Ten O'Clock News

Guest is the governor of the Commonwealth. Michael Dukakis you went through a deficit and tax increase battle before in 1975 one big difference now is that you didn't inherit this one from anybody. It was cooked up or what happened under your own management and your own managers. No that's not what happened Chris. No no. I mean this is largely the result of unanticipated unanticipated revenue shortfalls result of Federal Tax Reform Act 1986. I'm not blaming anybody in the Congress or the administration. But as you know Connecticut is in very deep trouble. So New York New Jersey California or other states where the effects of that tax reform act have resulted in an anticipated revenue shortage came in the failure by the way do not have the luxury of the federal government running massive deficits we've got to balance our budgets and we're going to do so seriously taxes going up in Connecticut and New York. I suspect Governor Kaine New Jersey is going to do something in California. I don't know what the governor is going to do. There will be other states as well. But even the failure to anticipate them could be held

to to you and frankly could it not. I just wonder what sense you now understand your own governor O'Neill didn't anticipate this. Governor Cuomo didn't anticipate this Governor Kaine Governor Deukmejian some of them Democrats some of them Republicans. But we don't have the luxury that they had in Washington for eight years of running these massive deficits are extroverts with their computer means of projecting these things the revenue missed the revenue advisory board which is independent of the administration. Last April said that our revenue forecasts were about on target and three months later we would have 350 million dollars. So you know this is something that other states didn't anticipate either but you know I'm not going after a lot of excuses. My job is to get the state back on a firm fiscal foundation and it's the same job that governors O'Neill and Cuomo and Kaine have. And we're going to go to work and do what we've got to do. We're going to keep looking for ways to reduce spending to provide savings. But if we need additional revenue we've got to ask for it and I'm not going to go out and tell people to read my

lips and go through that as you recall in 1975. I didn't act quickly and I should have and I think it's very important that we get this debate going now so that we can deal with this problem and move ahead with the kind of progress we've made the state. Let me just say one other thing and that is that this is very different. Seventy five Remember 75 the state was in terrible shape economically today was a very strong state shapen and that's a big difference. The question is it seems to me what what the legislators some of them find galling is that until yesterday or the day before a month or two ago you and Frank he was saying no problem. On the contrary I froze all program expansion almost a year ago Chris in February in March. Remember we froze on expansion. I vetoed nearly 200 million dollars worth of spending in the budget before I signed the budget that was in July and we're now in the process of squeezing out another 250 billion dollars during the course of this budget year. So we have been sitting around. This goes way back to February

March at a time when even the revenue advisory board didn't anticipate this kind of revenue falloff. Now as you know our revenues improved considerably in December. I don't know whether that signals that we finally worked our way through the revenue losses from the federal tax law but we're going to continue to look for ways to save or reduce spending. But at the same time it's my responsibility to present a balanced budget to the legislature. And I'm going to do so if they have additional suggestions for saving and economizing we're going to look at all of them. On the other hand we're going to make sure that the most vulnerable people in the state of ours are protected and that we continue to make the investments in education housing and health care and the environment that the people of the state want us to make in a label and a philosophical a.. How do you see yourself in all this you pictured yourself last year as a tax cutter. Dan Quayle and George Bush loved to say you are a tax and spend Democrat. How do you see yourself philosophically now on these repairs. A progressive democrat who believes very strongly that we've got to invest in our future. One of

the reasons this state is doing so well is because we've invested in education and training and health care and affordable housing and the environment and economic development in every part of the state. But I also know that you've got to have a good strong fiscal foundation. We've had that for six years. We've provided unprecedented amounts of aid to our cities and towns as you know since Proposition Two and a half we've cut taxes by over seven hundred million dollars. And we've also made those important investments in our future. OK all of a sudden we in other states have been hit with this revenue shortfall. My responsibility as a chief executive is not to get up and tell people to read my lips. It's to take the action that I think is necessary. But we'll keep looking for ways to close that gap and if we can find ways to do so obviously that will reduce the nature of the problem. I have a political question to deal backscratching rule of get along go along. Is not one you've honored over the years. But I must say I have marveled in recent days that your silence on questions about Senate president Bolger's personal finances and I wonder if your silence is part of the price a government has to pay

now. My silence with respect to what on the questions of Senator Bolger's personal finance as loans legal fees that kind of thing and I'm simply wondering if if that kind of cool distance from investigations is part of the price you have to pay for getting Senate consideration to be touched I'm sorry. I don't know of any allegations that the president engaged in wrongdoing. I can tell you this that if there's the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing or improper conduct with respect to the Harbor Point project something that I and my ministration and all of us including the federal government were deeply involved in transforming Columbia Point into a healthy neighborhood. Then we will leave no stone unturned to do that. But what we know is that he cashed a check of virtually a quarter million dollars that was essentially Howard Brown's money. But we know I think you're way off base. I really do. You know I think there's no. We we've

I think to make these kinds of allegations. I'm not alleging anything. I'm simply reporting what other people have reported well and what what he has not denied and what the FBI investigated for two and a half years. I guess the question that in my mind and I think in a lot of citizens minds is if a cabinet official in your government made a quarter of a million dollar legal fee or took a quarter of a million dollar loan wouldn't you. Have significant questions wouldn't you want to know why cabinet officials were full time and are expected to legislators even go or are prepared to practice law. They want to. But all I can tell you is that if there is any evidence of suspicion or suspicion of wrongdoing in connection with a Harbor Point project my administration to make sure that those matters were investigated to the best of my knowledge there is none. But if we find that there is you can be sure that we will investigate it as we always do.

