tv Republican Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN April 3, 2016 10:00am-11:01am EDT
>> you are watching american history tv on c-span3. we bring you archival coverage of presidential races. next, a 1980 debate between ronald reagan and george h w bush. it took place in houston. governor reagan went on to win the primary with 53% of the vote. he then picked mr. bush as his running mate. states in ticket 144 the 1980 general election. our coverage is courtesy of the league of women voters and the reagan library and museum. howard: 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 evil 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. >> thank you. good evening. we are pleased tonight to have two candidates for the republican nomination for the presidency of the united states. former ambassador george bush of texas, former governor ronald reagan of california. before we begin in response to the league of women voters, they will sponsor the presidential debates after the convention as it did four years ago in 1976. if nominated by your party would you agree to participate? mr. bush: i'd love to debate in the rose garden. yes, i would.
mr. reagan: i can't wait. >> thank you. as you both have agreed there be no time limits to what you have to say. you will have an open discussion. i will reserve the chairman's privilege of asking a question if i want to change the subject. towards the end we will accept questions from the audience. after that there will be brief closing statements. ambassador bush, everyone including your opponent has congratulated you on your victory in pennsylvania yesterday. in the course of the program face the nation sunday you said you hoped to win because you had adopted the strategy of hammering away at the differences between you and mr. reagan. one difference you mentioned was you said in your words, mr.
reagan was overpromising the american people. could you explain that? mr. bush: it was meet the press. secondly. i made the point what we must do is defeat jimmy carter. i got that into focus. i want to get these differences out with the governor so the voters can make a good determination. i hope that is what has happened in pennsylvania. a big difference the governor and i have is in regard to tax cut. cut.he feelshe feels, i don't want to put words in his mouth, you can cut taxes by $70 billion the first year. and gift taxes. we have computed that at $5.4 billion.
and balance the budget and increase. resident kennedy suggested the cots were implemented by johnson. it was $11.4 million. it resulted in a $4.4 billion revenue loss. inflation was 1.8%. today it is 18. investor confidence was out there. now there is none. that economic program would exacerbate the deficit. it would result in less stimulation of the economy because of the conditions. and i believe before we can have massive across-the-board tax cut's we have to have the budget in balance. i am proposing a supply-side tax cut to stimulate savings for homes and businesses.
mr. reagan: that is indeed a major difference. i still believe firmly and think there is some difference of opinion about figures. four times in this century we have had across-the-board tax cut's. the government even in the first year got increased revenue, not less. the total revenue for government and of course government was smaller than. $109 million. according to the figure than the federal government got $1.1 billion additional revenue in the income tax. let me point something out. george mentioned the difference. under jimmy carter the tax burden of the gross national product has reached the highest level in the history of our nation. under the revised budget the total federal taxes are projected at $628 billion.
of that, 200 one of would be individual income tax. 115 percent increase in the tax since he took office. over the next 10 years, if things are changed it is estimated the total tax increase on the people of america will be one and a half trillion dollars. rather than the bill i support, the idea of a 10% cut across the board administered over a three-year time. i believe it will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and not reduce federal income. it will only reduce the increase in taxes. we are going to be faced with an increase in taxes that is beyond our comprehension right now.
if we figure that cut, you would reduce the first year less than 5%, perhaps 4% of the total tax revenues the government is going to beginning. history has proven i believe it will sting like the economy, more people will be working and it will be contrary to the policy of fighting inflation adding to the unemployment lows. i support and stand by the idea of incentive taxes that will provide incentive to increase productivity so we can compete in the international market which we can't do on even terms today. mr. bush: the difference we have is kennedy tax cut implemented by lyndon johnson resulted in a
$4.4 billion deficit. investor confidence was high, not low. that tax cut applied today in the same percentages, same numbers would result in an inflation rate of 30, 30 2%. i could not agree more about the percent of our gross national product but i believe the first thing we must do is get in balance, not the way jimmy carter proposed it, get and balance by the reduction of expenditures, by a $20 billion supply-side tax cut, and then reduce rates. if we risk with investor confidence where it is a deficit that is going to be already 37 billion. i am afraid we can't break inflation. mr. reagan: i believe in
reducing the cost of government more than the decrease than mr. carter has proposed. that is less than the federal government is going to get in a single year -- that amounts to more than $20 billion. if we get that and balance and then do what i say, that is the key thing. your plan would risk exacerbating the deficit. today our creditors abroad, our economy is linked to foreign economy. they see us living at deficit after deficit. it is like the kennedy tax cut. there wasn't a surplus. there was a deficit.
