tv 1976 Presidential Candidates First Debate CSPAN November 3, 2016 8:00pm-10:01pm EDT
spirit" and robert kagan debate the question, was john quincy adams a realist. they also talk about the foreign policy views and the legacy of the sixth president. for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. coming up on american history tv in primetime, road to the white house rewind looks at past presidential debates. next, the september 23rd and aucts 26th, 1976 debates between president gerald ford and former georgia governor jimmy carter. later, the october 11th and 15th 1992 debates between president george h.w. bush, then arkansas governor bill clinton and texas businessman ross perot. next, "road to the white house" rewind brings you archival coverage of presidential races. from 1976, the first debate
between incumbent president gerald ford and former georgia governor jimmy carter. the debate took place in philadelphia and focused on domestic issues, taxes and the economy. a technical problem with the audio feed caused a 28-minute delay in which the candidates remained at their podiums. the league of women voters hosted this event, and our coverage is from nbc news. >> good evening. i'm edwin newman, moderator of this first debate of the 1976 campaign between gerald r. ford of michigan, republican candidate for president and jimmy carter of georgia, democratic candidate for president. we thank you, president ford, and we thank you, governor carter, for being with us tonight. there ought to be three debates between the presidential candidates and one between the vice presidential candidates. all are being arranged by the league of women voters education fund. tonight's debate, the first between presidential candidates
in 16 years and the first ever in which an incumbent president has participated is taking place before an audience in the walnut street theater just three blocks from independence hall. the television audience may reach 100 million in the united states and many mill job ions overseas. tonight's debate focuses on domestic issues and economic policy. questions will be put by frank reynolds abc news, james gannon of "the wall street journal" and elizabeth drew of "the new yorker" magazine. under the agreed rules, the first question will go to governor carter. that was decided by the toss of a coin. he will have up to three minutes to answer. one follow-up question will be permitted with up to two minutes to reply. president ford will then have two minutes to respond. the next question will go to president ford with the same time arrangements and questions will continue to be alternated
between the candidates. each man will make a three-minute statement at the end. governor carter to go first. president ford and governor carter do not have any notes or prepared remarks with them this evening. mr. reynolds, your question for governor carter. >> mr. president, governor carter, governor, in an interview with the associated press last week, you said you believe these debates would alleviate a lot of concern that some voters have about you. one of those concerns, not an uncommon one, about candidates in any year is that many voters say they don't really know where you stand. now you have made jobs your number one priority. and you have said you are committed to a drastic reduction in unemployment. can you say now, governor, in specific terms, what your first step would be next january if you are elected to achieve that? >> first of all, to recognize the tremendous economic strength of this country and to set the
putting back to work of our people as a top priority. this is an effort that ought to be done primarily by strong leadership in the white house, the inspiration of our people, the tapping of business, agriculture, industry, labor and government at all levels to work on this project. we'll never have an end to the inflationary spiral and we'll never have a balanced budget until we get our people back to work. there are several things that can be done specifically that are not nowing by done. first of all, to channel research and development funds into areas that will provide a large numbers of jobs. secondly, we need to have a commitment in the private sector to cooperate with government and matters like housing. a very small investment of taxpayers money and the housing field can bring large numbers of extra jobs and the guarantee of mortgage loans and the putting forward of 202 programs for housing for older people and so forth to cut down the roughly
20% unemployment that you exists in the construction industry. another thing is to deal with our needs in the central cities where the unemployment rate is extremely high. sometimes among minority groups, those who don't speak english or who are black or young people, 40% unemployment. a ccc-type program would be appropriate to channel money into the -- into the sharing with private sector and also local and state governments to employ young people who are now out of work. another very important aspect of our economy would be to increasing production in every way possible to hold down taxes on individuals and to shift the tax burdens on to those who have avoided paying taxes in the past. these specific things, none of which are being done now, would be a great help in reducing unemployment. there is an additional factor that needs to be done and
covered very aggressively and that is to make sure we have a good relationship between management, business on the one hand, and labor on the other. now a lot of places where unemployment is very high, we might channel specific targeted job opportunities by paying part of the salary of unemployed people and also sharing with local governments the payment of salaries which would let us cut down the unemployment rate much lower before we get to an inflationary level. before the end of the first four years of the next term, we can have the unemployment rate down to 3%, adult unemployment, which is about 4% to 4.5% overall. control the inflation rate and have a balance of growth of about 4% to 6%, around 5%, which would give us a balanced budget. >> governor, in the event you are successful and you do achieve a drastic drop in unemployment, that is likely to create additional pressure on prices. how willing are you to consider an incomes policy. in other words, wage and price
controls? >> well, we now have such a low utilization of productive capacity. about 73%, i think, is about the lowest since the great depression years, and such a high unemployment rate right now. 7.9%. we have a long way to go in getting people to work before we have inflationary pressures. and i think this would be easy to accomplish to get jobs done without having a strong inflationary pressures that would be necessary. i would not favor the payment of giving fixed income to people unless they were not able to work but for incentives for low-income groups, we could build up their low-income levels above the poverty level and not make poverty more profitable than work. >> mr. president, your response?
>> i don't believe mr. carter has been any more specific in this case than he has been on many other instances. i notice particularly that he didn't endorse the humphrey/hawkins bill which he has in cases and is included as part of the democratic platform. that legislation allegedly would help our unemployment, but we all know it would have controlled our economy. it would have added 10 to $30 billion each year in additional expenditures by the federal government. it would have called for export controls on agricultural products. in my judgment, the best way to get the jobs is to expand the private sector where five out of six jobs exist today. we can do that by reducing federal taxes as i proposed about a year ago when i call for
a tax reduction of $28 billion. three quarters of it to go to private taxpayers and one quarter to the business sector. we could add to jobs in the major metropolitan areas by a proposal that i recommended that would give tax incentives to business to move into the inner city and to expand or to build new plants so that they would take a plan or expand a plant where people are and people are currently on employ unemployed. we could also help our youth with some of the proposals that would give to young people an opportunity to work and learn at the same time just like we give money to young people who are going to college. those are the kind of specifics that i think we have to discuss on these debates. and these are the kind of programs that i'll talk about on
my time. >> mr. gannon, your question to president ford? >> plt president, i would like to continue for a moment on this question of taxes which you have just raised. you favor more tax cuts for middle income americans, even those earning up to $30,000 a ye year. that presumably would cost the treasury quite a bit of money in lost revenue. in view of the very large budget deficits you've accumulated and that are still in prospect, how is it possible to promise further tax cuts and to reach your goal of balancing the budget? >> at the time, mr. gannon, that i made the recommendation for a $28 billion tax cut, three-quarters of it to go to individual taxpayers and 25% to american business, i said at the same time that we had to hold the lid on federal spending. that for every dollar of a tax reduction, we had to have an
equal reduction in federal expenditures. a one for one proposition. and i recommended that to the congress with a budget ceiling of $395 billion, and that would have permitted us to have a $28 billion tax reduction. in my tax reduction program for middle income taxpayers, i recommended that the congress increase personal exemptions from $750 per person to $1,000 per person. that would mean, of course, that for a family of four that that family would have a $1,000 more personal exemption. money that they could spend for their own purposes. money that the government wouldn't have to spend. but if we keep the lid on federal spending, which i think we can with the help of the congress, we can justify a tax
reduction. in the budget i submitted to the congress of january of this year, i recommended a 50% cutback in the rate of growth of federal spending. for the last ten years, the budget of the united states has grown from about 11% per year. we can't afford that kind of growth in federal spending. in the budget that i recommended, we cut it in half a growth rate of 5% to 5.5%. with that kind of limitation on federal spending, we can fully justify the tax reductions that i have proposed. and it seems to me with the system lantimulant of more mone hands of the taxpayer and with more money in the hands of business to expand to, to modernize, to provide more jobs, our economy will be stimulated so that we'll get more revenue. and we'll have a more prosperous
economy. >> mr. president, to follow up a moment. the congress has passed a tax bill which is before you now which did not meet the sort of outline that you requested. what is your intention on that bill since it doesn't meet your requirements? do you plan to sign that bill? >> that tax bill does not entirely meet the criteria i established. i think the congress should have added another $10 billion reduction in personal income taxes, including the increase of personal exemptions from $750 to $1,000. and congress could have done that if the budget committees of the congress and the congress as a whole had not increased the spending that i recommended in the budget. i'm sure you know in the resolutions passed by the congress, they have added about
