The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour; Debates

Is it a a Yeah, I just got about 800 decibels of 60 cycle tones There's a much of what you said affects the quality of life of many Americans, their income, the way they live, and so forth.

But there's an aspect of quality of life that lies beyond the private sector which has to do with our neighborhoods, our cities, our streets, our parks, our environment. In those areas, I have a difficulty seeing what your program is and what you feel the federal responsibility is in these areas of the quality of life in the public sector that affects everybody and even enormous wealth by one individual can't create the kind of environment that he might like. There are tasks that government legitimately should enforce and tasks that government performs well and you've named some of them. Crime has come down the last two years for the first time on many, many decades that it has come down or since we've kept records, two consecutive years and last year it came down the biggest drop in crime that we've had. I think that we've had something to do with that just as we have with the drug problem nationwide. The environment?

Yes. Well, as strongly as anyone about the preservation of the environment, when we took office, we found that the national parks were so dirty and contained so many hazards, lack of safety features, that we stopped buying additional park land until we had rectified this with what was to be a five-year program but it's just about finished already a billion dollars and now we're going back to budgeting for additional lands for our parks. We have added millions of acres to the wilderness lands, to the game refuges. I think that we're out in front of most and I see the red light is blinking so I can't continue but I got more. Well, you'll have a chance when your rebuttal time comes up perhaps, Mr. President. Mr. Mondale, now it's your turn for your rebuttal. The President says that when the Democratic Party made its turn, he left it. The year that he decided we had lost our way was the year that John F. Kennedy was running against Richard Nixon.

I was chairman of Minnesotans for Kennedy. President Reagan was chairman of a thing called Democrats for Nixon. Now maybe we made a wrong turn with Kennedy but I'll be proud to support him all of our life, all of my life and I'm very happy that John Kennedy was elected because John Kennedy looked at the future with courage, saw what needed to be done and understood his own government. The President just said that his government is shrinking. It's not. It's now the largest peacetime government ever in terms of the take from the total economy. Instead of retreating, instead of being strong where we should be strong, he wants to make it strong and intervene in the most private and personal questions in American life. That's where government should not be. Mr. President, before I campaigned as a Democrat for a Republican candidate for President,

I had already voted for Dwight Eisenhower to be President of the United States. So my change had come earlier than that. I hadn't gotten around to re-registering as yet. I found that was rather difficult to do, but I finally did it. There are some other things that have been said here back and you said that I might be able to dredge them up. Mr. Mondale referred to the farmers worst year. The farmers are not the victims of anything this administration has done. The farmers were the victims of the double-digit inflation and the 21 and a half percent interest rates of the Carter-Mondale administration and the grain embargo, which destroyed our reliability nationwide as a supplier. All of these things are presently being rectified and I think that we are going to salvage the farmers as a matter of fact, there has been less than one quarter of one percent of foreclosures of the 270,000 loans from government that the farmers have.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'll now turn to Diane Sawyer for her round of questions, Diane. I'd like to turn to an area that I think few people enjoy discussing, but that we probably should tonight because the positions of the two candidates are so clearly different and lead to very different policy consequences, and that is abortion and right to life. I'm exploring for your personal views of abortion and specifically how you would want them applied as public policy, first, Mr. President. Do you consider abortion murder or a sin, and second, how hard would you work, what kind of priority would you give in your second term, legislation to make abortion illegal, and specifically, would you make certain as your party platform urges that federal justices that you appoint be pro-life? I have believed that in the appointment of judges that all that was specified in the party

platform was that they respect the sanctity of human life. Now that I would want to see in any judge and with regard to any issue having to do with human life. But with regard to abortion, and I have a feeling that this has been some reference without naming it here in remarks, Mr. Mondale, tied to injecting religion into government. With me abortion is not a problem of religion, it's a problem of the Constitution. I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child is not a living human being, then that child is already protected by the Constitution which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us. And I think that this is what we should concentrate on, is trying, I know there were weeks and weeks of testimony before a Senate committee. There were medical authorities, there were religious, there were clerics there, everyone