the economist the proposed it, he says i don't know whether it would work. i don't believe we can take that risk. howard: how much risk is there in going along with what we have been doing? mr. bush: i propose something very different than what we have been going along. mr. reagan: i heard that we can't possibly reduce taxes, this is washington's cry until we reduce government spending. government does not tax to get the money it needs, government always needs the money it gets. your son can be extravagant with his allowance and you can lecture him about saving money and nothing extravagant or you can solve the problem i cutting his allowance. [applause] mr. bush: the program i am putting forward cut's the allowance.
cuts on the spending. it doesn't risk of this promise everybody everything. cut taxes $210 billion and you favor increasing and you cut inheritance and gift taxes, and i believe your point and up with a figure deficit. that is where we differ. my whole program is based on getting tax is. i'm not going to do in a way that will make that deficit. mr. reagan: one last point we haven't touched on. we are talking as if those dollars that are saved in taxes are not going to have any effect on the people's pockets used out there in society. it has been proven there is a greater multiplier affect and creation of prosperity in people -- money spent by the people and invested by the people then when it is spent by government.
we have got to recognize that money isn't buried in a tin can. it is going to be used to buy things. when we buy things productivity. we have the highest percentage today of industrial plant and equipment of any of the industrial nations in the world. we cannot compete evenly with them because they don't have the capital investment. mr. bush: you are going to simulate production. howard: i don't want to keep you from a grain. a question i have to ask -- many observers have said many of the arguments all flawed. you spoke of the kennedy tax cut when it was 18%. >> that was the first year.
it was a two-year tax cut. howard: you have spoken of a tax cut, a waste in government. you said it cost three dollars to provide one dollars worth of benefit. and they said it cost $.12. mr. reagan: i would not believe them if they were here in the room. [applause] howard: there were several other facts like that you disputed. mr. reagan: the upi, and don landrieu has come out with a story that has to do with one set of figures that how many employees the carter administration added.
one of the networks went on the air and they had gone to a fellow in government to ask him and he said there were only 6000 added in all these three years. he goes on to say why don't my figures might not have been fairly accurate at this time, i appear to be closer to the mark. in the last three years the total number has grown by 63,282. but then, he went on to point out there are 145,000 that work for it the department of a gw. hew is paying the salaries of one million additional workers who governments and other organizations -- federal revenue pays the salaries of 77,000 state workers in the u.s.
employment and unemployment offices. all of these workers are excluded from the governments employee records. no official count has ever been taken. when this is added to the civilian and military employees, we see as many as 14 million people are working for the government. at least one u.s. worker out of 806 job to washington. thus reagan's increase is possible and may understate the rise in federal government. howard: you covered that plane. [applause] >> the figures were wrong, but it is the things i have studied and researched on that.
i attributed them to the wrong report. it gave the u.s. geological survey the responsibility to use those figures. they checked simply with them who said they were not in the report. i found that is all i had done in that particular one. i have been waiting for an opportunity to do this. i have confidence in the facts and figures i use. howard: benefits. mr. reagan: this at. in an account by an economist. not having any chance to check with the economist i took the figure used for redistribution of income outside of social security to people below poverty level and the figure of those below the poverty level and divided it into the total figure
and it came out if the people below poverty were getting all of the money in that budget, a family of four would be receiving $27,000 a year, four times as much as they are receiving. i figured that would be three to one overhead. in my view we should be doing some thing about the employment thing. no one would have been thrown out of a job but people would leave and not be replaced. he campaigned on less people employed. i drove by the other day and the building is staffed, people working for the white house. they don't feel the recession. they don't see these layoffs that the steelworkers feel.
that is what i do on that. on energy, i don't believe there is enough in alaska within the reasonable future to replace the 9 million barrels a day we get from overseas. a decline is already set in. some companies have started pulling out of alaska. my energy program is not the control and alaska but it has been using alternate services of energy. howard: let me ask you something just developing now. the famous recession which is beginning to happen. it may be there when either of you become president. will you hope that it will reduce inflation or try to halt the recession by things like government expenditures and tax cut's? mr. reagan: i do believe the
alternative to inflation is recession. i think that is old-fashioned economics. i don't think you have to trade unemployment. president carter said he would never fight inflation by using unemployment. president carter has said as part of his fight against inflation unemployment is going to be allowed to go up. this is self-destructive. for every percentage what you had to the unemployment role you have 25 to $29 billion to the federal deficit. both in the loss of revenue and the benefits that go out to them. i would do the things i have talked about regarding the cut of government and to some experience in a same situation i became governor of california. it was bankrupt. and with a deficit. i know some of these things work.