$17 billion in more spending by the congress over the budget that i recommended. so i would prefer in that tax bill to have an additional tax cut and a further limitation on federal spending. now this tax bill that hasn't reached the white house yet but is expected in a day or two, it's about 1,500 pages. it has some good provisions in it. it has left out some that i have recommended, unfortunately. on the other hand, when you have a bill of that magnitude, with those many provisions, a president has to set and decide if there's more good than bad and from the analysis that i've made so far, it seems to me that that tax bill does justify my signature and my approval. >> governor carter, your response? >> well, mr. ford is changing
considerably his previous philosophy. the present tax structure is a disgrace of this country. it's just a welfare program for the rich. as a matter of fact, 25% of the total tax deductions go for only 1% of the richest in this country and 50% of the tax credit goes for the 14% of the richest people in the country. but mr. ford first became president in august of 1974, the first thing he did in aucts was ask for a $4.7 billion increase in taxes on people in the midst of the heaviest recession since the great depression of 1940s. and january of 1975, he asked for a tax change, $5.6 billion increase on private and middle income businesses and a decrease on the corporations and special interest. in december of 1975, he vetoed the roughly 18 to $20 billion tax reduction bill that had been
passed by the congress and then came back later on in january of this year and did advocate a $10 billion tax reduction, but it would be offset by $6 billion increase this coming january in deductions for social security payment and unemployment compensation. the whole philosophy of the republican party, including my opponent, has been to pile on taxes for low income people to take them off on the corporations. since the late '60s when mr. nixon took office, we've had a reduction in the percentage of taxes paid by corporations from 30% down to about twi20%. we've had an increases in taxes paid by individuals from 14% up to 20%. this is what the republicans have done to us and why tax reform is so important. >> mrs. drew, your question to governor carter. >> governor carter, you proposed a number of new or enlarged programs including jobs, health, welfare reform, child care, aid
education, aid to social security and housing subsidies. you've also said you want to balance the budget by the end of your first term. you haven't put a price tag on these programs but even if we price them conservatively, and we count for full employment by the end of your first term and we account for the economic growth that would occur during that period there still isn't enough to pay for those programs and balance the budget by any estimates that i've been able to see. so in that case, what would give? if we assume a rate of growth of ow economy equivalent to what was during president johnson and president kennedy, even before the vietnamese war, and if we assume that at the end of the four-year period we can cut our unemployment rate down to 4% to 4.5%, under those circumstances, even assuming no elimination of any unnecessary programs and
assuming an increase in the allotment of money to finance programs increasing as the inflation rate does, my economic projections as confirmed by the house and senate committees have been with a $60 billion extra amount of money that can be spent in fiscal year '81 which would be the last year of this next term. within that $60 billion increase, there would be programs that i promised the american people. i might say, too, if we see that these goals cannot be reached, and i nl thbelieve they are reasonable goals, i'll cut back on the rate of implementation of new programs in order to accommodate a balanced budget by fiscal year '81, which is the last year of the next term. i believe that we ought to have a balanced budget during normal economic circumstances. and these projections have been very carefully made. i stand behind them. and if there should be an error slightly on the down side, then i'll phase in the programs that
we've advocated more slowly. >> governor, according to the budget committees of the congress that you referred to, if we get to full employment, would they project a 4% unemployment and as you said allowing for the inflation in the programs, there would not be anything more than a surplus of $5 billion by the end of -- by 1981. and conservative estimates of your programs would be that they'd be about $85 billion to $100 billion. how do you say that you'll be able to do these things and balance the budget? >> the assumption that you've described as different is in the rate of growth of our economy. >> no, they took that into account. >> i believe it's accurate to say that it depends to whom you refer that the employment rate that you state and with a 5% to 5.5% growth rate in our economy, that the projections would be a $60 billion increase in the
amount of money that we have to spend in 1981 compared to now. and with that -- in that framework, would be fit, any improvements in the program. this does not include any extra control over unnecessary spending, the weegd out of obsolete programs. we'll have a safety version built in with complete reorganization of the executive branch of government which i am pledges to do. the present bureaucratic structure of the federal government is a mess. if i'm elected president, that's going to be a top priority to completely revise the structure of the federal government to make it economical, efficient, purposeful for a change and also, i'm going to institute zero-based budgeting which i used four years in georgia which assesses every program every year and eliminates those programs that are obsolete. with these projections, we will have a balanced budget by fiscal year 1981 if i'm elected president, keep my promises to the american people and it's
just predicateod very modest but, i think, accurate employment increases and growth in our national economy, equal to what was experienced in the kennedy, johnson, before the vietnam war. >> president ford, if it is true that there will be a $60 billion surplus by fiscal year 1981, rather than spend that money for all the new programs that governor carter recommends and endorses, and which are included in the democratic platform, i think the american taxpayer ought to get an additional tax break. a tax reduction of that magnitude. i feel that the taxpayers are the ones that need the relief. i don't think we should add additional programs of the magnitude that governor carter talks about. it seems to me our tax structure
today has rates that are too high, but i am very glad to point out that since 1969, during a republican administration, we have had 10 million people taken off of the tax rolls at the lower end of the taxpayer area. and at the same time, assuming that i sign the tax bill that was mentioned by mr. gannon, we will, in the last two tax bills, have increased the minimum tax on all wealthy taxpayers. and i believe that by eliminating 10 million taxpayers in the last eight years, and by putting a heavier tax burden on those in the higher tax brackets, plus the other actions that have been taken, we can give taxpayers adequate tax relief. now it seems to me that as we
look at the recommendations of the budget committees, and our own projections, there isn't going to be any $60 billion dividend. i've heard of those dividends in the past. it always happens. we expected one at the time of the vietnam war, but it was used up before we ever ended the war and taxpayers never got the adequate relief they deserve. >> mr. reynolds? >> mr. president, when you came into office, you spoke very eloquently of the need for a time for healing and very early in your administration, you went out to chicago and announced, proposed a program of case by case pardons for draft resistors to restore them to full citizenship. some 14,000 young men took advantage of your offer, another 90s,000 did not. in granting the pardon to former president nixon, sir, part of your rationale was to put
watergate behind us, to, if i may quote you again, truly end our long national nightmare. why does not the same rationale apply now today in our bicentennial year to the young men who resisted in vietnam and many of them exiled abroad? >> the amnesty program that i recommend recommended in chicago in september of 1974 would give to all draft evaders and military deserters the opportunity to earn their good record back. about 14,000 to 15,000 did take advantage of that program. we gave them ample time. i'm against an across the board pardon of draft evaders or military deserters. now in the case of mr. nixon, the reason the pardon was given was that when i took office, this country was in a very, very
divided condition. there was hatred, divisiveness, people had lost faith in their government in many, many respects. mr. nixon resigned, and i became president. it seemed to me that if i was to adequately and effectively handle the problems of high inflation, a growing recession, the involvement of the united states still in vietnam that i had to give 100% of my time to those two major problems. mr. nixon resigned. that is disgrace. the first president out of 38 that ever resigned from public office under pressure. so when you look at the penalty that he paid and when you analyze the requirements i have to spend all of my time working on the economy, which was in
trouble, that i inherited, working on our problems in southeast asia which was still playinging uit seemed to me that mr. nixon had been penalized enough by his resignation in disgrace. and the need and necessity for me to concentrate on the problems of the country fully justified the actions that i took. >> i take it then, sir, that you do not believe that -- that you are going to reconsider and think about those 90,000 abroad. have they not been penalized enough? they've been there for years. >> mr. carter has indicated he would give a blanket pardon to all of draft evaders. i do not agree with that point of view. i gave in september of 1974 an opportunity for all draft evaders, all deserters to come in voluntarily, clear their records by earning an
opportunity to restore their good citizenship. we gave them a good opportunity. i don't think we should go any further. >> governor carter? >> i well, i think it's very difficult for president ford to explain the difference between the pardon of president nixon and his attitude toward those who violated the draft laws. as a mattered of fact, i don't advocate amnesty. i advocate pardon. there's a difference, in my opinion, and amnesty means that you -- what you did was right. pardon means what you did, whether it's right or wrong, you're forgiven for it. and i do advocate a pardon for draft evaders. i think it's accurate to say that in two years ago, when mr. ford put in this amnesty that
three times as many deserters were excused as were the ones who evaded the draft. now is the time to heal our country after the vietnam war. and i think that what the people are concerned about is not the pardon or the amnesty for those who evaded the draft but whether or not our crime system is fair. we have got a sharp distinction between white collar crimes, the big shots who are rich, who are influential, very seldom go to jail. those who are poor and those who have no influence. quite often the ones who are punished. and the whole subject of crime is one that concerns our people very much. and i believe the fairness of it is what is a major problem that addresses our leader. and this is something that hasn't been addressed adequately by this administration.