talking about this matter of pro-life. And at the end of all of that, not one shred of evidence was introduced, that the unborn child was not alive. We have seen premature births that are now grown up happy people going around. Also there is a strange dichotomy in this whole position about our courts ruling that abortion is not the taking of a human life. In California some time ago, a man beat a woman so savagely that her unborn child was born dead with a fractured skull. And the California state legislature unanimously passed a law that was signed by the then Democratic governor, signed a law that said that any man who so abuses a pregnant woman that he causes the death of her unborn child shall be charged with murder. Now isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of a unborn child

and it was abortion and not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder. And it recognizes it used the term death of the unborn child. So this has been my feeling about abortion that we have a problem now to determine and all the evidence so far comes down on the side of the unborn child being a living human being. A two-part follow-up. Do I take it from what you said about the platform then that you don't regard the language and don't regard in your own appointments, abortion position, a test of any kind for injustices that it should be, and also if abortion is made illegal, how would you want it enforced? Who would be the policing units that would investigate and would you want the women who have abortions to be prosecuted? The laws regarding that always were state laws. It was only when the Supreme Court handed down a decision that the federal government intervened

in what had always been a state policy. Our laws against murder are state laws. So I would think that this would be the point of enforcement on this. As I say, I feel that we have a problem here to resolve and no one is approached it from that matter. It does not happen that the church that I belong to had that as part of its dogma. I know that some churches do. Now it is a sin if you're taking a human life. On the same time in our Judeo-Christian tradition, we recognize the right of taking human life in self-defense, and therefore I've always believed that a mother, if medically, it is determined that her life is at risk if she goes through with a pregnancy, she has a right then to take the life of even her own unborn child in defense of her own. Mr. Mondale, to turn to you, do you consider abortion a murder or a sin, and bridging

from what President Reagan said he has written that if society doesn't know whether life does human life in fact does begin at conception, as long as there is a doubt that the unborn child should at least be given the benefit of the doubt and that there should be protection for that unborn child. This is one of the most emotional and difficult issues that could possibly be debated. I think your questions, however, underscore the fact there is probably no way that government should or could answer this question in every individual case and in the private lives of the American people. The constitutional amendment proposed by President Reagan would make it a crime for a woman to have an abortion if she had been raped or suffered from incest. Is it really the view of the American people, however you feel, on the question of abortion,

that government ought to be reaching into your living rooms and making choices like this. I think it cannot work, won't work, and will lead to all kinds of cynical evasions of law. Those who can afford to have them will continue to have them. The disadvantage will go out in the back alley as they used to do. I think these questions are inherently personal and moral, and every individual instance is different. Every American should be aware of the seriousness of the step. But there are some things that government can do, and some things they cannot do. Now the example that the President cites has nothing to do with abortion. Somebody went to a woman and nearly killed her. That's always been a serious crime, and always should be a serious crime. But how does that compare with the problem of a woman who is raped?

Do we really want those decisions made by judges who have been picked? Because they will agree to find the person guilty. I don't think so, and I think it's going in exactly the wrong direction. In America, on basic moral questions, we have always let the people decide in their own personal lives. We haven't felt so insecure that we've reached for the club of state to have our point of view. It's been a good instinct, and we're the most religious people on Earth. One final point. President Reagan, as Governor of California, signed a bill, which is perhaps the most liberal pro-abortion bill of any state in the union. But if I can get you back for a moment on my point, which was the question of when human life begins. A two-part follow-up.

First of all, at what point do you believe that human life begins in the growth of a fetus? And second of all, you said that government shouldn't be involved in the decisions, just those who would say that government is involved, and the consequence of the involvement was 1.5 million abortions in 1980. And how do you feel about that? The basic decision of the Supreme Court is that each person has to make this judgment in her own life, and that's the way it's been done, and it's a personal and private moral judgment. I don't know the answer to when life begins, and it's not that simple either. You've got another life involved. And if it's rape, how do you draw moral judgments on that? If it's incest, how do you draw moral judgments on that? Does every woman in America have to present herself before some judge, picked by Jerry Falwell, to clear her personal judgment?