I must say you sound to me more like Ronald Reagan talking about Ed Meese or all of our presidents like Iraqis talking about state ethics Christopher Come on. Come on. No I mean that's really very unfair of the son of president. I think as well as to hurt Bush if anybody including you including me made a quarter of a million dollars in a single fee with. What do you mean with that he said on the record it's not a big secret. But I don't make I don't make a quarter million dollars in outside fees. And if you did no evidence of labor and if you did you think that ought to be a matter of public record or if I were held to significant office in the state house I'm sure I will. Maybe we should require people to disclose outside income we do as a matter of fact under existing law and to the best of my knowledge of the set of presidents complied with state law. But all I can tell you is this the project at Columbia Point Chris as you know was something that we spent an enormous amount of time on. And I know it knows

no suspicion or allegations of improper conduct in connection with a project. But if there are you can be sure to be investigated. I know that they're going to jail for years almost every day not as allegations of criminal conduct but certainly public questions that people want answered. Well I mean I agree they've been raised by a newspaper. There was a dispute here between two parties. Apparently it's been settled. I'm not privy to that. All I can tell you and I just want to repeat what I've said twice before is that if there is the slightest evidence of misconduct or inappropriate conduct in connection with that project you can be sure that we will investigate it and make sure that if in fact it took place that action was taken to correct it. I want to get back to a simple political point to flatter you a little bit. I think it's fair to say that your US your years in state government have. Rescue the Democrats from an age old taint of corruption. I wonder if

the Democrats and you haven't haven't gotten a little smug on this point as the public I think feels considerable curiosity and maybe outrage. Well all I can tell is this Chris you have been around the statehouse at least as long as I have in my judgment. Standards of ethics and conduct. The statehouse today are vastly improved over what they were in both the Senate the House as well as the executive branch. I think the citizens I think you would agree with it I would have said that and in a general trend line but I would also signal wonder whether the second or third or fourth most powerful figure in state government can make a quarter of a million dollar fee grow up in an innocent way I'm not saying in a legal way but without without in some significant way misusing his State of course if services were rendered the clients who was I understand this case were private clients of his who had nothing to do with

this. Brown Finerty Harbor Point matter. All I'm saying to you is that if there there's any evidence of wrongdoing or connection with the Harbor Point project obviously that's one where we've invested where as you know the federal government's involved in where we've taken what was a failed public housing project and worked with the tenants and worked with developers and work with the community to transform it and what is right and what I think will be a very exciting and very good new neighborhood. And believe me we're going to insist and always have high standards of conduct in connection with those projects and we'll continue to do so. Thank you Governor Dukakis Governor Dukakis today told newcomers to the legislature that he will lead the charge and take the heat for tax increases that he says are now unavoidable. It is about time for the governor who boasted on the presidential trail last year that he had cut state taxes five times. Is

the same governor who calls the big money pinch at the State House. A challenge not a crisis. Today it was a new tune on taxes. I wish I didn't have to do it he said. But all good things come to an end. Dukakis was meeting all day and announcing nothing about which taxes he will try to raise. The latest hints are that he wants to go after sin and after the rich which means higher taxes on alcohol gasoline capital gains and long distance telephone calls the governor is said to have lost interest suddenly in that 5 percent tax on big real estate sales. That was the Globe's guest this morning. A real estate sales tax would have raised enough to close the caucuses deficit but businessmen were prepared to fight it tooth and nail. We won't actually know until Thursday just which taxes are in or out of the bailout package. But our guests tonight two guests in to argue the urgency of all this bad news. I read it nonetheless. Bob Anderson leads the rebellious citizens for limited taxation. Jim Brady speaks for spending priorities

on behalf of the tax equity Alliance for Massachusetts. Is it back to the trenches Barbara. It's not the way we won because I'm afraid that's the way it is. Meaning you're fighting all taxes and you are proposing to go to the ballot against him. Well when he says All good things must come to an end what he's bringing to an end is this a chance for a continuation of Mr. Smith if he's going after productive people. He's going after the taxpayers forcing them to pay for his presidential campaign retroactively. The voters aren't going to like this. And we're right back to where we started in the 70s. And what about your response. What do you what are you answering. Well we're hoping that the Massachusetts House will resist the tax increases. There's some indication that they will not to tax increase until the governor does some serious spending cuts. And then of course we're lobby and hope that they resist the tax increases if in fact the tax increases pass we will have to take a tax cut to the bout to get our money back. Jim Brady you and your organization are out front of the governor in favor of taxes. I wonder how you so sure you're going to like them until you've seen them.

