Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
1980 Republican Presidential Candidates George Bush and Ronald Reagan square off in a debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters, moderated by Howard K. Smith. The topic covered here regards tax cuts and economic proposals. One should note that this is really the only time that Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan butt heads, though they ultimately respect the other candidate's plans.
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
MS National President of the League of Women Voters RUTH HEINERFELD introducing the program. "Good evening, I m Ruth Heinerfeld, National President of the League Of Women Voters. Welcome to the Huston forum. The third event in our 1980 Presidential Forum series. This series is part of a very important League tradition. Providing the public with non-partisan election information about issues and about candidates. Tonight I m particularly pleased to be able to tell you that the League of Women Voters is going to continue on with that tradition. We announced today that we are going to sponsor the 1980 Presidential Debates. A series of four debates that will be held next September and October. The enthusiastic response of the public to the 1976, Ford / Carter Presidential debate sponsored by the League and to our current forum series provides evidence to the fact that Americans will expect the candidates to participate in face to face debates next fall. Now, on with tonight s event and our moderator, the distinguished news correspondent, Howard K. Smith." TLS/MSs of 1980 Republican Presidential candidates GEORGE BUSH, RONALD REAGAN and moderator HOWARD K. SMITH standing on stage, League of Women Voters banner in BG. Mr. Smith introduces Mr. Bush & Mr. Reagan, then presents the rules of the debates. Howard K. Smith: Thank you Mrs. Heinerfeld. Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen we are very 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. Gentlemen before we began in response to the League of Women s Voters announcement today, that it will sponsor the Presidential Debates at the conventions as it did four years ago in 1976. Let me asked if nominated by your party, would you agreed to participate? George Bush: I d love to debate in the Rose Garden. I think I would be an extraordinary ah, ah, yes sir, I would. Howard K. Smith: Thank you Ronald Reagan: I can t wait. Howard K. Smith: This evening Forum will last just sixty-minutes. As you both agreed there will be no specific time limits on what you have to say. You ll have an open discussion on the issues. You can address comments and questions to one another. I will reserve the chairman s privilege of occasionally asking a question if I want to change the subject and think it s wise to do so. And towards the end of the forum we will accept questions from the audience, and after that, there will be brief closing statements by you.
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
Howard K. Smith The first question, Ambassador Bush, everyone including your opponent has congratulated you on your stunning victory in Pennsylvania yesterday. In the course of the program, Face the Nation on Sunday, you said you hope to win, because you had adopted the strategy of hammering away at the differences between you and Mr. Reagan. And one difference you mentioned was, you said in your words was, Mr. Reagan was over promising the American people can you explain that, and when the spirit moves you, can you respond? George Bush: First it was Meet the Press , I don t want to put in a plug for the wrong outfit. And secondly, I also made the point that what we must do is defeat Jimmy Carter. I got that into focus and I wanted to get these differences out, with the Governor, so the voters could make a good determination. I hope that s what happened in Pennsylvania. A big difference, for example, that the governor and I have, regarded this tax cut. He feels, I don t want to put words in his mouth, and he s here to defend or explain his position, that you can cut taxes by 70 billion first year. The Wall Street Journal attributed the figure to that tax cut idea, to 90 billion the first year. Cut the inheritance and gift taxes. We ve computed that to 5.4 billion dollars, and still balance the budget and still increase defense spending. President Kennedy suggested this cut, it was implemented by Johnson. The cut was 11.4 billion. It resulted in a 4.4 billion dollar revenue loss. Inflation then was 1.8 %. Today it is 18%. Investor confidence was out there, today there s none. So in my judgment that economic program would exacerbate the deficit. It would result in less stimulation of the economy because of the conditions, and I believe that before we can have massive across the board tax cuts, we ve got to get budget in balance. So I am proposing a 20 million dollar, as opposed to 70 or 90, supply side tax cut, to stimulate savings for home and stimulate business. That is a major difference. There s plenty of other s but I do want to give the governor a chance to respond. Ronald Reagan: That is indeed a major difference and I still believe firmly and I think there is some difference of opinion about figures. Four times in this century we have had across the board tax cuts, all of which resulted in such an increase in prosperity that the government even in the first year got increased revenues not less. In the Kennedy year, the total revenues for government, and of course government was much smaller then, about 109 billion dollars instead of a 600 that will be coming up in 81, but according to the figures then federal government got some 5 billion dollars in additional revenue and got about 1.1 billion dollars additional revenue in the income tax. But let me point something out. George mentioned the differencs here. Under Jimmy Carter the tax burden is a percentage of the gross national product has reached the highest level in the history of our nation. It is also the highest percentage of personal income that it has ever been in our history. Now, under the President s revised 81 budget, total federal taxes are projected at 628 billion dollars. Of that 283.1 will be individual income tax. That s 115% increase in back tax, since he took office. Now over the next ten years if things aren t changed, it is estimated that the total tax increase and the people of America will be 1 1/2 trillion dollars. Now rather than the Kemp Roth Bill, which I support, the idea of a 10% cut across the board, the income tax, administered over a three year period to a total of 30%. I believe will stimulate the economy, will create jobs, but it will not reduce Federal incomes. It will only reduce the increase in taxes, because we re going to be faced with an increase in taxes that is far beyond our comprehension, right now. And if we figured that cut as a percentage of 628 billion dollars, you'd be reducing the first year less than 5% perhaps about 4% in the total tax revenue that the government will be getting. But I believe at the same time history has proven in all those other tax cuts, I believe that will stimulate the economy, more people will be working, and it will be contrary to the Carter policy now, of fighting inflation by adding millions to the unemployment roles. And so I support and stand by the idea of incentive taxes geared to the free enterprise system that will provide incentive to increase productivity so we can compete in the international market which we can t do on even terms today.