but i hope to have a complete responsibility on my shoulders to help bring about a fair criminal justice system and also to bring about an end to the divisiveness that's occurred in our country as a result of the vietnam war. >> mr. gannon? >> governor carter, you have promised a sweeping over haul of the federal government, including a reduction in the number of government agencies you say would go down to about 200 from some $1900. that sounds indeed like a very deep cut in the federal government. but isn't it a fact that you're not really talking about fewer federal employees or less government spending but rather that you are talking about reshaping the federal government, not making it smaller. >> well, i've been through this before as the governor of georgia. we had a bureaucratic mess like we have in washington now. and we had 300 agencies,
departments, bureaus, commissions, some fully budgeted, some not. but all having responsibility to carry out. we cut out 300 agencies and so forth down substantially. we eliminated 2878 of them. we set up a simple structure of government that could be admin stared fairly and it was a tremendous success. it hasn't been done since i was there. also the ability to reshape our court system, education system, our mental health programs and a clear sign of responsibility and authority and also to have our people once again understand and control our government. i incontinued to do the same thing if i'm elected president. when i came to washington coming in as an outsider, one of the major responsibilities that i'll have on my shoulder is a complete reorganization of the executive branch of government. we now have a greatly expanded
white house staff. we had $300 million spent on the white house and staff. that's escalated now to $60.5 million. we also need a great reduction in agencies and programs. we now have in the health area, 302 different programs administered by 11 departments. 60 advisory commissions responsible for this. medicaid is in one agency. medicare in another. quality of health care is in another. none of them are responsible for health care itself. this makes it almost impossible to have a good health program. we have just advocated this past week a consalidation of the responsibilities for energy. our country now has no comprehensive energy program or policy. we have 20 different agencies in the federal government responsible for the production,
the regulation, the information about energy, the conservation of energy, spread all over government. this is a gross waste of money. giving us a simple, efficient, purposeful and manageable government would be a great step forward. and if i'm elected, and i intend to be, then it's going to be done. >> i like to press my question on the number of federal employees, whether you'd plan to reduce the overall number or merely put them in different departments and relabel them. in your energy plan, you consolidate a number of agencies in one, or you would, but does that really change the overall. >> i can't say we'd have fewer federal employees. it took over three years to complete the reorganization in
georgia government. the last year i was in office, our budget was actually less than it was a year before, which showed a great improvement. also a 2% increase in the number of employees the last year. but it was a tremendous shift from administrative jobs into the delivery of services. for instance, we completely revised our prison system. established 84 new mental health treatment centers and shifted people ots of administrate of jobs into the field to deliver better services. the same thing will be done at the federal government level. i have accomplished this with substantial reductions in employees in some departments, for instance in the transportation department, we cut back about 25% the total number of employees and giving our people better health care. but the efficiency of it, the simplicity of it, the ability of people to understand their own government and control it wua substantial benefit from
complete reorganization. we have got to do this at the federal government level. if we don't, the bureaucratic mess is going to continue. there's no way for our people now to understand what their government is. there's no way to get the answer to a question. when you come to washington to try to, as a governor, and try to begin a new program for your people like the treatment of drug addicts, i found over 13 different federal agencies that i had to go to to manage the drug treatment program. and the georgia government, we only had one agency responsible. this is the kind of change that would be made. and it would be a tremendous benefit in long range planning and tight budget iing, sthafg taxpayers money, cutting back on bureaucratic waste, the authority and responsibility of employees and giving them a better opportunity tond and control the government. >> i think the record should show, mr. newman, that the
bureau of sencensus, we checked just yesterday, indicates that in the four years that governor carter was governor of the state of georgia, expenditures by the government went up over 50%. employees of the government of georgia during his term went up over 25%, and the figures also show that the bonded indebtedness of the state of georgia during his governorship went up over 20%. and there was some very interesting testimony given by governor carter's successor, governor busby, before a senate committee, a few months ago. how he found the medicaid program when he came into office following governor carter. he testified, he says he found the medicaid program in georgia in shambles. now let me talk about what we've
done in the white house as far as federal employees are concerned. the first order that i issued after i became president was to cut or eliminate the prospective 40,000 increase in federal employees that had been scheduled by my pred setter. and in the term that i've been president, some two years, we have reduced federal employment by 11,000. in the white house staff itself, when i became president, we had roughly 540 employees. we now have about 485 employees. so we made a rather significant reduction in the staff. our record of cutting back employees, plus the failure on the part of the governor's program to actually save
unemployment in georgia shows which is the better plan. >> mrs. drew? >> mr. president, after the republican convention, you announced you'd emphasize five new areas. among those were jobs and housing and health, improved recreational facilities for americans and you also added crime. you also mentioned education. for two years you've been telling us we couldn't do much in these areas because we couldn't afford it and we have a $50 billion deficit now. in rebuttal to governor carter a little earlier, you said if there were to be any surplus in the next few years, you thought it should be turned back to the people in the form of tax relief. how are you going to pay for any new initiatives in these areas you announced at vail you were going to now stress? >> well, in the last two years, as i indicated before, we had a very tough time. we were faced with heavy inflation. over 12%. we were faced with substantial
unemployment. but in the last 24 months, we've turned the economy around, and we've brought inflation down to under 6%, and we reduced the -- well, we've added employment of about 4 million in the last 17 months to the point where we have 88 million people working in america today, the most in the history of the country. the net result is we are going to have some improvement in our receipts, and i think we'll have some decrease in our disbursements. we expect to have a lower deficit in fiscal 1978. we feel that with this improvement in the economy, we feel with more receipts and fewer disbursements, we can, in a moderate way, increase, as i recommended, over the next ten years, a new parks program that
would cost $1.5 billion, doubling our national parks system. we have recommended that in the housing program we can reduce down payments and moderate monthly payments but that doesn't cost anymore as far as the federal treasury is concerned. we believe that we can do a better job in the area of crime but that requires a tougher sentencing, mandatory certain prison sentences for those who violate our criminal laws. we believe that you can revise the federal criminal code which has not been revised in a good many years. that doesn't cost any more money. we believe that you can do something more effectively with a moderate increase in money in the drug abuse program. we feel in education we can have
a slight increase, not a major increase. it's my understanding that governor carter has indicated that he approved of a $30 billion expenditure by the federal government as far as education is concerned. at the present time, we're spending roughly 3,500,000, 000. we feel that as we move forward with a healthier economy, we can absorb this small necessary cost that will be required. >> sir, in the next few years, would you try to reduce the deficit? would you spend money for these programs that you have just outlined, or would you, as you said earlier, return whatever surplus you got to the people in the form of tax relief?