You're asking for my second because that's the question. The answer is no we're not prejudging the package we have put together a tax platform that we think is as warm and fair and is as it is on revenue potential. The threshold notion that we operate upon is that anybody really believes that there's $600 billion in cuts that can be made in this budget without a lot of pain is either naive or frankly downright cruel. Homelessness prevention programs are already on hold. Higher education is suffering across the board cuts police fire at risk that's intolerable in a state like Massachusetts to preserve basic services. We've got to have a tax increase. We think it can be fair and not crush the average family along the way. Chris first I'm asking when did you decide when did it occur to you that we really did need a tax increase. I think when it became quite clear that the revenue problem was this was a was and were not ones who buy into the notion that we were suffering the outcome of one overspending. Revenues are falling off the face of the earth corporate tax revenues have been in great decline tax payments from some of the wealthiest people in the base. They have also fallen off the face of the earth. What we have is a revenue problem and revenue

problems demand long term revenue solutions. That's how we got here. These six million dollar deficit that was supposedly facing that the best case scenario is five percent of the state budget and you can't tell me that they could not cut 5 percent of total state spending after having increased spending over the past several years the double digits and still and have to hurt the poor. The way to 20 percent to 45 percent. Same with research. Five percent fired from the and out of it. Major markets would say 5 percent of the waste inefficiency the mismanagement knows she found $600 billion with of mismanagement over the last five years. Bob seriously opposed to auditors 75 percent of it's taken so this could be gone. And the state would miss a beat which you voted all kind of suggestions that Republicans have all kinds of suggestions. Everyone has ideas where to cut in the bureaucracy. You don't have to cut services and they don't have to raise taxes. Just give us 5 percent or give Jim 5 percent $680. That wouldn't involve cruelty.

I just did. Jeff finds ideas about getting rid of the MDC getting there the Department of Energy 75 percent of estate consultants even 50 percent would be between 10 million dollars. Volks suggestion to consolidate the employment training programs and to end to crack down on sick leave abuse. You put all the suggestion together coming from people already in the legislature and you easily have the 600. Jim would you argue that the state has put on all this budgetary weight in the Dukakis in time without adding fat. I'm not naive. No one is suggesting that it doesn't have to be some belt tightening there obviously is some fat in the budget. However one of the primary reasons the two primary reasons for spending going up so much over the last handful of years is the federal government took a walk when it came to giving money to states and cities in those states. Additionally after Prop two and a half of which Barbara as you well know was the author. Cities and towns were in a stranglehold the state wisely and compassionately came in to build those cities and towns out. But compassion cost money as you well know. So the two primary reasons for increased spending are good ones wise ones but they cost money and ways with inefficiency and mismanagement in presidential campaigns costs money and that's why the taxpayers are being

told it is about the presidential campaign edition here not the additional state employees that were put on first to support the gubernatorial campaign and then finally to support the presidential campaign. The programs like the health care bill which they know they can't afford but have to come up with the money for that because they had to have it for a national issue. The tax increases on business and the fees last year that are hurting the economy. All of these things which are contributing to the revenue shortfall are the same as a result of inattention from the presidential candidate for over a year and a half and a legislature that felt they had to go along with him and couldn't do the right thing for the Commonwealth because the president asked ask you the converse of what you asked him. After all the tax cuts local and state in the last six or eight years can you imagine a tax cut a tax increase that you could live with. I can't see any reason whatsoever to balance the budget on the backs of productive citizens in this state what they're going to do is hurt the economy and hurt revenues and trying to short term fiscal crisis into a long term fiscal decline.

So instead of saying budget balancing what we hear is rhetoric get rid of the consultants get rid of all the state employees. The reality is we need specifics. There are many many state employees the vast majority of them providing critical directs services to people that matter in their lives. The consultants in great part save money. What you try to do is fill a budget gap with illusory savings for the most part and everybody in the state that I know is without exception. I really believe Barbara falls into this category as well knows there will be taxes rather than burning one's head in the sand we should join together as one package going along with them and recommending them as another. I want a personal judgment of going into a caucus. He pictured himself last year. I think it's fair to say as a born again tax cutter he never however escape the taunts of Reagan Bush and Quayle that he was a olfaction tax and spend Democrat. Would you. Either of you ventured to put a label on him as he appears in Massachusetts in 1989. It his his thinking she's as old fashioned tax and spend. I want to get tax reform. Last week of this campaign during the surge I guess in early November

he was talking populist tax reform that appeals to the average voter in the state. He talks about talked about getting rid of tax giveaways for the rich particularly the capital gains reduction. George Bush was proposing re-instituting on the federal level. That's exactly the core piece of our agenda that we're proposing to get rid of in Massachusetts raise three million dollars without costing the average family one penny. Barbara. Well there's populist in this populist. And some people think populist means talking down to people and assuming they can understand by increasing taxes by doubling the capital gains tax you're going to hurt the entrepreneur and the investor and you're going to hurt the people in the state who depend upon investment and entrepreneurship for jobs and for services. And this is very foolish and we think the people of Massachusetts will understand that and not just by this pot this argument tax the rich the it. The only people who have any money to invest is very rich the jobs the entire entrepreneur. He's the one that did away with this break. Totally different situation. I was at a low level because at the state level they're already taxing capital gains at the income tax rate of 5 percent if they double it to 10 percent.

