, and the deleterious comments that governor reagan has made about unemployment compensation. these commitments that the democratic party has historically made to the working families of this nation have been extremely important to the growth in their stature and in a better quality of life for them. i noticed recently that governor reagan frequently quotes democratic presidents in his acceptance address. i have never heard a candidate for president, who is a
republican, quote a republican president, but when they get in office, they try to govern like republicans. so, it is good for the american people to remember that there is a sharp basic historical difference between governor reagan and me on these crucial issues, also, between the two parties that we represent. mr. smith: thank you mr. president. governor reagan, we now go to another question a question to president carter by barbara walters. ms. walters: thank you. you have addressed some of the major issues tonight, but the biggest issue in the mind of american voters is yourselves your ability to lead this country. when many voters go into that booth just a week from today, they will be voting their gut instinct about you men. you have already given us your reasons why people should vote for you, now would you please tell us for this your final question, why they should not vote for your opponent, why his presidency could be harmful to the nation and, having examined both your opponent's record and the man himself, tell us his greatest weakness. mr. carter: barbara, reluctant as i am to say anything critical
about governor reagan, i will try to answer your question. [laughter] mr. carter: first of all, there is the historical perspective that i just described. this is a contest between a democrat in the mainstream of my party, as exemplified by the actions that i have taken in the oval office the last four years, as contrasted with governor reagan, who in most cases does typify his party, but in some cases, there is a radical departure by him from the heritage of eisenhower and others. the most important crucial difference in this election campaign, in my judgment, is the approach to the control of nuclear weaponry and the inclination to control or not to control the spread of atomic weapons to other nations who don't presently have it, particularly terrorist nations.
the inclination that governor reagan has exemplified in many troubled times since he has been running for president, i think since 1968, to inject american military forces in places like north korea, to put a blockade around cuba this year, or in some instances, to project american forces into a fishing dispute against the small nation of ecuador on the west coast of south america. this is typical of his long-standing inclination, on the use of american power, not to resolve disputes diplomatically and peacefully, but to show that the exercise of military power is best proven by the actual use of it. obviously, no president wants war, and i certainly do not
believe that governor reagan, if he were president, would want war, but a president in the oval office has to make a judgment on almost a daily basis about how to exercise the enormous power of our country for peace, through diplomacy, or in a careless way, in a belligerent attitude which has exemplified his attitudes in the past. mr. smith: barbara, would you repeat the question for governor reagan? ms. walters: yes, thank you. realizing that you may be equally reluctant to speak ill of your opponent, may i ask why people should not vote for your opponent, why his presidency could be harmful to the nation, and having examined both your opponent's record and the man himself, could you tell us his greatest weakness? mr. reagan: well, barbara, i believe that there is a fundamental difference, and i think it has been evident in most of the answers that mr. carter has given tonight that he seeks the solution to anything as another opportunity for a federal government program. i happen to believe that the federal government has usurped powers of autonomy and authority
that belong back at the state and local level. it has imposed on the individual freedoms of the people, and that there are more of these things that could be solved by the people themselves, if they were given a chance, or by the levels of government that were closer to them. now, as to why i should be and he shouldn't be, when he was a candidate in 1976, president carter invented a thing he called the misery index. he added the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation, and it came, at that time, to 12.5 under president ford. he said that no man with that size misery index has a right to seek reelection to the presidency. today, by his own decision, the misery index is in excess of 20%, and i think this must suggest something. but, when i had quoted a democratic president, as the president says, i was a democrat. i said many foolish things back in those days. but the president that i quoted
had made a promise, a democratic promise, and i quoted him because it was never kept. and today, you would find that that promise is at the very heart of what republicanism represents in this country today. that's why i believe there are going to be millions of democrats that are going to vote with us this time around, because they too want that promise kept. it was a promise for less government and less taxes and more freedom for the people. mr. smith: president carter? mr. carter: i mentioned the radical departure of governor reagan from the principles or ideals of historical perspective of his own party. i don't think that can be better illustrated than in the case of guaranteeing women equal rights under the constitution of our nation. for 40 years, the republican party platforms called for guaranteeing women equal rights with a constitutional amendment.
six predecessors of mine who served in the oval office called for this guarantee of women's rights. governor reagan and his new republican party have departed from this commitment, a very severe blow to the opportunity for women to finally correct discrimination under which they have suffered. when a man and a women do the same amount of work, a man gets paid $1.00, a women only gets paid 59 cents. and the equal rights amendment only says that equality of rights shall not be abridged for women by the federal government or by the state governments. that is all it says a simple guarantee of equality of opportunity which typifies the democratic party, and which is a very important commitment of mine, as contrasted with governor reagan's radical departure from the long-standing policies of his own party. mr. smith: governor reagan? mr. reagan: yes. mr. president, once again, i happen to be against the
amendment, because i think the amendment will take this problem out of the hands of elected legislators and put it in the hands of unelected judges. i am for equal rights, and while you have been in office for four years, and not one single state, and most of them have a majority of democratic legislators, has added to the ratification or voted to ratify the equal rights amendment. while i was governor, more than eight years ago, i found 14 separate instances where women were discriminated against in the body of california law, and i had passed and signed into law 14 statutes that eliminated those discriminations, including the economic ones that you have just mentioned, equal pay and so forth. i believe that if in all these years that we have spent trying to get the amendment, that we had spent as much time correcting these laws, as we did in california and we were the first to do it. if i were president, i would also now take a look at the hundreds of federal regulations
which discriminate against women and which go right on while everyone is looking for an amendment. i would have someone ride herd on those regulations, and we would start eliminating those discriminations in the federal government against women. mr. smith: president carter? mr. carter: howard, i'm a southerner, and i share the basic beliefs of my region that an excessive government intrusion into the private affairs of american citizens and also into the private affairs of the free enterprise system. one of the commitments that i made was to deregulate the major industries of this country. we've been remarkably successful, with the help of a democratic congress. we have deregulated the air industry, the rail industry, the trucking industry, financial institutions. we're now working on the communications industry. in addition to that, i believe
that this element of discrimination is something that the south has seen so vividly as a blight on our region of the country which has now been corrected. not only racial discrimination but discrimination against people that have to work for a living, because we have been trying to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps, since the long depression years, and lead a full and useful life in the affairs of this country. we have made remarkable success. it is part of my consciousness and of my commitment to continue this progress. so, my heritage as a southerner, my experience in the oval office, convinces me that what i have just described is a proper course for the future. mr. smith: governor reagan, yours is the last word. mr. reagan: well, my last word is again to say that, we were talking about this very simple amendment and women's rights. and i make it plain again, i am for women's rights. but i would like to call the attention of the people to the fact that that so-called simple amendment could be used by mischievous men to destroy discriminations that properly belong, by law, to women, respecting the physical differences between the two sexes, labor laws that protect them against doing things that would be physically harmful to them.