>> we feel with the programs i have recommended, the additional $10 billion tax cut with the moderate increases in the quality of life area, we can still have a balanced budget which i will submit to the congress in january of 1978. we won't wait one or two years longer, as governor carter indicates. as the economy improves, and it is improving. our gross national product this year will average about 6% increase over last year. we will have a lower rate of inflation for the calendar year of this year, slightly under 6%. employment will be up. revenues will be up. we'll keep the lid on some of these programs that we can hold out as we have a little extra money to spend for those quality
of life programs which i think are needed and necessary. now i cannot and would not endorse the kind of programs that's governor carter recommends. he endorses the democratic platform which as i read it calls for approximately 60 additional programs. we estimate that would add $100 billion minimum and probably $200 billion maximum each year to the federal budget. those programs you cannot afford and give tax relief. we feel you can hold the line and restrain federal spending, give a tax reduction and still have a balanced budget by 1978. >> governor carter? >> in the last three months before an election, they're
always for the programs they fight the last 3 1/2 years. i remember when herbert hoover was against jobs for people and against social security, and later president nixon 16 years ago was telling the public that john kennedy's proposals would bankrupt the economy and double the cost. the best thing to do is look at the record plaintiff fordof mr. administration and mr. nixon's before that. we had the largest deficit in the history of of our country. more deficit spending than in the entire eight-year period under president johnson and president kennedy. we have 500,000 more americans out of jobs today than were out of work three months ago. since mr. ford has been in office in two years, we've had a 50% increase in unemployment from 5 million people out of work to 2.5 million more people out of work. a total of $7.5 million. we've also got a comparison
between himself and mr. nixon. he's got four times the size of the deficits that mr. nixon even had himself. this -- talking about more people at work, it's distorted because with a 14% increase in the cost of living in the last two years, it means women and young people have had to go to work when they didn't want to because their fathers couldn't make enough to pay the increased cost of food and housing and clothing. we have in this last two years alone, $120 billion total deficits under president ford and at the same time, in the last eight years, a doubling in the number of bankruptcies for small business. a negative growth in our national economy measured in real dollars. the take-home pay of a worker in this country is actually less than it was in 1968 measured in real dollars. this is the kind of record that's there that talks about
the future and drastic change or conversion on the part of mr. ford. it just doesn't go. >> mr. reynolds? >> governor carter, i'd like to turn to what we used to call the energy crisis yesterday a british commission, one headed by a nuclear physicist warned any record expansion of niclear energy be delayed in britain as long as possible. now this is a subject that is quite controversial among our own people, and there seems to be a clear difference between you and the president on the use of nuclear power plants, which you say you'd use as a last priority. why, sir? are they unsafe? >> well, in my experiences in the past, i'm not a nuclear engineer. i think i know that the capabilities and limitations -- but the energy policy of our nation is not one that's been established under this
administration. i think almost every other developed nation in the world has been energy policy except for us. we have seen the federal energy agency established and the crisis of 1973, supposed to be a temporary agency. now it's permanent. it's enormous. it's growing every day. "the wall street journal" reported they have 112 public relations experts working for the federal energy agency to try to justify to the american people its own existence. we've got to have a firm way to handle the energy question. the reorganization proposal i put forward is one first step. in addition to that, we need a realization that's we've got about 35 years of oil left in the world. we're going to run out of oil. mr. nixon made his famous speech on operation independence. importing about 35% of our oil. we've increased that amount 25%. we import about 44% of our oil. we need to shift from oil to coal and concentrate our effort
on coal burning and extraction that's safe for miners that also is clean burning. we need to shift toward solar energy and have strict conservation measures. and as a last resort only, continue to use -- i would certain nly not cut out atomic power completely but until the time we continue to use atomic power, i would be responsible as president to make sure safety precautions were initiated and maintained. for instance, some that have been forgotten. we need the reactor coil below ground level. the entire power plant that uses atomic power, tighten the seal. there ought to be a standardized design. there ought to be a full-time atomic energy specialist independent of a power company in the control room full time to shut down the plant if an abnormality develops. these kinds of procedures along with evacuation procedures,
adequate insurance ought to be initiated. so shift from oil to coil. emphasize research and development on coal use and also on solar power, strict conservation measures, not yield every time the special interest put pressure on the administration and use atomic energy only as a last resort. that's the best overall policy in the brief time we have for discussion. >> would you require mandatory conservation efforts to try to conserve fuel? >> yes, i would. some of the things that can be done is a change in the rate structure of power companies. we now encourage people to waste electricity. and by giving the lowest rates to the biggest users, we don't do anything to cut down on peak load requirements or the insulation for homes, for the efficiency of automobiles and whenever the automobile manufacturers come frorward and
say they can't meet the limits congress has put forward. this administration has delay e implementation dates. we ought to have a shift of use of coal, particularly in the appalachian regions where the coal is located. a lot of very high quality low carbon coal, low sulphur coal. it's where our employment is needed. this would help a great deal. so mandatory conservation measures, yes. encouragement by the president for people to voluntarily conserve, yes. and also the private sector ought to be encouraged to bring forward to the public the benefits from efficiency. one bank gives lower interest loans for people who adequately insulate their homes and buy efficient automobiles. and some major manufacturing companies like dow chemical have through very effective
efficiency mechanisms cut down the use of energy by as much as 40% with the same outproduct. these kind of things ought to be done. they ought to be encouraged and january of 1975 i submitted to the congress and to the american people a first comprehensive energy program recommended by any president. it calls for an increase in the production of energy in the united states. it called for conservation measures so that we would save the energy that we have. if you are going to increase domestic oil and gas production, and we have to, you have to give to sthoez producers to develop their land or their well.
i recommended to the congress that we should increase coal production in this country from 600 million tons a year to 1,200,000 tons. in order to do that, we have to improve our extraction of coal from the ground. we have to improve our utilization of coal, make it more efficient, make it cleaner. in addition, we have to expand our research and development. energy research from about $84 million a year to about $120 million a year. we're going as fast as the experts say we should. in nuclear power we have increased the research and development under the energy research and development agency very substantially to insure
that our nuclear power plants are safer, that they are more efficient, and that we have adequate safeguards. i think you have to have greater oil and gas production, more coal production, more nuclear production, and in addition, have you to have energy conservation. >> mr. gannon. >> mr. president, i would like to return for a moment to this problem of unemployment. you have vetoed or threatened to veto a number of jobs bills passed or in development in the democratic congress, democratic controlled congress. yet, at the same time the government is paying out, i think it is $17 billion, perhaps $20 billion a year in unemployment compensation caused by the high unemployment, why do you think it is better to pay out unemployment compensation to idle people than to put them to work in public service jobs? >> the bills that i have vetoed,
the one for an additional $6 billion, was not a bill that would have solved our unemployment problems. even the proponents of it admitted that no more than 400,000 zwrobz would be made available. our analysis indicates something in the magnitude of about 150,000 to 200,000 jobs would be made available. each one of those jobs would have cost the taxpayer $25,000. in addition, the jobs would not be available right now. they would not have materialized for about nine to 18 months. the immediate problem we have is to stimulate our economy now so that we can get rid of unemployment. what we have done is to hold the lid on spending in an effort to reduce the rate of inflation,
and we have proven, i think very conclusively, that you can reduce the rate of inflation and increase jobs. 23r56r78, as i have said, we have added some four million jobs in the last 17 months. we have now employed 88 million people in america. the largest number in the history of the united states. we've added 500,000 jobs in the last two months. inflation is the quickest way to destroy jobs, and by holding a lid on federal spending we have been able to do -- a good job, an affirmative job in inflation and as a result have added to the jobs in this country. i think it's appropriate to
point out that in our tax policy we have stimulated, added employment throughout the country, the tax sneincentives modernization for our industrial capacity. it's my opinion that the private sector where five out of the six jobs are where you have permanent jobs with an opportunity for advancement is a better place that make work jobs under the program recommended by the congress. >> just to follow-up, mr. president. the congress has just passed a $3.7 billion appropriations bill, which would provide money for the public works jobs program that you earlier tried to kill by your veto of the authorization legislation. i wonder if you have rethought that question at all, whether you would consider allowing this program to be funded or will you veto that money bill? >> well, that bill has not yet
come down to the oval office, so i am not in a position to make any judgment on it tonight. that is an extra $4 billion that would add to the deficit, which would add to the inflationary pressures, which would help to destroy jobs in the private sector. not make jobs where the jobs really are. these make work temporary jobs, dead end as they are, not the kind of jobs that we want for our people. i think it's interesting to point out that in the two years that i have been president, i have vetoed 56 bills. congress has sustained 42 vetoes. as a result, we have saved over $9 billion in federal expenditures. the congress by overriding the bills that i did veto, the
congress has added some $13 billion to the federal expenditures and to the federal deficit. now, governor carter complains about the deficit. that this administration has had, and, yet, he condemns the vetoes that i have made that have saved the taxpayer $9 billion it could have saved an additional $13 billion. now, he can't have it both ways. therefore, it seems to me that we should hold the lid as we have to the best of our ability so we can stimulate the private economy and get the job where the jobs are. five out of six in this economy. >> governor carter. >> well, mr. ford doesn't seem to put it in perspective. in fact, with the 500,000 more people out of work than there were three months ago. we have 2.5 million more people
out of work than when he took office. this touches human beings. i was in a city in pennsylvania not too long ago, and they're here, and there were about 4,000 or 5,000 people in the audience from a train trip. i said how many adults here are out of work? about 1,000 raised their hands. mr. ford, there are fewer people now in non-farm jobs than when he took office. still, he talks about a success. 7.9% unemployment is a terrible tragedy in this country. he says he has learned how to match unemployment with inflation. that's right. we've got the highest inflation we've had in 25 years right now except under this administration, and that was 50 years ago. we've got the highest unemployment we've had under mr. ford's administration since the great depression. this affects human beings, and
his insensitivity in providing those people a chance to work has made this a welfare administration and not a work administration. >> the cost in unemployment compensation has increased $23 billion in the last two years. this is a typical attitude that really causes havoc in people's lives, and then it's covered over by saying that our country has naturally got a 6% unemployment rate or 7% unemployment rate and 6% inflation. it's a traversy. it shows a lack of leadership. we've never had a president veto more bills. mr. ford has vetoed four times as many bills as mr. nixon per year, and 11 of them have been overridden. one of his bills that was overridden he only got one vote in the senate and seven votes in the house from republicans. this shows a breakdown in leadership. >> under the rules i must stop
you. >> governor carter, i would like to come back to the subject of taxes. you have said that you want to cut taxes for the middle and lower income groups. >> right. >> but unless you're willing to do such things as reduce the itemized deductions for charitable contributions or home mortgage payments or interest or tacks or capital gains, you can't really raise sufficient revenue to provide an overall tax cut of any size. how are you going to provide the tax relief that you are talking about? >> now we have such a grossly unbalanced tax system. as i said earlier, it is a disgrace. of all the tax benefits now, 25% of them go to the 1 % of the richest people in this country. over 50%, 53% to be exact, go to the 14% richest people in this country. we've had a 50% increase in payroll deductions since
mr. nixon went in office eight years ago. mr. ford has advocated since he has been in office, over $5 billion in deductions for korpgs, special interest grunz, and the very, very wealthy to derive their income, not from labor, but from investments. that's got to be changed. a few things that can be done. we have now a deferral system so that the multi-national corporations who invest overseas if they make $1 million in profits overseas, they don't have to pay any of their taxes unless they bring their money back into this country. they don't pay their taxes, and the average american pays the taxes for them. not only that, but it robs this country of jobs because instead of coming back with that million dollars and building a shoe factory, say in new hampshire or vermont, if the company takes their money out and builds a shoe company, they don't have to pay any taxes on the money. another system is called dis, it was originally proposed by mr. nixon to encourage exports.