It's entirely different the federal government which was keeping it at the same income tax rate as the rest of the caucus has taken in have the two of you run for governor together. I haven't been asked but I think she has and I think you seriously think oh give me a break Jim. I've said no a million times and I have no intention of running for the I'm going to continue to drive you crazy from where I am. Thank you Anderson. Jim Ready. Thanks Chris. Thanks Chris. How is it first off that millions of Americans me included who would have to struggle to think of the name of the Air Force secretary or the Army secretary know that John Lehman was Navy secretary through all those Reagan years. Well I think the principal reason is that I wanted to be secretary of the Navy not to be the secretary of the Navy but to use the job to accomplish a resurrection if you will of the of the Navy and its its mission and in our national security policy. Where did you get the idea and who told you to go out and implement it.

Well I felt very strongly beginning with my service with Henry Kissinger for five years at the White House says no taker in the SITUATION ROOM in the Oval Office watching the navy time after time being the first resort of presidents and attempting to deter the outbreak of hostilities in maintaining a stable deterrence around the world and yet at the same time as a part time aviator doing my active duty around the world with the fleet I saw the steady deterioration at the same time of our naval forces in readiness and capability. But worst of all in their sense of mission and their morale they just became very defeatist. And I saw the disintegration of what was perhaps the most important tool of peacekeeping and deterrence. You see in your book you give the Navy high marks for the Libyan breed of 1986. But in the light of the dust up in 1989 to

some questions. Are those is really all that useful. In 1986 the heavy punch seemed to come from the air force just flew from England in 1989. It seems to me those four teams were provoking a fight or couldn't get out of the way of a fight. Well I mean it's true that if if we disarm then none of our military forces will be prone to attack from Qaddafi or anyone else. So it is self-defining that if you don't have military forces they won't be attacked as they were attacked last week and as they had been repeatedly attacked by Gadhafi back in 1979 he attacked and he's the 135. He attacked our F-14 back in 1981 and so forth so it's no argument against military forces in my judgment. The fact that people like Gadhafi attacked them. The question really is whether those four teams are protecting anything other than the carrier that there. Well if you

have nothing to protect then you don't need the F-14 taking the you know the continent and the people of the United States. That's right. But also we have to protect ships on the surface of the sea. See if you go to war if Gadhafi or a Soviet Union wants to attack the United States he's going to do just like Imperial Japan did and Hitler did and go after our lifelines on which our entire economy and security depends by sinking our merchant ships sinking our tankers sinking our troops ships that meet our commitments to the land deterrence in Europe. And if you're going to protect those then you have to have air superiority over that sea area or else they can fly at will and sink all of our shipping. We don't want that to happen. So if you put a carrier there the carrier establishes that total air superiority so that if a big 23 comes out to shoot down a transport plane or to bomb a transport ship

that they're shot down before they get there. You don't buy the ships to protect the carrier. The carrier is the the element that you add to a naval force that protects everything on the surface of the sea. Well those Navy fliers looking for a fight. The Libyan aircraft approached and kept their noses on the U.S. aircraft and the pilots had every reason to expect that they they were in danger of being fired upon. They had the radar the firing radar locked on them. And so in such a situation they can't afford to allow the first shot to get off because even if they then shot down the MIGs they could get shot down themselves. So the fact that they then after they had fired got an order that put them in a different status. I don't think in any way calls into question their good judgment and that kind of a situation the pilot

on the scene is the best one to assess hostile intent. And you have to delegate that authority and then in a situation like that with with Libya now you don't have the same rules of engagement if you're flying off somewhere else and Russian approaches. Those pilots don't have the freedom to judge if say a Soviet petrol bomber is has hostile intent. It's it's for that particular situation the Persian Gulf the same the same rules applied during the hostilities there. So I think it was handled very very well and quite properly. Our guests professional assignment is to take political advantage of every Democratic Sen. he can find around the statehouse. Alexander Tennent is the executive director of the Republican Party in Massachusetts with a lot of rebuilding to do. What is the issue here

for Republicans. I think the issue was raised yesterday by the attorney general Jim Chena and it was unbelievable. Person has done nothing. About looking into billboards in this whole issue held a press conference and said there appeared to him to be judgment and reason to go and do a thorough investigation and more full investigation and then he turned on the federal government to do the investigation. He didn't want to do it himself. It just shows that Jim Shooter doesn't have the guts to investigate. But and the people of this commonwealth. Kind of put up with it. What should he have done. He should have come forward and said that if he felt as he said yesterday that there were enough things new evidence and information and improper action as he implied and enough for him to call on Mr. Thornburgh to investigate this he should have investigated themselves and find it. I believe he's probably the most political attorney general the state's ever seen. I think Democrats and Republicans today are shaking their head saying this me run