i would even go back to an example that happened since i was governor, prop 13. everyone heard the horrifying things that would happen if they cut the taxes as much as they said it would. the result is there are 100,000 fewer public workers. the private sector has created 532,000 new jobs in the state of california ended up with a $3 billion surplus. mr. bush: i don't believe there is an economic plan. i believe you are going to see some increase in unemployment. i believe the way you fight back is to stimulate, risk-taking and production. the way you do that is through this kind of approach i talked about as well as fighting the inflationary side of the
government spending. i believe it would work. there are programs that would help. for jobs that exist through tax credits rather than train them up to get some kids hopes up. stimulating the private sector, i believe that would work if you hold government under control. you can't go and risk making the deficit bigger at the same time. otherwise you have that inflation. stimulation of employment sector and lowering unemployment. he did that to some degree for a
while but inflation went off the charts because of reckless deficits. mr. reagan: he did other things to create the deficits. he was going to streamline government pre-decree to the energy industry. he is now created the cabinet level management for the department of education with more billions of dollars. he has the biggest staff as you pointed out in the white house have any president we know of. i think he who was going to trim things as i laugh when he called teddy kennedy the biggest spender in the senate, he's the biggest spender in the white house. i feel when you said provide incentive for increased productivity the american worker today is stating the lowest us an edge of earnings at any time in the last 30 odd years, and a japanese worker could say -- say five times that an american
can. it is not going in to savings accounts, not going to insurance premiums, not going as capital to invest in the private section. the only investment they have been able to make have met federal requirements, if added to production costs which reduced productivity. i want to see an increase in productivity. the system you're talking about, we have been trying for a lot of years. it is time for something new. and what is new is let's believe in the people that we can spend the money smarter better than the government can. howard: ladies and gentlemen please suppress your enthusiasm until we are finished. mr. reagan and ambassador bush, you blame the government for many issues.
but the most productive industry we have is agricultural and its productivity is due to government activity and research stations. world war ii the government created the oil industry. and most spectacularly, putting a man on the moon was a government project from a government plan. aren't you underrating the effectiveness of government? mr. bush: no. i don't think government adds to production. the aluminum industry, now it is better done in the private sector. we have a wartime economy, of course you will have government intervention. but government has moved in on the private sector with regulation. i built a business here in texas, started it from scratch. when we started to drill a well,
it was two permits. now it is 12 permits. every time you turn around there is too much regulation. government does something and they can help people. and they do. i'm not an antigovernment person. they provide for the defense and there are certain functions government has that are compassionate. and i think good. i think there is room for a partnership. what government does is not productive. we ought to be cutting it back. it isn't adding to productivity that i think is essential if we are going to beat inflation and bypass citizens. it is being bypassed as they get into the workforce. mr. reagan: i brought some figures because i thought they
would come in handy. if americans since 1950, the last 30 years have been able to save and invest, if our economy had grown one and a half percent more a year, our income would be 50% higher, jobs will be plentiful. we would have a balanced budget. lower payroll taxes. stable prices, and our industry economy would be three times as great of the soviet union. we would have a question superiority. there are legitimate functions government must perform. the basic three that are outlined in the basis of our government in our constitution, the federal government exist to protect us from outside aggression and national security, to protect us from disorder within and to guarantee stability of their money. in all three of those at the
moment we could say this administration has failed. they have not protected our national security. they have let it declined to the most dangerous part we have been in that i can recall. we know about disorder in the streets. crime and so forth. and the stability of our money, our currency is worth less than any time in our history. howard: i want to move to another subject. there was supposed to be a third howard: you both said your points. i want to move to another subject. there was supposed to be a third man tonight. congressman john anderson of illinois. he received word he would not take part. it is expected tomorrow or the next day he will announce he is going to be a third candidate? what do you think that will do to the party? mr. bush: i don't really believe after the initial flurry, it is going to make that much difference.