It won't work. I'm sorry to do this, but I really must talk to the audience. You're all invited guests. I know I'm wasting time in talking to you, but it really is very unfair of you to applaud sometimes a lot of less loud, and I ask you as people who are invited here and polite people to refrain. We have our time now for rebuttal president. Yes. Well, with regard to this being a personal choice, isn't that what a murderer is insisting on? Here's her right to kill someone because of whatever fault they think justifies that. Now, I'm not capable, and I don't think you are any of us to make this determination that must be made with regard to human life. I am simply saying that I believe that that's where the effort should be directed to make that determination. I don't think that any of us should be called upon here to stand and make a decision as to what other things might come under the self-defense tradition.

That too would have to be worked out then when you once recognize that we're talking about a life. But in this great society of ours, wouldn't it make a lot more sense in this gentle and kind society if we had a program that made it possible for when incidents come along in which someone feels they must do away with that unborn child? That instead we make it available for the adoption, there are a million and a half people out there standing in line waiting to adopt children who can't have them any other way. Mr. Mando? I agree with that, and that's why I was a principal sponsor of a liberal adoption law so that more of these children could come to turn so that the young mothers were educated so we found an option, an alternative. I'm all for that. But the question is whether this other option proposed by the president should be pursued and I don't agree with it. Since I got about 20 seconds, let me just say one thing.

The question of agriculture came a minute ago. That farm income is off 50% in the last three years and every farmer knows it and the effect of these economic policies is like a massive grain embargo which has caused farm exports to drop 20%. It's been a big failure. I oppose the grain embargo in my administration. I'm opposed to these policies as well. I'm sitting here like the great schoolteacher letting you both get away with things because one did it, the other one did it, I ask in the future that there be a bottle stick to what there be a bottle is and also foreign policy will be the next debate. Stop dragging it in by it's ear into this one. Now have they get managed to. I would like to say to the panel, you allowed one question and one follow up. Would you try as best you could not to ask two and three? I know it's something we all want to do. Two or three questions as part one and two and three as part two having said that, Fred, it's yours. Thank you. Mr. Mondale, let me ask you about middle-class Americans and the taxes they pay.

I'm talking about not about the richer the poor, I know your views on their taxes, but about the families earning 25,000 to 45,000 a year. Do you think that those families are over-taxed or under-taxed by the federal government? In my opinion, as we deal with this deficit, people from about $70,000 a year on down have to be dealt with very, very carefully because they are the ones who didn't get any relief the first time around. Under the 1981 tax bill, people making $200,000 a year got $60,000 in tax relief over three years. While people making $30,000 a year, all taxes considered got no relief at all of their taxes actually went up. That's why my proposal protects everybody from $25,000 a year or less against any tax increases and treats those $70,000 an under in a way that is more beneficial than the

way the president proposes with a sales tax or a flat tax. What does this mean in real life? Well, the other day, Vice President Bush disclosed his tax returns to the American people. He's one of the wealthiest Americans, and he's our Vice President. In 1981, I think he paid about 40 percent in taxes. In 1983, as a result of these tax preferences, he paid a little over 12 percent, 12.8 percent in taxes. That meant that he paid a lower percent in taxes than the janitor who cleaned up his office or the chauffeur who drives him to work. I believe we need some fairness, and that's why I proposed what I think is a fair and responsible proposal that helps protect these people who've already gotten no relief

or actually got a tax increase. It sounds as if you were saying you think this group of tax payers are making $25,000 to $45,000 a year is already over taxed, yet your tax proposal would increase their taxes. I think your aides have said to those earning about $25,000 to $35,000, their tax rate would go up. Their tax bill would go up $100, and from $35,000 to $45,000, more than that, $700, wouldn't that stifle their incentive to work and invest and so on and also hurt the recovery? And the first thing is everybody $25,000 would have no tax increase. Mr. Reagan, after the election, is going to have to propose a tax increase, and you will have to compare what he proposes and his secretary of the Treasury said he's studying a sales tax or a value at a tax. They're the same thing. They hit middle and moderate income Americans and leave wealthy Americans largely untouched. Up until about $70,000 as you go up the ladder, my proposals will be far more beneficial

as soon as we get the economy on a sound ground as well, I'd like to see the total repeal of indexing. I don't think we can do that for a few years, but at some point we want to do that as well. Mr. President, let me try this on you. Do you think middle income Americans are over taxed or under taxed? You know, I wasn't going to say this at all, but I can't help it and there you go again. I don't have a plan to tax or increase taxes. I'm not going to increase taxes. I can understand why you are, Mr. Mondale, because as a senator, you voted 16 times to increase taxes. Now, I believe that our problem has not been that anybody in our country is under taxed. It's that government is overfed. And I think that most of our people, this is why we had a 25% tax cut across the board, which maintained the same progressivity of our tax structure in the brackets on them.