out and basically this is substantiated because he has the inside information that there is some wrongdoing going on here. He called for an investigation and then step back and pass the buck and has done nothing about it. But you say it's a political judgment. I wonder what makes you so sure his line is that he doesn't have the machinery including the wiretapping privileges and the bugging bugging technology to investigate this case as well as the feds did. He is the highest ranking law enforcement official in this state. He has obviously the information that is necessary to make judgments. He had enough information to hold a public press conference yesterday and call on the United States attorney general to investigate Billy Borgir further. He should be making that investigation. And I think people realize he's asking the federal government to do what he should be doing. We counted a lot of checks and balances here. But among them the system depends on the

opposition party the Republicans to oppose. Where is the Republican opposition in the Senate specifically David Locke the Republican leader. Maybe he's in his office. I think you've seen the Boston Globe putting stories out until yesterday no major law enforcement official would come out with the facts. And Jim Sheehan again has access to that information. I don't think anybody wants to speculate against any person even if it's a Democrat until the facts right now Jim Sheehan felt confident enough yesterday to go forward and be public. U.S. Attorney shouldn't be playing political football with this position either she or she now knows. Thanks to your. Own investigations that I guess there's additional information now. That is more incriminating and yet he is still refusing to go forward and start an investigation out of his own department. Jim you have made a substantive reform proposal yesterday that outside income's be limited as far as I know Representative Jay here the Republican in the house was the last person to pass a bill with a limit outside income. What is the chance that this could

become a. Republican platform issue in Massachusetts. I think the Republicans made it very clear. We tried to move for six months session. The Republican Party was against the 40 percent salary increase the legislators gave themselves this year when we were facing some of the most significant crises in this state's history when the Republican Party for nine months has been saying that we're facing a quarter of a billion dollar three quarter of a billion dollar deficit. We needed to come in. Our legislators took off from four to five months. They weren't there and yet they're still taking a salary. I think the issue is more complicated than just limiting outside income. I think the issue is what is the role of a state representative and state senator. Are they full time. Do they need to be in there as much as they say they need to be. The other question what what's the role of the federal prosecutor. Wouldn't it help here. To have a new broom in the federal prosecutors office sweeping this whole project.

I said what we need is a U.S. attorney's office that is going to look at this information that it appears just to have come to light. And I think that office will be looking at that now and not be a political office needs to be in office that's going to examine the facts. Go forward with procedures and run a thorough and complete investigation. The three bodies that should be looking at this. The Agency's Office the the U.S. attorney's office and the ethics commission should I be looking at this for that matter. The Senate Ethics Commission should also be looking at what's going on. Thank you. Thank you. Out of 10 of. Our guests Pat Schroeder is among other things the ranking feminists in Congress. She's represented Denver since 1973. Last year she came close tearfully close to running for the Democratic presidential nomination. It's probably a sign that she's still interested that she has written a book now about her own experiences as a feminist legislator and as a mother of two titled champion of the great American family. Of course my mind is

really fundamentally what the Democrats have to tell the country about family issues especially. I've been wondering since the 88 campaign which seem to me that Michael Dukakis people who know his family life know he's a model son model father model husband and yet George Bush stole the family issues on him. Well George Bush really stole the Democratic agenda. He ran out and said hey I'm for daycare I'm for parental leave in concept. He let that fall low and people heard they were for parental leave. It's a wonderful photographs of his grandchildren. I mean those were just almost like word pictures. They were gorgeous. They all were kind of conveying this very warm gentle man who wanted to be an education president who wanted to be for the great values of America and I think Michael Dukakis thought well I have a good record on that. And he doesn't and people know that. People didn't know that. But maybe people want the values and they want the ideals and they don't want the programs

maybe it's that simple except that when you look at the polling data people said hey there's no difference in the candidates on those issues. So George Bush did a very good job of really snatching those issues away the defense wise. Hey George if you want to be the education president why weren't you the education vice president. I mean you got to go right at up. And you can't let George defend you. In fact in fact he was letting George defend the Democratic Party is not having a program and he was the one with the program and every time you looked up he was in a child care center. He was out doing all these good things. So he was totally able to steal the issue and get the points for it. But he drew He drew some issues on which he differed to on abortion. Even the the Pledge of Allegiance to the Senate that has overtones of family issues on day care he did make differences with Dukakis and he seemed to weaken them.