this permits a company to create a dummy corporation to export their products and then not pay the full amount of taxes on them. this costs our government about $1.4 billion a year, and when those rich corporations don't pay their tax, the average american taxpayer pays it for them. another one that's very important is a business deduction. jet airplanes. first class travel. the $50 marini lunch. the average working person can't take advantage of that, but the wealthier people can. another system is where a dentist can invest money in, say, raising cattle and can put in $100,000 of his own money,
b borrow, $1,000, and knock off a greater amount of loss through that procedure. there was one example where someone produced pornographic movies. they put in $30,000 of their own money and got $120,000 in tax savings. well, these special kinds of programs have robbed the average taxpayer and have benefitted those that are powerful, and who can employ lobbyist asks have the cpa's and lawyers to help them benefit from the roughly 8,000 pages of the tax code. the average american can't do it. you can't hire a lobbyist out of unemployment compensation checks. >> governor, to follow-up on your answer, in order for any kind of tax relief to really be felt by the middle and lower income people, you need about, according to congressional committees on this, you need about $10 billion. now, you listed some things. the deferral on the foreign income is estimated would save about $500 million.
you said was $1.4 billion. the estimate of the outside, if you eliminated all tax shelters is $5 billion. where else would you raise the revenue to provide this tax relief? would you, in fact, do away with all business deductions, and what other kinds of preferences would you do away with? >> i wouldn't do away with all business deductions. i think that would be a very serious mistake. if you kwoo just do away with the ones that are unfair, you could lower taxes for everyone. i would never do anything that would increase the taxes for those who work for a living or who are presently required to list all their income. what i want to do is not raise taxes, but to eliminate loopholes, and this is the point of my first statistic that i gave you that the present tax benefits that have been carved out over a long period of years, 50 years by sharp tax lawyers and by lobbyists, have benefitted just the rich. these programs that i described
to you earlier, the tax deferrals for overseas, the dis, and the tax shelters, they only apply to people in the $50,000 a year bracket or up. i think this is the best way to approach it is to make sure that everybody pays taxes on the income that they earn and make sure that you take whatever savings there is from the higher income levels and give it to the lower and middle income families. >> president ford. >> governor carter's answer tonight does not coincide with the answer that he gave in an interview to the associated press a week or so ago. in that interview governor carter indicated that he would raise the taxes on those in the medium or middle income brackets or higher. how do you take the medium or middle income taxpayer that's about $14,000 per person. governor carter has indicated
publically in an interview that he would increase the taxes on about 50% of the working people of this country. i think the way to get tax equity in this country is to give tax relief to the middle income people who have an income from roughly $8,000 up to $25,000 to $30,000. they have been short changed as we have taken ten million taxpayers off the tax rolls, and as we have added to the minimum tax provision to make all people pay more taxes. i believe in tax equity for the middle income taxpayer, increasing the personal exemption. mr. carter wants to increase tacks for roughly half of the taxpayers of this country. now, the governor has also played a little fast and loose with the facts about vetoes. the records show that president
roosevelt vetoed on an average of 55 bills a year. president truman vetoed on the average while he was president about 38 bills a year. i understand that governor carter when he was governor of georgia vetoed between 35 and 40 bills a year. my average in two years is 26, but in the process of that we have saved $9 billion. one final comment governor carter talks about. the tax bills and all of the inequities that exist in the present law. i must remind him the democrats have controlled the congress for the last 22 years, and they wrote all the tax bills. >> mr. reynolds. >> i suspect that we could continue on this tax argument for some time, but i would like to move on to another area. mr. president, everybody seems to be running against washington this year, and i would like to
raise two coincidental events and ask you whether you think perhaps this may have a bearing on the attitude throughout the country. the house ethics committee has just now ended its investigation of daniel shore. after several months and many thousands of dollars trying to find out how he obtained and caused to be published a report of the congress that probably is the property of the american people. at the same time, the senate select committee on standards and conduct has voted not really to begin an investigation of the united states senator because of allegations against him that he may have been receiving corporate funds illegally over a period of years. do you suppose, sir, that events like this contribute to the feeling in the country that maybe there's something wrong in washington? i don't mean just in the executive branch, but throughout the whole government. >> there is a considerable anti-washington feeling throughout the country, but i think the feeling is misplaced.
in the last two years we have restored integrity in the kbhous, and we have set high standards in the executive branch of the government. the anti-washington feeling in my opinion ought to be focused on the congress of the united states. for example, says this congress very shortly will spend $1 billion a year for its housekeeping, its salaries, its expenses, and the like. the next congress will probably be the first billion dollar congress in the history of the united states. i don't think the american people are getting their money's worth from the jord party that run this congress. we, in addition, see that in the last four years the number of employees hired by the congress has gone up substantially. much more than the gross
national product, much more than any other increase throughout our society. congress is hiring people by the droves, and the cost, as a result, has gone up. i don't see any improvement in the performance of the congress under the present leadership. so it seems to me instead of the anti-washington feeling being aimed at everybody in washington, it seems to me that the focus should be where the problem is, which is the congress of the united states and particularly the majority in the congress. they spend too much money on themselves. they have too many employees. there's some question about their morality. it seems to me that in this election the focus should not be on the executive branch, but the correction should come as the voters vote for their members of the house of representatives or for their united states senator.
that's where the problem is, and i hope there will be some corrective action taken. we can get some new leadership in the congress of the united states. >> mr. president, if i may follow-up, i think you have made it plain that you take a dim view of the majority in the congress. isn't it quite linikely, sir, tt you will have a democratic congress in the next session if you are elected president and hasn't the country a right to ask whether you can get along with that congress or whether we'll have continued confrontation? >> well, it seems to me that we have a chance, the republicans, to get a majority in the house of representatives. we will make some gains in the united states senate, so there will be different ratios in the house as well as in the senate, and as president, i will be able to work with that congress. let me take the other side of the coin, if i might. suppose we had a democratic congress for the last fwo years
and we had governor carter as president. he has, in effect, said that he would agree. >> i think it would be contrary to you one of the basic concepts in our system of government, a system of checks and balances. we have a democratic congress today and, fortunately, we've had a republican president to check their excesses with my vetoes. if we have a democratic congress next year and a president who wants to spend an additional $100 billion a year or maybe $200 billion a year with more programs, we will have in my judgment greater deficits with more spending, more dangers of inflation.
i think the american people want a republican president to check on any excesses that come out of the next congress if it is a democratic congress. >> governor carter. >> well, it's not a matter of republican or democrat. it's a matter of leadership. president eisenhower worked with the democratic congress very well. even president nixon because he was a strong leader at least work with the democratic congress very well. mr. ford has vetoed four times as many bills per year as mr. nixon. mr. ford quite often puts forward a program just as a public relations stunt and never trust to put it through the congress by working with the congress. i think under president nixon and eisenhower, they passed about 60% to 75% of their legislation. this year mr. ford will not pass more than 26% of all the legislative proposals he puts forward. this is government by stalemate, and we've seen almost a complete breakdown in the proper relationship between the
president who represents this country and the congress who collectively also represent this country. we've had republican presidents before who have tried to run against a democratic congress. i don't think it's the congress that's mr. ford's opponent, but if he insists that i be responsible for the democratic congress of which i'm -- i have not been a part, then i think it's only fair that he be responsible for the nixon administration in its entirety of which he was a part. that, i think, is a good balance, but the point is that a president ought to lead this country. mr. ford, so far as i know, has not accomplished one single major program for this country. there's been constant squabbling between the president and the congress and that's not the way this country ought to be run.