i believe those shoving him forward and those helping him with this would be those who would be for ted kennedy if they thought he was going to have a shot. so i don't view it -- i don't think it will be third party. i think he will run as an independent, and he will have the same success as others who have run as an independent. we are a two-party system. it is part of our stability. i asked him in the debate in illinois whether he was willing to support the nominee of the party. he made very clear then he was not prepared to do that. i think you are right that he will do it. i do not think it is going to amount to much after a good trip around the country. i don't see -- he is caught. because he does not really have the true credentials of a candidate, and yet he wants to move against the credentials they got him elected to the
house. that contradiction is going to hurt him sound. let him do what he wants. that is the way i look at it. [laughter] [applause] governor reagan, a poll the other side -- the other day said he could get 20% of the vote. could, he could get into the house of representatives. would that be a threat? mr. reagan: that would be a disaster. i agree with george. whatever he is going to get he , is probably going to take away from the carter side more than from our side. i know i speak for george when i say that i miss him tonight. [laughter] howard: let's turn to foreign affairs. both of you have been unsatisfied with how the president has handled the iranian crisis. now he is having some thoughts of using force which you have indicated approval.
let me run some options past you and see if you approve or disapprove. the most often quoted is mining persia,ports of blockading the oil ports of persia. is there a danger that the russians would sweep the mines and after shoot or shut up? mr. reagan: well, it is difficult to talk about what is a viable option now as we are late in the sixth month of their captivity. first of all, there is the fear that something might endanger them further. second, if you have a good idea of something that should be done, i don't think we should say it out loud. let the iranians hear about it. minditicism -- i do not criticizing what has been done. i do not think the president has done anything he could have done five months ago or longer.
then was the time, when all the means of diplomacy failed, then was the time to look at the options, which only the president knows that he has. as to what he thought might. with the least chance of any violence, that might exert pressure on them and give them a date certain and say either the hostages are released on that date or this goes into effect. he used the term military force now as a possibility. mining, andnclude it could be a blockade. if we mined, we would have to also prevent russian minesweepers from trying to take them out if they wanted to try that. i wonder whether they are prepared for a possible escalation conflict with us at this time. they are regressive against
-- they are aggressive against afghanistan and africa and so forth. even but they have a lead on us i do not think they are prepared , at this time. they do not want the confrontation directly with the united states. howard: would it not be a risk to find out when they are operating just on the other side of their border and 8000 miles away from us? mr. bush: no, it would not be that big a risk, in my judgment. i have been to that part of the gulf. in my judgment, the situation in iraq, where you see iraq pulling away from the soviet union has a bearing on this. my judgment of the situation in pakistan, where you have both china and its concern about afghanistan for different reasons. the chinese with their special relationship with pakistan, where you have islam concerned,
almost united in their concern about the soviets, where you have the soviet union, which is asrcommitted in afghanistan it is -- i do not believe your hypothesis. i do not think it will escalate. that is an option that the president should give very serious consideration to. you're not talking -- when you get in a situation of mind -- once you mind, no matter how many mines you put in insurance , rates skyrocket. for all intents and purposes commerce screeches to a halt. , i think it should be considered. it is for the president to make the determination. one thing i learned from my experience in foreign affairs is if there is a highly classified body of information that only a handful of people properly have access to. that is the president and his top people.
if that decision is made by them, it would have my support. i do not believe the risk you cite is a risk to be concerned about. the risk will be internally in iran when you are dealing with reckless people with no respect for international law. they have already made a hostile act under any interpretation of national -- of international law -- seizing our embassy. i would not worry about the soviets in this context. [applause] howard: what about the option of doing nothing at all? clearly, the most important fact about iran is it is a country that has not completed its revolution. there are probably more pro-united states people in iran than we realize. from watching anti-u.s. militants on tv. if a showdown inside iran -- which may have already begun -- might see our side, the side who wants to get along with us win -- but if we use force, we may force iran into russian arms.
that would endanger the hostages. i do not think they see it as patience, they see it as a weakness. they have humiliated us. one of our officials that we sent back, one of the diplomats, his speech when he arrived was boasting about how they rubbed our face in the dirt all this time. what if the united states, in the first hours, used all the diplomatic things we have done, not that commission from the u n because it is not even in the charter and is a terrible precedent for us to set that the u.n. could do what outside the charter. but all the diplomatic efforts we could make peacefully to get them back and then used one of these, and let us say hypothetically the mining in the blockade -- at that time they , were greatly dependent on outside commerce.