I still think it was the problem of not defining yourself. You don't find yourself in politics the other guy doesn't and he's not going to define you in a positive way. And the way you go with the Pledge of Allegiance you say hey look I want America to be so great. We don't have to make people say the Pledge of Allegiance. They're going to want to say it then Americans get it. But they say that's silly and I'm not going to answer it doesn't work. And when you let it go for so long I mean Hitler taught us that you say anything long enough and people start to believe it. And these guys change George image three times in a very short period of time. You just got to go out and say this is phony. It's hard to do because we always want to be above that but you can't be above it. And what about the abortion issue the abortion issue. But again it was a loser for the Democrats it's it. It's one that Michael Dukakis never managed to explain completely. He came the closest he came very close and he should have just pushed a little harder. He did very well on the debate on that issue because he

started saying wait a minute wait a minute. Are you going to charge the physician with being an accomplice to murder. You know where are you going to go with this issue. He should have just kept pressing because it really revealed George Bush had not thought through it at all that he had just grabbed it kind of as a politically expedient position. I think he really fallen through and then it would've made a big difference because again the polling data showed that people were really for the Dukakis position. It's just that it wasn't fuzzy. I mean it was too fuzzy it wasn't real clear. Thank you. Pat Schroeder the book is called champion of the great American family be doing things we should have deductability for dependent care not just for children but maybe your dependent parents to whatever it takes to go to work. We should have quality childcare available because that 0 to 3 age is so important developmentally that you should be paying people an awful lot of money and really

respecting them that are there. Instead we're paying them at the same level we pay parking lot attendants. So it's no wonder we're worried about the quality of that care. But the parents should be able to choose. Now what happens if they find the slot. They're so relieved they're afraid to even question whether it's a good slot or not because they're afraid they won't be able to find another one. That's terrible. They feel trapped. Thank you Pat Schroeder the book is called. Our guest is the governor of the Commonwealth. Michael Dukakis the 1988 nominee of the Democratic Party. How do you like the Bush program. How did it compare with your own thoughts. I like it Chris. I think they've done a good job of taking a very fresh look at this and coming to the same conclusion I think we all have which is that you've got to attack this on all fronts have a little concerned about this. Cutting back on interdiction I mean I think going to be a part of it. But I think it's a good strategy. The real question is are we. And by that I mean not just the president the Congress but all of us can go out there and make it work. I'm concerned a little bit about

the commitment to more than a little bit about the commitment to drug education in prevention if there's one thing that we found in this state is that if you get real drug education prevention into the early elementary grades in elementary schools it has an enormous impact on kids and when Joe Biden said that. You know we'd never dream of immunizing just 50 percent of our kids to polio. He's right. I mean if there's one thing that this plan has to do which is to bring real drug education prevention into the early elementary grades and every on every school in the country the first democratic knock We heard it from Joe Biden among others is that the dollar is credible here. I don't know as yet and I don't have the information Chris on where he's cutting now. Congressman Rangel is right and he's taking from housing and juvenile justice to pay for the program I think that's a serious mistake on the other hand. You know one stealth bomber represents twice what we're spending for drug education prevention the entire United States of America. I mean somewhere in that federal budget there ought to be the money to do this.

You've been you've been well acquainted with this problem in Massachusetts. Seriously what have you found is effective. Three things. Education and Prevention beginning in the first second and third grade not you know high school. Half of our kids are using the time to get the junior high school. Chris first second and third grade it makes a tremendous difference. Secondly treatment. For us here in Massachusetts means moving ahead in the universal health care bill which is the fastest way we're going to get treatment on demand. But we're not doing that around the country and finally street enforcement. I mean it's just no question that a combination of those two things makes a difference. And you know we've had a rather good and fairly quiet summer here in Boston that didn't happen by accident. There's been a very strong tough street enforcement effort going on out there and it's made a difference. I think most middle class Americans including myself I simply amazed and depressed at how vulnerable a free society is to this kind of. Infection. I think the

first I mean it's sort of a oh we have to fear is fear itself. But how winnable is this contest as a political matter for President Bush but as a survival matter for the for the vitality the security and then the real question. I mean I hope we're not going to get these analyses that say well he's done this and you know in two years we don't see anything then he's failed. I mean this is something that's got to represent a permanent commitment to the critical part of all of us. Can we win it. Yeah I think we can win it. Substance abuse has always been a problem since the beginning of time. Every society has it. It was alcohol in the 19th century which by the temperance movement it's its drugs today and of course alcohol is a drug in liquid form but I think a combination of the kinds of things that he's talked about that we've been doing and want to do more of in this state providing a represents a permanent commitment it is just this year's PR campaign. Before I go off to something else next year I think can make an enormous difference.

Thank you Governor Dukakis from Columbia in front of the drug war. Stark pictures today forecast the next round. Did you ever feel that you've been president of our minds maybe our spirits for five years or so now the real president. No. None of that would be an amazing thing to feel. No. You got to remember I was just a staff writer staff aide for two presidents. The big difference with Ted Sorenson the man who wrote Ask not what your country can do for you is that. Peggy Noonan hadn't slog to the White House at Ronald Reagan's side. She was five months on the speech writing staff in 1984 before she even met the man. That was a disappointment to me and it made my job a little more difficult. I was in the White House there was a certain detachment between the president and his speechwriters. I was told when I got to the White House two things One is that in the first year of the presidency he did meet with the speechwriters once a week very often