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
George Bush: I agree with that, but the difference we have is that it is my understanding that the Kennedy tax cut implemented by Lyndon Johnson resulted in a 4.4 billion dollar deficit and inflation then was 1.8 not 18%, investors confidence was high not low. And it s my perception that tax cut applied today, in the same percentages would result in an inflation rate of in about 30 to 32%. And so I couldn t agree more about the percent of our gross national product taken by taxes. I believe the first thing we must do is get in balance, incidentally not the way Jimmy Carter proposes on higher and higher taxes, get in balance by reduction of expenditures, get in balance by a 20 billion dollar supply side tax cut and then began to reduce rates, but if we risk with investor confidence where it is, and a deficit that s going to be up already I think 37 billion, 30 billion on top of that, I m afraid we can t break inflation. And we ve got to do that and do that fast. Ronald Reagan: Well, George, we go to do that and of course it goes without saying. And I certainly believe in reducing the cost of government far more than the phony decrease that Mr. Carter has proposed, but when you suggest, as you have, about a twenty billion tax cut, that is less than the federal government is going to get in a single year, undeserved from people who just received cost of living pay raises and where pushed up into higher tax brackets, that amounts to more than 20 billion dollars. George Bush: But if we get that in balance and then do what I say, start reducing the rates that is the key thing. Your plan in my judgment and a judgment of many economists, would risk exasperating that deficit, and today our creditors abroad, our economy is linked to foreign economies, and they take a look at us, and see us living at, deficit after deficit, just like the Kennedy tax cut. There wasn t any surplus then, there was a deficit resulted from that scheme. Arthur Laiford the economist that proposed it, he himself said, I don t know whether it would work . I don t believe we can tale that kind of risk of it, and I would not propose it. Ronald Reagan: George how much more risk is there in just going along in what we been doing? George Bush: That s not what I proposed. I proposed something very different then going along. Ronald Reagan: Let me just say one other thing. I heard for a great many years and that we can t possibly reduce taxes, this is Washington s cry George Bush: I agree. Ronald Reagan: We can t reduce taxes until we reduce government spending. And I have to point out that government does not tax to get the money it needs, government always needs the money it gets. Now, your son can be extravagant with his allowance and you can lecture him day after day about saving money and not being extravagant or you can solve the problem by cutting his allowance. (Applause) George Bush: But, the program I m putting foreword cuts the allowance, cuts on the spending side but doesn t risk this promise everybody everything. Because you cut taxes 210 billion dollars and you favor increasing defense, and you favor cutting out inheritance and gift taxes. I believe that you re going to end up with a much bigger deficit, and that s where you and I differ, listen you talk to me about, gross national product and percentage taxes, my whole program is based on getting tax relief. But I m not going to do it in a way, popular though it may be, that in my view going to make that deficit unsupportive. Ronald Reagan: There s one last point I want to make though. There s one last point we haven t touched on. We re taking as if those dollars that are saved in taxes are not going to have any effect, a multiplier effect when their in the peoples pockets and their used out there in society. And it is been proven that there is a far greater multiplier effect, and creation of prosperity in money spent by the people and invested by the people, then there is when it is spent by government. And therefore we got to recognize that, that money is not to be buried in a tin can in the back yard. It s going to be used to buy things and when we buy things productivity is going to increase. People are going to put it in a savings account. And then we will have the capitol to invest in new plant and equipment, research and development. We have the highest percentage today of out moded industrial plant and equipment of any industrial of the industrial nations in the world. We can t compete evenly with them because we don t have the capitol investment to put into business George Bush: That s why my tax are based on supply side tax cut that will stimulate production, that s what I want you know