70% of their about food. now, they have adjusted, and for us to put sanctions on, our has shrunk down to the point that this will hardly affect them at all. but then if we had done that forcefully and in those first few days had gotten our hostages back, then we could have said -- now, look. we don't want any trouble. we would like to be friends with you. we would like to work with you. we could be helpful to you. you have a neighbor up north that i'm sure you do not want in here. i think they would have listened to us. now why would they listen to us , when they look to themselves as stronger than we are because of the way we have gone on month after month, letting this humiliation occur? about afghanistan. a congressman from new york who has been to the border there says the afghan rebels are using ancient weapons. rifles of world war i vintage. he feels that we should send
them considerable aid. since the russians are accusing us of it anyhow. you believe we should? mr. bush: absolutely. i have said that in the beginning. look, if you have a brutal aggression and you are not willing to help and i think the way to do it was through pakistan -- if you are now within to help, what possible help would we provide? you have to start in foreign policy with your definition of what the soviet union intends. i believe the evidence is overwhelming that they seek superiority. not parity. i believe, when they see us weak , with cuba and africa as a stabilizing influence, they are going to go in there and use that stabilization to spread hegemony. the soviets are aggressive. more thanbitten off
they should be allowed to digest. i think the best answer to it is for them to know that the united states is going to keep its commitment. our allies -- yes, they ought to be supporting us for what we have done. but they don't know that they can believe jimmy carter. they think he is going to change on whatever he does in the mid east just as he did about the enhanced radiation weapon in germany. years: it took him three to find out the soviets were untrustworthy. mr. reagan: i agree. ofn people want to be free soviet or cuban domination, the united states should be willing to provide weapons to any men that want to fight. howard: do you believe there should be a blockade of cuba, a complete one? mr. reagan: i suggest that is a hypothetical. it was based on this thing we both have said.
that is that only the president and a few people have knowledge of all the options. with regard to afghanistan, the president, i think, lowered the credibility of the united states when he made, in diplomatic language, what was a serious warning to the soviets not to invade afghanistan. he used the term serious consequences will follow. he knew we had no way to back that out. there was not anything we could do. we were not ready to put in troops and chased them out. so they invaded, and the world is still standing here just as we are still standing. just like they did with the blockade in cuba. we accepted it. was thatid at the time we ought to have a plan. we ought to have a strategy of our own. we ought to have contingency plans where we say if they do this or that, this is what we can do. i propose that there might be pressures we could exert on the
where theon, logistics are not 10,000 miles against us in their backyard. i said, let me give one and thereal idea -- may be better ideas and options than this. here, we have a soviet satellite 90 miles off our sure. instead of threatening sanctions or threatening the olympics, why couldn't we blockade cuba and say to them, when your troops get out of afghanistan, we will drop the blockade around cuba? [applause] here we have the fundamental difference. it was not cubans that invaded afghanistan. we have hemispheric problems today it seems to me. if you go back and look, blockades is the interdiction of and ships.
kennedy used the word "quarantine." two quarantine cuba today, because of the decline in the united states navy according to a former chief of naval operations, it would require the entire atlantic fleet. i would not respond against cuba. i believe that would be bad. we have problems with cuba. one on one with those problems. link of them in in order to solve something halfway around the world. that is my view on foreign policy. [applause] there is a disagreement in naval circles as well. i got advice about the blockade also. but do we not have to realistically face up to the fact that our troubles and this hemisphere, in central and down in south america are being , generated by castro's cuba as
well as in the caribbean, where they are also threatening to choke off our lifelines and it , is a problem that has to be faced one day. russia has enough of a presence there. it has fighter-bombers, submarines. russia provides about one tanker a week of oil for cuba. they could not stand a blockade very long. i think a little call on the hotline with this kind of a threat might get a withdrawal of troops from afghanistan. because it would be a pressure on them. howard: what do we do about is 90 miles off our border? it is virtually a soviet outpost. has an imitator now in the island of granada.