and they had a lot of fun and interesting talk. But when the President was shot. He withdrew a little bit from certain things he felt he could withdraw from and one of the speechwriter working with Bush was very different. I worked for him in a campaign campaign as a fluid sort of environment and Vice President Bush felt for the acceptance speech it was the biggest thing of his life so he let me follow him around for two and a half days. Talking telling me. And trying to get out of him. What is it that you want. Why do you want to leave this country. What are your plans. What is your vision. What are you what's your feelings about family and children. And history and such. I felt that my contribution on that speech was that. I was around Vice President Bush and I listened. Bush had been surrounded very much by the hard guys who do the hard business of politics pollsters and endorsement getters and money raisers. And I was just a person sitting there listening to him really taking notes and giving it back to him and saying Is this what you mean and he change it and give it back to me. So it was the best of

speech running I thought it was like that was one the Kennedy saw in some mold and that was more how it should be. You wrote a wonderful speech for President Reagan for. Kennedy Library fundraiser. And bridge some gaps. So do your parents generation. Too your From. John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan in a way that enormously flattered both of them. Oh be I have to say. It struck me as having a lot of truth to that sort of personal correspondence between those two spirits. Look. A number of things One is that Reagan was the great appreciator as much as it was the great communicator. He really liked to appreciate people who with time he came to think of his very big people. It was very much like Reagan to show up at a JFK Library fundraiser you know at a blood drive for the opposition in effect. Did he feel some kinship with Kennedy. I think you would have to go back to John Kennedy to find a more blunt

sometimes elegant sometimes. Vociferous anti-communist speeches. You know they show that very much in common. When I worked for President Reagan I used to the back to John Kennedy's speeches about Cuba and about the Soviet Union and they are a great inspiration to me. We forget that about Kennedy but he was nothing if not blunt on that issue. Not the best of his qualities. And of course to my side one of the really great things about him beyond that I must say in my own imagination I just see between the two of them a lovely appreciation of life and a devilish sense in a good way. Reagan was a less turbulent So I think and had less of an appreciation for intellectual styles. I was one of the nice things about Kennedy was that he had. You know he had come to young manhood when his father was ambassador to England and he had a lovely sense of wonderful political rhetoric and of political thinking and of shrewdness and politics you know a tough Whitehall kind of shrewdness that it was that

spoke of a political sophistication really beyond Reagan's. I think. In this one narrow way. We are disappointed in a lot of Reagan. In the end you speak of it in the book. As a. Kind of balloon float. In a parade. Yeah. You know how I felt I felt I approached Ronald Reagan in 1984 with or. Left him with great respect. Thinking is one of the great presidents of this century but also left him with a certain ambivalence about. The personal Reagan. He was a hard man for me to understand. He was paradoxical he was partly a mystery. He was to pretty much everybody who worked with him and who worked much more closely than I did. The paradoxes were great. There was a lovely surface warmth that was engaging and genuine. And yet beyond that there was what many of his oldest friends call the wall past which you didn't get past which I think very few have gotten. Do. You feel sorry for him.

I should say I do. These days without a chance to give a speech that is his his glory after all he's speaking I think without it without the speech. I don't know. He certainly called on a great deal and you know he's still giving them. I feel a certain upset if that is the word I sometimes I think you know he is a big guy and he he's going through a bad patch where I think he's done some things that have understandably caused some criticism. The Japan speech and the opening of Disneyland and such. And I feel a little frustration about that. Because he is a very big man. I think sometimes when you leave the White House is a big man. You and they the people can forget for a little while. I said the other day and I didn't mean to be too harsh or cynical but sometimes for our great presidents. It has not been unfortunate for

their historical legacy. That. That Lincoln was shot. They can hope that they have that they didn't have to go through what Gerry Ford went through which is the rigors and the strains and this willingness of after the White House. You. Reminded me that. There was a moment when you might have been a Quaker on the 10 o'clock news. Back anytime. Thank you very much. But you write beautifully about Boston. Read it some time. And. It's wonderful to have you back. It's a beautiful book. Oh thanks Chris very much. Thank you. We thought we had interviewed all the professors in the world but this is our first chance. One of the main things in order to satisfy the curiosity of those who interpret possibilities that can exist only after due

consideration. Can I introduce you. What was the question. The world's foremost authority Professor Irwin Corey. Well I feel not only honored. But I feel the confrontation upon which we have set our sights to no longer be do or the propensity of a developing prognosis. Now you say what doesn't matter that we. What was the question. What's your answer. Professor urban core the world's foremost authority. Not only has my information deterred those who have contributed financially to this menace establishment realize that we can have another diphthong or a telethon in order to raise money for some needy dictators that are outside and we have to have the phone calls. Otherwise we cannot cooperate with those who intended to supplement the curiosity bringing about

as he's said the various presidents. What's his name. Mayer No. George George Bush said Read my lips and kiss my butt. He didn't note the with the result that you could approximate any source from that innuendo. What do you mean. Let's talk about the world. I mean the Berlin Wall has crumbled since I've seen you. Moscow is going to have a market economy. It is Germany's going to be NATO. What's to say about that. Well I feel that we are on the right direction. Let us unite our enemies bring them back together and our allies let's just organize them to the extent that those who were formerly part of our entourage are no longer bound by various treaties to a set of laws that was do only That's what we should do. We put flowers on he chose grape which is a very you know that that shows that we have conceded that they wish all didn't develop