And as a matter of fact, it just so happens that in the quirks of ministering these taxes, those above $50,000 actually did not get quite as big a tax cut percentage-wise as did those from 50,000 down. From 50,000 down, those people pay two-thirds of the taxes. And those people got two-thirds of the tax cut. Now, the Social Security Tax of 77, this, indeed, was a tax that hit people in the lower brackets the hardest. It had two features. It had several tax increases, phased in over a period of time. There are two more yet to come between now and eight and 1989. At the same time, every year, it increased the amount of money, virtually every year. There may have been one or two that were skipped in there, that was subject to that tax. Today, it is up to about $38,000 of earnings that is subject to the payroll tax for Social

Security. And that tax, there are no deductions. So a person making anywhere from 10, 15, went there paying that tax on the full gross earnings that they have after they have already paid an income tax. And that same amount of money. Now, I don't think that to try and say that we were taxing the rich and not the other way around, it just doesn't work out that way. The system is still where it was with regard to the progressivity, as I've said, and that has not been changed. But if you take it in numbers of dollars instead of percentage, yes, you can say, well, that person got 10 times as much as this other person, yes, but he paid 10 times as much also. But if you take it in percentages, then you find out that it is fair and equitable across the board.

I thought I caught Mr. President a glimmer of a stronger statement there in your answer than you've made before. I think the operative position you had before was that you would only raise taxes in a second term as a last resort. And I thought you said, flatly, that I'm not going to raise taxes, is that what you meant to say that you will not, that you will flatly not raise taxes in your second term as president? Yes, I had used last resort would always be with me. If you got the government down to the lowest level that you yourself could say, it could not go any lower and still perform the services for the people. And if the recovery was so complete that you knew you were getting the ultimate amount of revenues that you could get through that growth. And there was still some slight difference there between those two lines. Then I had said once that, yes, you would have to then look to see if taxes should not be adjusted. I don't foresee those things happening. So I say with great confidence, I'm not going to go for a tax. With regard to a sailing Mr. Bush about his tax problems and the difference from the tax he

once paid and then the later tax he paid, I think if you looked at the deductions, there were great legal expenses in there, had to do possibly with the sale of his home and they had to do with his setting up of a blind trust. All of those are legally deductions, deductible in computing your tax. And it was a one year thing with him. Mr. Mondale, here we go again this time for rebuttal. Well, first of all, I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the house deal. I'm just talking about the 12.8% that he paid and that's what's happening all over this country with wealthy Americans. They've got so many loopholes. They don't have to pay much in taxes. Now, Mr. President, you said there you go again, right? Remember, the last time you said that, you said it when President Carter said that you were going to cut Medicare. You said, oh no, there you go again, Mr. President. And what did you do right after the election?

You went out and tried to cut $20 billion out of Medicare. And so, when you say there you go again, people remember this, you know? And people will remember that you signed the biggest tax increase in the history of California. And the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States. And what are you going to do? You've got $260 billion deficit. You can't wash it away. You won't slow just fence spending. You refuse to do that. Mr. Monet. I'm afraid your time is awful. Mr. President. Yes. With regard to Medicare, no. But it's time for us to say that Medicare is in pretty much the same condition that Social Security was. And something is going to have to be done in the next several years to make it fiscally sound. And no, I never proposed any $20 billion should come out of Medicare. I have proposed that the program, we must treat with that particular problem. And maybe part of that problem is because during the four years of

the Carter-Mondale administration, medical costs in this country went up 87%. All right. We can't keep going back for other rebuttals all the time later. We now go to our final round. The way things stand now, we have time for only two sets of questions. And by law, it will be Jim and Diane and we'll start with Jim we have. Mr. President, the economic recovery is real but uneven. The Census Bureau, just a month ago, reported that there are more people living under poverty now, a million more people living under them when you took office. There have been a number of studies including studies by the Urban Institute and other non-political organizations that say that the impact of the tax and budget cuts and your economic policies have impacted severely uncertain classes of Americans working mothers, head of households, minority groups, elderly poor.