it is a basket case of a nation about to collapse. mr. bush: when jimmy carter came in, he traded cuba with civility. out ofnocking the hell some of our allies in latin america. people look at us and say, what is going on? this man has made a conscious decision, in my judgment, castro , to export revolution, not support it. communism makes a very interesting distinction. they have made this decision. yes, granada is now in alliance with castro. guyana has been in trouble before. jamaica, their police and security forces are being trained by cuba. but that is the tip of the iceberg. the rest of it is in central america today, where i am convinced that castro is -- only fermenting but
fomenting but supplying the military equipment to stimulate revolution. what do you do? you change your naive foreign policy that considers this guy as some sort of person who will live comfortably. and you adhere to human rights. the united states must always adhere to human rights. jimmy carter did not invest in morality. i would keep our strategic interests in mind pushing for equity. howard: the next debate, i will ask you what you will do about cuba. now we will have questions from the audience. david grossberg. i would like to know, do you think the children of illegal aliens should be allowed to attend texas public schools for free? do you think parents should pay for their education? >> who are your dressing that to? howard: he is looking right at you. mr. bush: look. i would like to see something done about the illegal alien problem that would be so sensitive and understanding
about labor needs and human needs, as that problem would not come up. if those people are here, i would reluctantly say i think they would get whatever it is -- whatever society is giving to their neighbors. the problem has to be solved. the problem has to be solved. if we have made illegal -- sometimes the labor i would like to see legal, we are creating two things. we are creating a whole society of really honorable family loving people that are in violation of the law, and exacerbating relationships with mexico. the answer to your question is more fundamental than whether they attend houston schools, it seems to me. if they are living here, i don't want to see six-year-old and eight-year-old kids being made totally uneducated and made to feel they are living outside the
law. let's address the fundamentals. these are good people, strong people. part of my family is mexican. [applause] i think the time has come that the united states and our neighbors -- particularly our neighbor to the south -- should have a better understanding than we have had. we have not been sensitive enough to our size and power. they have a problem of unemployment. this cannot continue without the possibility arising with regard to that other country we talked about, cuba and what it is stirring up. the possibility of trouble below the border. we could have a hostile neighbor on our border. rather than talking about putting up a fence, why do we not work out our problems? it possible for them to come make here with a permit and , while they are working, they pay taxes. when they go back, they can go
back. open the border both ways by understanding their problems. this is the only safety valve they have with their unemployment, that probably keeps the lid from blowing off down there. have a fine relationship and it would solve the problem you mentioned. >> i hope both of you gentlemen will address this. local filling stations are said to be cutting the gasoline prices so as to exhaust their currently abundant supplies on the advice of their parent companies in order that their next allocations will not be decreased. how do you feel about this practice? mr. reagan: i will take a crack at this if you do not mine. this is part of what i think is a great energy crisis caused by government. part of it is from that energy
agency and the allocation system. once upon a time, the allocation of that product, like any other product was made by the , marketplace, supply and demand. today, you have a government agency dictating where the gasoline, heating oil, diesel will go and trying to guess how much should go where. you are talking about too much here. recently, down in florida in the primaries they are, they were running into a shortage because the agency had decided in the wintertime people drive less than in the summertime. and they did not stop to think that it is summertime in south florida all the winter. people are driving just as much and probably even more people coming. california, when we lined up to gas stations, they based our allocations on 1972 figures. we have got 4 million more automobiles in california than we did in 1972. let us turn the industry industry back and let the
marketplace dictate things like that and we will not have these problems. [applause] mr. bush: what i would add to that is that example makes a good case against price control. in the energy business the , energy department saying put the gasoline where the people are, that is when we had a gasoline problem. i oppose price control, and this is a good example of a price control that has distorted supply rather than helped. [applause] >> i would like to ask, with college costs up to $6,000 per year, even at state universities, would you ok tax cuts for families with college students? this is particularly important to students who are in middle income families who are above financial need scholarships but still feel the strain of college education. supported inave
congress college tax credit. how big they can be has to, in my judgment, be considered along with the entire economy. i do not want to say we will maximize funding when i am talking cutting back on some kinds of expenditures. but i favor tuition tax credits, i favor the student loan program. i do not favor abuses in the student loan program that permits people with $100,000 incomes to get loans at subsidized rates. mr. reagan: we are in agreement on that. i supported the idea of tuition tax credits also in the loan program. in california, we had a scholarship program that was only $4 million when i became governor. it was $43 million when i left. i had to wash dishes and the girls dormitory to go to school. that was one of the better jobs i had. but are we not getting back to the first problem?