those would all, could all be challenged by men. and the same would be true with regard to combat service in the military and so forth. i thought that was the subject we were supposed to be on. but, if we're talking about how much we think about the working people and so forth, i'm the only fellow who ever ran for this job who was six times president of his own union and still has a lifetime membership in that union. mr. smith: gentlemen, each of you now has three minutes for a closing statement. president carter, you're first. mr. carter: first of all, i'd like to thank the league of women voters for making this debate possible. i think it's been a very constructive debate and i hope it's helped to acquaint the american people with the sharp differences between myself and governor reagan. also, i want to thank the people of cleveland and ohio for being such hospitable hosts during these last few hours in my life. i've been president now for
almost four years. i've had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process. i've seen the strength of my nation, and i've seen the crises that it approached in a tentative way. and i've had to deal with those crises as best i could. as i've studied the record between myself and governor reagan, i've been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. i think the result of this debate indicates that that fact is true. i consider myself in the mainstream of my party. i consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of presidents who served before me. the united states must be a nation strong. the united states must be a nation secure. we must have a society that's just and fair. and we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace, to create a peaceful world. i believe that, since i've been in office, there have been six
or eight areas of combat evolved in other parts of the world. in each case, i alone have had to determine the interests of my country and the degree of involvement of my country. i've done that with moderation, with care, with thoughtfulness, sometimes consulting experts. but, i've learned in this last three and a half years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the call is very close, the chances are the experts will be divided almost 50-50. and the final judgment about the future of the nation -- war, peace, involvement, reticence, thoughtfulness, care, consideration, concern -- has to be made by the man in the oval office. it's a lonely job, but with the involvement of the american people in the process, with an open government, the job is a very gratifying one.
the american people now are facing, next tuesday, a lonely decision. those listening to my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country. and i think they ought to remember that one vote can make a lot of difference. if one vote per precinct had changed in 1960, john kennedy would never have been president of this nation. and if a few more people had gone to the polls and voted in 1968, hubert humphrey would have been president, richard nixon would not. there is a partnership involved. our nation, to stay strong, to stay at peace, to raise high the banner of human rights, to set an example for the rest of the world, to let our deep beliefs and commitments be felt by others in other nations, is my plan for the future. i ask the american people to join me in this partnership. mr. smith: governor reagan? mr. reagan: yes, i would like to add my words of thanks, too, to the ladies of the league of women voters for making these debates possible. i'm sorry that we couldn't
persuade the bringing in of the third candidate, so that he could have been seen also in these debates. but still, it's good that at least once, all three of us were heard by the people of this country. next tuesday is election day. next tuesday, all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision. i think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? is america as respected throughout the world as it was? do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? and if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, i think
your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. if you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then i could suggest another choice that you have. this country doesn't have to be in the shape that it is in. we do not have to go on sharing in scarcity with the country getting worse off, with unemployment growing. we talk about the unemployment lines. if all of the unemployed today were in a single line allowing two feet for each of them, that line would reach from new york city to los angeles, california. all of this can be cured and all of it can be solved. i have not had the experience the president has had in holding that office, but i think in being governor of california, the most populous state in the union, if it were a nation, it would be the seventh-ranking economic power in the world, i,
too, had some lonely moments and decisions to make. i know that the economic program that i have proposed for this nation in the next few years can resolve many of the problems that trouble us today. i know because we did it there. we cut the cost, the increased cost of government, in half over the eight years. we returned $5.7 billion in tax rebates, credits, and cuts to our people. we, as i have said earlier, fell below the national average in inflation when we did that. and i know that we did give back authority and autonomy to the people. i would like to have a crusade today, and i would like to lead that crusade with your help. and it would be one to take government off the backs of the great people of this country, and turn you loose again to do those things that i know you can
do so well, because you did them and made this country great. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, for 60 years, the league of women voters has been committed to citizen participation of americans in political and governmental affairs. the most critical element of all in that process is an informed citizen. on behalf of the league of women voters, i would like to thank president carter and governor reagan for being with us in cleveland tonight. thank you and good night. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [applause]
president and includes a review of his daily activities in office, as well as interviews with staff. nixon defeated george mcgovern in the 1972 general election, winning the popular vote 61-38%. this is about 25 minutes. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. good evening. tomorrow, 100 million americans will have an opportunity to participate in a decision that will affect the future of america and the future of the world for generations to calm. vote, iss of how you urge each of you to vote. by your vote, you can make sure this historic decision will be a decision made by a majority of ame