>> an a.p. news story that was in error to begin with. the story reported several times that i would lower taxes for lower middle income families, and that correction was delivered to the white house, and i'm sure that the president knows about this correction, but he still insists on repeating an erroneous statement. >> president ford, governor carter, we no longer have enough time for two complete sequences of questions. we have only about six minutes left for questions and answers. for that reason we will drop the follow-up questions at this point, but each candidate will still be able to respond to the other's answers. to the extent that you can, gentlemen, please keep your remarks brief. mr. gannon. >> governor carter, one important part of the government's economic policy apparatus that we haven't talked about is the federal reserve board. i would like to ask you something about what you said, and that is that you believe that a president ought to have a chairman of the federal reserve
board whose views are compatible with his own. it's based on the record of the last few years. would you say that your views are compatible with those of the chairman, and if not, would you seek his resignation if you are elected? >> well, what i have said is the president ought to have a chance to report to the chairman of the federal reserve board to have -- both of them serve the same four years. the congress can modify the supply of money by modifying the income tax laws. the president can modify the economic structure of our country by public statements and general attitudes in the budget. the federal reserve has an independent status that ought to be preserved. i think mr. burns did take a typical erroneous republican attitude in the 1973 year when inflation was so -- because of excessive demand and, therefore, put into effect tight constraint, very high interest rates, which is typical also of
the republican administration, tried to increase the tax payments by individuals, cut the tax payments by corporations. i would have done the opposite. i thought it should have been addressed by increasing productivity by having put people back to work so they could purchase more goods, lower income taxes on individuals, perhaps raise those if necessary on corporations in comparison. mr. burns, in that respect made a very serious mistake. i would not want to destroy the independence of the federal reserve board. i do think we ought to have a cohesive economic policy with at least a chairman of the federal reserve board and the president's terms being the same and congress, of course, being the third entity that was independe independent. >> the chairman of the federal reserve board should be independent. fortunately, he has been during democratic as well as republican
administrations. as a result in the last two years we have had a responsible monetary policy. the federal reserve board indicated that the supply of money would be held between 4 to 4.5 and 7 and 7.5. they have done a good job in integrating the money supply with the fiscal policy of the executive and legislative branches of the government. it would be catastrophic if the chairman of the federal reserve board became the tool of the political party that was in power. it's important for our future, economic security that that job be nonpolitical and separate from the executive and the legislative branches. >> mr. president, the real problem with the fbi, in fact all of the intelligence agencies, is there are no real
laws govern beiing them. such laws as there are tend to be vague and open-ended. we've learned that leaving these agencies to executive discretion and direction can get them and, in fact, the country in a great deal of trouble. one president may be a decent man. the next one may not be. what do you think about trying to write in some more protection by getting some laws governing these agencies? >> you are familiar, of course, with the fact that i am the first president in 30 years that has reorganized the federal agencies in the federal government. the cia, the defense intelligence agency, the national security agency, and the others. we've done that by executive order, and i think we've tightened it up. we've straightened out their problems that developed over the last few years. it doesn't seem to me that it's needed or necessary to have legislation in this particular
regard. i have recommended to the congress, however -- i'm sure you're familiar with this -- legislation that would make it very proper and in the right way that the attorney general could go in and get the right for wiretapping under security cases. this was an effort that was made by the attorney general and myself working with the congress, but even in this area where i think new legislation would be justified, the congress has not responded, so i feel in that case as well as in the reorganization of the intelligence agencies, as i have done, we have to do it by executive order, and i'm glad that we have a good director in george bush, we have a good executive order, and the cia and the dia and nasa are -- or the nsa are now doing a good job
under proper supervision. >> governor carter. >> well, one of the very serious things that's happened in our government in recent years and has continued up until now is a breakdown in the trust among our people and that -- >> the broadcasters in philadelphia have temporarily lost the audio. it's not a conspiracy against g carter or president ford, and they will fix it as soon as possible. this debate is now within about eight minutes of its close, and in spite of the fact that this was under the aus pis of the league of women voters, the pool
audio from philadelphia has been lost momentarily. we hope to have it back any minute. we don't know what's happened to it. again, the pool audio from the walnut street theater in philadelphia has been lost. we hope for the moment. we are needless to say, trying to restore it. do not know what has happened to it. both candidates have lost more or less equal number of their
words. i can't hear them either, so i don't know what it is we're not hearing. i think they have stopped because they have been told the sound has been lost. i think they've stopped talking. whatever happened, we hope to have it fixed shortly. i wish i could tell you more about it, but that's all i know. i might say a word here that i had planned to say later when the debate was over, and, in fact, probably will say it again when the debate is over, and it is that at 11:30 eastern time, which is to say two and a half hours from now, we will be back here with a special program in
which we will ask people in the audience in the theater in philadelphia as they leave, ask others in the area and whoever we can find whose views might be interesting what they think about the debate, who they think won if they care to put it that way, who they think scored the most points. john chancellor and other members of our news staff are in philadelphia and will be ready with this. as i say, that's at 11:30 eastern time. we'll be back with that. whatever happens to the advisero from the theater at this time, and, again, i don't know what's happened except that we're not getting it. nobody is getting it. it's the same everywhere. you need not change the channels looking for it. it's the same on all of them.
it's still out, right? doug kieker is outside the lobby just outside of the hall. doug, you can't tell us what has happened there, can you? >> david, we don't know what's happened. we are as surprised as you are. they were talking, and suddenly we quit. we all jumped up out here too. this was a pool arrangement. one network responsible, so all we are doing is standing by just the way you are. we expect the debates to go on, of course, immediately that audio is assumed, but what the problem is, how long it's going to take to fix it, whether the debate will have to be canceled or not, we just don't know. we're isolated in the corridor here, and the problem is even in the theater the problem is, as you know, in the technical trucks undoubtedly outside the auditorium. it's a technical problem. as someone says, it is not a
conspiracy, but how long it's going to take to fix it, we don't know. >> you don't have a screwdriver and a pair of pliers, do you? >> no, i do not. >> if i can make a few comments while we're waiting, we have seen a very lively debate. it seems to me so far -- it seems to me that both candidates are pretty much saying the same thing, that they have been saying in the early parts of these campaigns. playing pretty much the same charges. they are tougher. sometimes even rough tonight. both hoef their facts to back up their arguments. you, governor carter intended to come here to convince the american public that he really didn't know the facts and had the knowledge. president ford, of course, is fact-filled from the knowledge of his office.
>> the improved economy is proof of his wisdom. he did this very forcefully. mr. carter came back, disputed this, and in buft tough, tough segments, charged the president ford is insensitive to the plight of the unemployed. do we audio back now? >> we still do not have audio back. both candidates are waiting. they've been told they are on the air with a picture, but they are off the air with their voices. >> president ford announced tonight he will sign that new tax bill, all 1,500 pages of it.
>> mr. carter said he would install the federal programs. it would come down between a choice of those programs being ino vated or balancing the budget, and he would choose in favor of balancing the budget. he said any surplus from the federal spending should go directly right back to tax relief. zplool mr. ford has got into the democratic platform. he said if all the proposals in the democratic platform were adopted, it would create 60 new programs, which he said would cost $100 billion to $200 billion more. proposed by the democrats 16 years ago bh john f. kennedy was the nominee. the two men discussed draft
evaders and what the programs there should be. mr. ford said that he does not believe in any across the board pardons. he said he believed that the amnesty program which he put forth was adequate, and he would not change it, and mr. carter said that he would still grant pardon, and he insisted that there is a difference between pardon and amnesty. the two men talked about government reorganization at some length, and jimmy carter, as he has to often done this whole election year, promised forcefully that he would completed reorganize the federal government if he is elected and waste no time about it. president ford -- >> he has looked into the facts and figures, and the fact is that governor carter increased the georgia budget and also increased the number of state employees while he was there. he also said that the president of georgia, president busby, found that the medicaid program was in it governor busby's words
a sham bell. >> jimmy carter said other republican presidents have found it feasible and possible to work with democratic congresss. he pointed out that president eisenhower had done this, and he said that richard nixon, he said for all of his faults, i can't remember the exact words, was a strong leader and manage every managed to work with a democratic congress and imposed far fewer vetoes than president ford had imposed. then he got very tough momentarily with president ford. he said i'm not a member of congress. he said the democratic congress is not under my control, and so he said if you want to blame me for that, you can blame me for -- i will blame you for watergate also. we have here just stepped out ronald nessen, the presidential press secretary. he is talking now.