into some victory at least allow them to have a recourse. So we do put flowers are not. But Ronald Reagan. Began his name like a broken down computer. The family is like a broken down computer I mean they have no colon it has no period and no memory. This is a thing that we need which is necessary to incite the curiosity that to bring about a desired result. What have you found out about cold fusion. Well cold fusion and global warming which makes it possible that during the winter the feeling of being hemmed in a possibility that all this nitrogen is waste which seems to allude a concept which can be more didactic. I'm the dichotomy of that source can only reveal to a certain extent

that unlike poles contract and light poles attract the unlike poles. That's why we have them separated because those poles ever got together we'd be out of a job. You got to understand that it is not an ethnic policy that we are pursuing. What was the question I wondered where you stood on a flag burning and a constitutional amendment to stop it. Well I really think that our flag needs not only protection from other flags which might try to integrate and become part of our philosophy. Lou we can attempt only one way to have the flag representing the philosophy of our country. Oh in 1776 that flag wove but it only had 13 stars to take. We have something like 92 but they don't or acquiesce. So what I would say is that we need

that flag that flag represents our philosophy. Slavery in 1861 Revolution in 1776. The dichotomy of that tactic form brought about the cohesion. And after all Betsy Ross didn't have enough material so she made the stars only with five points. Most odds that I would have six points. Little this little Jewish star so she just said that is real. So I feel that our flag stands for something. And once we find out what it is I will have more concern for us. A professor who doesn't mince his words. Irwin Corey thank you. Well I thank you for having me because after all let's face it if we don't explain the possibilities we will be remaining in the same dilemma. And if we don't change our direction soon we run the risk of ending up exactly where we're heading and this can be a feeling of osmosis.

Exactly. Good shit you're. Always blocks away from work. Oh that was great. Boy we've got a lot of time. It's closed right now. That was. My question. I can bring you back any time you're going to be back. Thank you for having me. Thanks so much guys. Oh good. I. Don't want to.

Miss. Our guest Albert Mosul's held the camera that shot those scenes. His brother David was old man and Ed.. He died three years ago. Together they made the movie Grey Gardens. Also Gimme Shelter about the Rolling Stones at Altamont and many more movies. Welcome home. Mezzos right here are your thoughts on it as as as the guys admit I've got to tell you. I put this with Citizen Kane and on the waterfront among my Absolutely classic movies I saw it when I was living in the kind of exile from Boston. And it has some of the most gripping images of the Boston I grew up in. I know every time I see it though I wonder what gave you the notion that there was art in that material. We know. Many years ago Arthur Miller by the way has his play Death of a Salesman it was at that time heralded as a great piece of realism although it was of course a work of the imagination. And.

I think. What gave us the idea was that that we just had this confidence and somehow you could make something of our just out of life itself that that at some point somebody hopefully it will turn out to be my brother myself would turn to life itself and say look let it run as it is. And that's going to be that's going to be our film. We have the equipment we have the faith that in life itself is that that is what we're after. And the particular way in which people do things the particular way in which they express themselves. That attention must be paid to that. Do you do you have the feeling that you are making a movie about. American business. Or do you think of it as a movie about Boston. The Boston news growing up in a what. What did you what was the life you were trying to absorb. We could have we could have made the film almost anywhere in America. There were

4000 Bible sales by that time. But my brother discovered that there were these four men working in the New England territory and that's where we wanted to do it. And so because we're from Boston and as children and we had a tough time actually with the Irish being Jewish. And but we had already reconciled ourselves to that. And so we had a great love for the Irish. By this time and and it was it was quite a joyful thing. To be with these ordinary people who were I wish I had who had the gift of gab who would every day enter into a. Potentially dramatic situation knocking on a door confronting a stranger. And who knows what's going to happen. Do you remember a moment when you saw as the viewer sees now.

That suddenly this is a movie about Paul Brennan in a kind of life crisis when he begins to doubt himself. It begins to fall apart. And there you are the. Catcher. Well actually more than just the fact that it was a life crisis for him. It was his personality caught at almost any time in his life which was of perhaps the greatest interest. I mean it reached a critical point when we were with him. But he was a man. Who could be the best of sellers could be the best salesman of for them. But there was something about him that way was a good salesman. But beyond that he had a sensitivity to what was going on. He had a love for people and in a way he knew what he knew too much and had and it was too poetic to allow himself to pursue that single track of just selling that would make him the best

Bible salesman. So he was he was doomed to failure in that sense. I think every salesman every salesman who who is whose vision is he goes goes outside of just selling is probably not going to be that good a salesman. You've made a lot of movies in what sense was this one special for you. I think I've heard you say that that scene where they sit in the in the coffee shop and kind of stare. What was so special about that scene is that they were they they were between sales and they didn't have to say anything you written all over their face was this dread of having to go back. Knocking on doors and selling again and for the at that time especially you were you were inside their minds you were inside their souls and they were sharing it were sharing read that thread they were

sharing their souls with you. And. You know that's what you're really after when you're when you're when you're making a film. If you can get inside somebody it's quite an accomplishment. And