the answer is, that, again, is a casualty of inflation. until we get that down to common sense, we are going to have these problems. you please tell us who some of the people are that you are considering as your vice presidential running mates when you are nominated? >> i think this is mr. reagan's turn. [laughter] answeredn: i thought i that first. i don't know what the answer is going to be at the other end of the stage, but i can tell you this. whether it is fear of jinxing myself or whatever it is, i have refused to allow myself to consider that. there is a wealth of talent in our party. i have refused to let myself even turn my mind to that. unless and until i am much closer to seeing the required
number of delegates for the nomination. mr. bush: even with my newfound optimism out of pennsylvania, i have not gone far enough along to think about the name of the person. two criteria -- he or she must be able to take over the minute the president is incapacitated. and secondly, a certain degree of loyalty to the president's views. conformity, not total agreement on every single one of these troubling issues that face this country. but a willingness to support the president. i will be honest. i do not agree with him on any issue. but vice president mondale has been a good vice president, in the second regard for jimmy , carter. those of the two major criteria i would look for. say also --i would it goes without saying -- i think anyone that you announce,
recommend to the convention, you would have to feel would carry out the program that you would promise the people to implement. so whoever i pick would have to agree with my tax bill. howard: thank you. we have about one minute for closing statements -- three seconds off your closing statement. mr. bush: i am very pleased to be back in texas. i am looking forward to the campaign in this, my home state, where i have lived 30 years. i believe that this kind of i think theand league of women voters -- is an extraordinarily good thing. spell out the differences so the voter can determine who can beat jimmy carter? my view is this -- if we have a sensible economic policy that is -- does not overpromise and we couple that with a foreign
policy based on experience, the u.s. will strengthen intelligence capability, keep its word and adhere to the andlues that made us strong earned us respect we can help , people at home and we can restore the respect we have lost abroad. thank you very much. [applause] in the 18th century, we created, here in this land, the freest, most unique society that has ever been known to man. in the 19th century, we built the greatest industrial power the world has ever seen. and we spent most of the 20th century apologizing. i don't know what we apologizing for. living americans today have fought harder and done more for the dignity of man than any people who have ever lived. i also share the view that jimmy carter must be removed from office.
if i thought someone else had a better chance to beat him than i did i would not be a candidate, , i would be supporting somebody else. but in the last 20 years of this century, we must make sure that the young people and the people who will follow us will have the same opportunities, the same glittering opportunity that has been ours for 200 years of our history. it is all possible to the american people, and i want to see the american people have that chance without the government becoming an all powerful and shipment in their lives controlling their destiny. , thank you. [applause] thank you. that concludes our forum tonight. on behalf of the league of women voters i want to thank , ambassador bush in governor reagan for being with us. they did agree on some very important things.
i hope you kept note on that. but they did not disagree as much as i wanted them to, which is very bad for showbiz, but very good for the republican party. [applause] [laughter] howard: this forum series and the debates are in the interest of our nation, especially at this time. thank you all and good night. [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] during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. the media teaches us that democrats and republicans are supposed to be at odds with each other. recognizeople need to that we need to be respectful towards each other. we need to understand senators
need to be respect for towards each other. that will be better for getting policy done. onthe people we see television and c-span are real people. though thing that most stood out to me when i saw president obama was he had bags under his eyes. he was tired. he was a real person. "q&a," high schoolers talk about their experiences in a week long government program and their thoughts on the future. they met with people in the branches of government. >> a washington post journalists came to talk with us. i love the inside he gave about being the outside source. reporting back to us and the electorate about what is going on. >> ruth bader ginsburg was the
most inspirational person we have met this week. she has been one of my idols for a long time. i either want to be in the legal profession or possibly a senator. for understand the need bipartisanship, at time, but it is important politicians be determined to meet a goal instead of sacrificing it for whatever it is. >> we need to get back to ensure active discourse. we need to go back to making this country a more respectful place. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> next, author pamela scott cusses her book "capital engineers: the u.s. army corps of engineers in the development of washington, d.c., 1790-2004." we will hear about the army corps of engineers key role in designing the capital's elite -- the capital city, including the
aqueduct bridge over the potomac river. this was hosted by the smithsonian associates. it is one hour and 45 minutes. mader program tonight is possible by generous underwritingby the reva and david logan foundation. they have enabled us to bump up our curriculum in that area. we have not offered a lot of local d.c. programs. so thank you very much. if you're not a member of this missoni and associates, your membership and your donation -- of thelp bring sony and associates, your member -- of the smithsonian associates, your membership and donation support help brings these