what's going on in there? >> i don't know any more about it than you do, doug. i guess they were down to the last few minutes, and the sound suddenly cut out. i don't know what the explanation is. >> so what happens now? will the debates continue? >> i don't know. we were listening upstairs on the monitor, and ed newman wasn't quite clear what was going to happen either. >> you have no contingency plan, obviously, for such a thing to happen. >> i think you're supposed to be the one with a contingency plan. we don't know what happened, and i guess the president will wait and let those putting on the debates decide what to do. >> well, you're sitting in there with some members of the president's administration, the secretary of transportation coleman, ambassador to the united nations skranton, you yourself, his speechwriter. what's your impression? how do you think your guy is doing so far? >> well, we think -- we had a little time to talk after the sound went off, and we sort of polled each other, and everybody wam to the same conclusion, and that it was a clear cut victory for the president. >> i don't think anybody would
be surprised to hear you being partisan in your saying that. is this debate tougher in your opinion than you thought it would be? some pretty tough exchanges it seems to us. >> i thought the president came across, though -- i agree the questions were tough and the reporters were well prepared and had done a lot of research, but i think the president came across to us watching, anyhow, as being in command of the situation, in control. it seemed to me he had the opportunity through the tough questions to demonstrate experience, his background, his knowledge, and his ability. >> the same thing could be said for governor carter. at least he was spouting a lot of facts and figures. we haven't had all of these debates yet, mr. nessen. at least not the kmeegs of this one. how much time did we get cut out of? 12, 15 minutes? do you think that some provision could be made for the skrug public to hear what's over, what was left out? >> well, the president said from the very beginning, doug, and the reason that he wanted to do the debates in the first place and the reason he wanted them to
be done at great length, 90 minutes at a minimum, was because he felt the time was needed to explore issues in depth, says and i think they were explored in depth tonight. >> thank you very much. this is press secretary ronald nelson. over to the left is a man who i think we'll say that he thinks that jimmy carter was as clear a winner as mr. nessen thinks mr. ford was, and that is the democratic party chairman robert strauss who is already talking. let's listen in to what he is saying. >> i think it was a good night for the american people. great night for jimmy carter. zplee looked responsive, and they handled the questions well. i think governor carter clearly
demonstrated what he wanted to demonstrate. an ability to deal with issues facing this country. >> thank you very much. >> do you think jimmy carter won this debate? >> i think the american public won. they got a chance it see this debate and see these two men. i also think they both handled their questions well. i think governor carter -- >> i understand we are back with the debate. robert strauss. now let's go back to the auditorium. >> thank you for your kind words. thank you for your kind words. >> i think i have an anti-nbc -- >> well, we thought we had it, but we don't. we still don't know what's wrong or where. we hope we would have it back by now, but we don't. nor do i know if they will continue the debates long enough to make up for the lost time.
this will be -- we will all learn whatever we learn together. i don't know anything. the president and mr. carter -- president, mr. carter are waiting while whatever is wrong, wherever it is. it is not in our audio, as you have heard from doug kieker just outside the theater. it's in the sound coming from the rest room there, and we don't know what the problem is. they're waiting. >> we're getting a lot of miscellaneous conversation from various places in the hall, but not the conversation we went
there to listen to, which was the president and mr. carter, of course. >> it was a pretty lively debate. there were a few blows on one another, though i don't think anyone was permanently disabled. politically speaking. much of the argument was about what new programs might be put into effect in the federal establishment in the next term, presidential term, four years. what they will cost and how they're going to be paid for. who is going to do the tax paying in the next four years, whether the rich are going to pay it all, the middle class is going to pay it all, or if not them, who? it is i must say without offering any opinion about
winners and losers, i must say that question was not fully answered. perhaps some of the audience might be left unsatisfied on that score. on the one question that was dealt with very firmly and decisively and clearly was that of evaders and desserters, draft evaders and military deserters. mr. ford thought the government should not go any further than it has already gone in his administration. whereas carter thinks it should. his point was that if nixon could be pardoned, then why not the evaders. ford said he gave them a chance to work their way back into endo-american society. some accepted. some didn't. doug kieker is outside the theater, and can still be heard from. though the participants inside cannot. doug. >> yes, david. we are here with jim bakker, who
is president ford's national campaign manager. mr. baker, let me ask you this. did things go fraet e pretty well according to game plan tonight? tell us how the president prepared for this? how hard did he study? was he nervous when he went up there? i would be. talking to 120 million people or however many. >> i last talked to the president last night. he was not nervous at all. he was quite relaxed. he was self-assured. from looking at him when he first went on stage, it would be my judgment that he was quite relaxed and quite confident and quite self-assured. >> any surprises tonight? >> no surprises, no. i think the president did an excellent job. i think he was in command. he was decisive, and more than anything else, doug, i think he answered the questions. he was specific. >> tell us about the preparation. did president ford sit back and have people bounce questions to him in sort of a gam plan way? >> there was some of that, yes, but he studied. he worked hard. he worked on his preparation, and he was well prepared.
sure, there was some of that. >> in the preparation, did -- were the questions that you tried to brainstorm, did any of them really come up? >> there were some that i think -- that i think we anticipated very well, yes. >> what do you think president ford -- jimmy carter, of course, is ahead of the polls, but what do you think president ford got out of agreeing to debate? in fact, he is -- jimmy carter wasn't all that well known. >> that's very true. jimmy carter was not all that well known, and his positions on the issues were even less well known, doug, and that's one of the major reasons wepd this debate, so governor carter would have to take some positions. >> we have a man over here, jody, and i'm going to come in with you. come over here. this is jimmy carter's press secretary jody powell, who is about to go on the air with cbs, but since we are here in this thing altogether, i'll ask you, how do you think your man did
tonight? >> i think the real winner tonight was the american people. a real good discussion. i thought governor carter was very impressive. he demonstrated a clear command of the issues, of the facts, of the specifics that were involved in the -- in the debate between president ford and the democratic congress, president ford won in the debate between the two presidential contenders. there's no doubt in my mind that there was a clear advantage all the way through in terms of dealing directly with the issues in question. >> he was pretty tough on president ford. he said that president ford was insensitive to the problems of the unkbltd. he said that president ford was going to blame him for the democratic congress, that he ought to be blamed for being part of watergate. >> i think you're misquoting there, and that sometimes happens. he said that if the unjust charge was made, that he was responsible for all the actions of the democratic congress, which he had never been a part
of, and perhaps it would be a bit of a tongue-in-cheek thing to ask president ford to accept responsibility for the previous administration. he did not at all say that it was part of watergate. >> how do you think these debates compared to 1960? do you think they were as interesting or as decisive. >> there is no way in the world that i could compare. >> would you give us a quick assessment of how your candidate did? >> i think he did well. he showed a tremendous command of the specifics, of the details of the federal government. i think he made his points directly to comparison between the republican rhetoric and their record in the white house came through very directly.
50i78 very happy. >> mr. poul, we've asked mr. -- he said he doesn't know what went on. do you know why the mikes went off. >> i don't, but i certainly would like to know. this, of course, took place right in the middle of governor carter's rebuttal. would i certainly like to know. i assume it was a technical problem that sometimes happens. >> i ask that because it's been my experience in a situation like this that there's always a theory held by a lot of people that, oh, there was conspiracy to cut him off. we have no proof of that. it was just simply a technical foul-up as far as we can determine, correct? >> not only do you have no proof, but nobody has brought up the subject, have they? >> not as far as i know. >> i think perhaps it shows that everybody makes mistakes every now and then. >> even the networks. >> that's right. >> let me ask you this. >> don't want to criticize the networks, of course. >> how much consultation did you have and other senior members of the carter staff have with jimmy carter in preparation for these debates? was he anxious about it? how much rest did he get tonight? was he nervous and apprehensive?
i know you're going to say he was cool as a cucumber. okay. tell us a little bit about what did. what did he do the hour before he came here? >> i don't know. he and the -- mrs. carter were together for four or five hours this afternoon. i didn't bother him. neither did anybody else so far as i know. he has had two or three days of rest. i suppose the best way to judge whether he was cool as eye cucumber tonight is by his performance tonight, and i thought he handled himself very well yol, as i would. he has primarily had time to himself. we haven't engaged in rehearsals and haven't done a lot of fancy gimmicks. we've given him time to do what he wished, primarily to study, read, reflect, and to think, and i think that paid off this evening. >> the play boy article, the illinois pool which shows ford
running ahead. a general feeling among the press that's covering jimmy carter that his campaign may be losing steam. >> fortunately for most campaigns, the election is held amongst the american people, not on the day to day opinions of the -- whatever they are, the press that happens to be covering the campaign. in those circumstances there's no way that you can shield yourself from any old chosen word here or there. we think that in the long run, the american people would rather have a candidate and a president who goes out and meets them and takes the hard knocks and the tough questions and answers then as responsibly and directly as you can even though he might make a mistake every now and then. is a. >> thank you very much. that's jody powell, press secretary for governor carter. now i think back to david brinkley. >> i gather the debate is over. is that right?
the league of women voters has decided not to go ahead with any more of the debate. it's now 11:15 in the east. it was scheduled to end 15 minutes ago. it actually ended more than a half hour hour because of some sound failure in the hall. we don't know what happened or why, and nor exactly where. as i have said, our sound from the lobby of the theater and the outside of the theater has been normal and still is. the problem is somewhere inside the hall or around the podium. that's all we know, which is not a great deal. again, the debate is over, and that's it. we have had some discussion of it. we've heard from some permanent democrats and some permanent republicans, each of whom thought his side won, and gave his reasons why. our plan is to return to the air in about a half hour for a somewhat more extensive.
we'll be back later, and in the meantime, catherine maccen is talking to mrs. carter. catherine. >> mrs. carter, we were just wondering, everybody has been following this sudden break-up in in the debate, and do you think this will have any effect at all on what's going on? do you think your husband will just ride with the waves there? >> i think if we could have done anything about it, we would keep it going because jimmy was doing so great. i think -- >> do you know -- do you have any idea at all what he is going to say in his summation? >> no, i don't. i've been campaigning all day. i have been in texas all day, and got in late. >> you think people are putting that in perspective. we haven't heard anything about it tonight and this afternoon a
and. >> it was such a complete distortion, and i think everybody in the country is going to read it because there's been so much publicity about it, and when they do, they will see that jimmy was talking about his christian religion to people that did not understand what christianity is, and it's a very good article if you read it. >> when you were speaking with mrs. johnson, did you iron things out with her what your husband said about president johnson? >> i had a very good visit with mrs. johnson. she met me when i flew into san antonio yesterday, and she received me at the library. >> thank you very much. mrs. jimmy carter. now back to david. >> well, says we are told the debate has ended, but, on the other hand, president ford and governor carter are still there on the stage waiting. all we know about the breakdown in the sound is it's somewhere between the microphones. you see clipped to their neck ties and the network truck outside the hall. beyond that i can't go because i don't know.
i don't think anyone knows at the moment. if anyone did, he would fix it. we don't know whether they -- i keep telling you what i don't know, which is a great deal. we don't know if they're going to continue the debate. if the debate and wait for the sound to be fixed. >> ed newman is saying something no doubt interesting, but i can't hear it. >> it durd 27 minutes ago. the fault has been dealt with, and we want to thank president ford and governor carter for being so patient and understanding while this delay went on. we very much regret the technical failure that lost the sound while he was leaving this. it seemed that during governor carter's response to what would have been and what was the last
question put to the candidates, that question went to president fo ford. governor carter was making his response, and had very nearly finished it. he will conclude that response now after which president ford and governor carter will make their closing statements. >> governor. >> there has been too much government secrecy and not enough respect for the personal privacy of american citizens. >> it is now time for the closing statements which are to be up to four minutes long. governor carter, by the same toss of the coin that directed the first question to you, you are to go first now. >> well, tonight we have had a chance to talk a lot about the past, but i think it's time to talk about the future. our nation in the last eight years has been divided as never
before. it's a time for unity. it's a time to draw ourselves together, says to have a president and a congress that can work together with mutual respect for change, cooperating this is not come patble with the purpose of our nation. it needs to be competent. the government needs to be well managed, efficient, economical. we need to have a government that's sensitive to our people's needs, those who don't have adequate health care, who have been cheated too long with our tax programs.
whose families have been torn apart. we need to restore the faith and trust of the american people in their own government. in addition to that, we've suffered because we haven't had leadership in this administration. we've got a government of stalemate. we've lost a vision of what our country can and ought to be. this is not the america that we've known in the past. it's not the america that we have to have in the future. i don't claim to know the answers but i've got confidence in our country. our economic strength is still there. our system of government is vietnam, cambodia, cia, water gate, is still the best government system on earth and greatest resource of all are 215 million americans we still have within us, the strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience patriotism, the idlism, the compassion, the sense of brotherhood.
of which we could rely on in the future to restore the greatness to our country. we need a president who can go in, who derives his strength from the people. the special interest, nothing. i owe everything to you, the people of this country. and we combined our wounds. i believe that we can work together and i believe that we can tap the tremendous untapped reservoir of innate strength in this country. we can once again have a government as good as our people and let the world know what we still know and hope for, that we still live in the greatest and the strongest and the best country on earth.
>> on november 2nd, all of you will make a very important decision. part of the major issues in this campaign is trust. a president should never promise more than he can deliver and a president should always deliver everything that he's promised. a president can't be all things to all people, a president should be the same thing to all people. it's another issue in this campaign, governor carter has endorsed the democratic platform, which calls for more spending, bigger deficits, more inflation, or more taxes. governor carter has embraced the record of the present congress nominated by his political party. it calls for more of the same.
gorn minor carter and his acceptance speech called for more and more programs, which means more and more government. i think the real issue in this campaign and that what you must decide on november second is whether you should vote for his promises or my performance in two years in the white house. i'm the fourth -- on the fourth of july we had a wonderful, 2 hundredth birthday for our great country. it was a superb occasion. it was a glorious day. in the first century of our nation's history, our forefathers gave us the finest form of government in the history of man kind. in the second century of our nation's history, our fore fasters developed the most
productive industrial nation in the history of the globe, our third century should be the century of individual freedom for all our 215 million americans today and all that join us. in the last few years, government has gotten bigger and bigger, industry has gotten larger and larger, labor unions have gotten bigger and bigger. and our children have been the victims of mass education. we must take this next century, the century of the individual, we should never forget that a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take from us everything we have. the individual worker and the plants throughout the united states should not be a small cog
in a big machine. the member of the labor union must have his right strengthened and broadened and our children in their education should have an opportunity to improve themselves based on their talents and their abilities. my mother and father during the depression work very hard to give me an opportunity to do better in our great country. your mothers and fathers did the same thing for you and others, benny and i had worked very hard to give our children a brighter future in the united states, our beloved country. you and others in this great country have worked hard and done a great deal to give your children and your grandchildren
the blessings of a better america. i believe we can all work together to make the individuals in the future have more and all of us working together can build a better america. >> thank you president ford. few, governor card, and thanks also to the questioners and to the audience in this theater. we much regret the technical failure that caused 28-minute delay in the broadcast of the debate. we believe, however, that everyone will agree that it did not attract from the effectiveness of the debate or from its fairness. the next presidential debate takes place on wednesday october 6th, in san francisco at 9:30 p.m. eastern daylight time. the topics are to be foreign and defense issues. as with all three debates between the presidential candidates an the one between the vice presidential candidates it is being arranged by the
women education fund in the hope of promoting a wider and better informed participation by the american people in the election in november. now, from the walnut street theater in philadelphia, good night. >> america history's tv road to the white house rewind continues with the 1984 presidential debate, between former vice president walter. after that, the 1988 debate between vice president george h.w bush and massachusetts governor. road to the white house rewind on american history t.v. in prime time. >> friday, a discussion on the economic recovery in the u.s.
since the great recession, the american enterprise institute hosts former treasury secretary larry summers and harvard university economist robert -- it's live at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on cspan 3. >> election night on cspan, watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the out come. be on location of hillary clinton and donald trump headquarters and watch victory and concession speeches, starting live at 8:00 p.m. eastern and throughout the following 24 hours, watch live on clrks span. on demand at cspan.org. >> next road to the white house rewind and the president gerald ford and former georgia governor. this debate took place in san
francisco on october 6, 1976 and focused on foreign policy and defense issues. topics included u.s. soviet relations. the credibility of the u.s. -- in the wake of vietnam and water gate and the size of the u.s. military budget. jimmy carter went on to win the general election with 58%. the league of women voters sponsored this 90 minute debate. >> until gerald r. ford of michigan republican candidate for president and jimmy carter of georgia, jimmy carter candidate for president. thank you, president ford and thank you governor carter for being with us ni
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN3 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on