In fact, they're saying the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer under your policies. What relief can you offer to the working poor, to the minorities and to the women head of households who have borne the brunt of these economic programs? What can you offer them in the future in your next term? Well, some of those facts and figures just don't stand up. Yes, there has been an increase in poverty but it is a lower rate of increase than it was in the preceding years before we got here. It has begun to decline but it is still going up. On the other hand, women heads of household, single women heads of household, have for the first time there has been a turn down in the rate of poverty for them. We have found also in our studies that in this increase in poverty it all had to do with their private earnings. It had nothing to do with the transfer payments from government by way of many programs.

We are spending now 37% more on food for the hungry in all the various types of programs than was spent in 1980. We are spending a third more on all of the programs of human service. We have more people receiving food stamps than we are ever receiving them before, 2,300,000 more, receiving them even though we took 850,000 off the food stamp rolls because they were making an income that was above anything that warranted their fellow citizens having to support them. We found people making 185% of the poverty level were getting government benefits. We have set us line at 130% so that we can direct that aid down to the truly needy. Some time ago, Mr. Mondale said something about education and college students and help with that kind. Half, one out of two of the full-time college

students in the United States are receiving some form of federal aid. But there again, we found people that there were under the previous administration, families that had no limit to income were still eligible for low interest college loans. We didn't think that was right. And so we have set a standard that those loans and those grants are directed to the people otherwise could not go to college. Their family incomes were so low. So there are a host of other figures that reveal that the grant programs are greater than they have ever been, taken care of more people than they ever have, 7.7 million elderly citizens who were living in the lowest 20% of earnings. 7.7 million have moved up into another bracket since our administration took over, leaving only 5 million of the elderly in that bracket when there had been more than 13 million.

Mr. President, in a visit to Texas in Brownsville, I believe it was in the Rio Grande Valley, you did observe that the economic recovery was uneven. In that particular area of Texas, unemployment was over 14% whereas statewide, it was the lowest in the country, I believe 5.6%. And you made the comment that, however, that man does not live by bread alone. What did you mean by that comment? And if I interpret it correctly, it would be a comment more addressed to the affluent who obviously can look beyond just the bread they need to sustain them with their wherewithal. That had nothing to do with the other thing of talking about their needs or anything. I remember distinctly, I was segueing into another subject. I was talking about the things that have been accomplished and that was referring to the revival of patriotism and optimism, the new spirit that we're finding all over America. And it is a wonderful thing to see when

you get out there among the people. So that was the only place that that was used. I did avoid, I'm afraid in my previous answer also, the idea of uneven. Yes, there is no way that the recovery is even across the country. Just as in the depths of the recession, there were some parts of the country that were worse off, but some that didn't even feel the pain of the recession. We are not going to rest and not going to be happy until every person in this country who wants a job can have one until the recovery is complete across the country. Mr. Mondale, as you can gather from the question of the President to celebrate at War on Poverty, obviously didn't end the problem of poverty, although it may have dented it. The poor and the homeless and the disadvantaged are still with us. What should the federal government's role be to turn back the growth in the number of people living below the poverty level, which is now 35 million in the United States, and to help deal with the structural

unemployment problems that the President was referring to in an uneven recovery? Number one, we've got to get the debt down to get the interest rates down so the economy will grow and people will be employed. Number two, we have to work with cities and others to help generate economic growth in those communities. Through the Urban Development Action Grant program, I don't mind those enterprise zones, let's try them, but not as a substitute for the others. Certainly, education and training is crucial. But these young Americans don't have the skills that make them attractive to employees. They're not going to get jobs. The next thing is to try to get more entrepreneurship and business within the reach of minorities so that these businesses are located in the communities in which they're found. The other thing is we need the business community as well as government heavily involved in these communities to try to get economic growth. There is no question that the poor are worse

off. I think the President genuinely believes that they're better off. But the figures show that about 8 million more people are below the poverty line than four years ago. How you can cut school lunches, how you can cut student assistance, how you can cut housing, how you can cut disability benefits, how you can do all of these things, and then the people receiving them, for example, the disabled who have no alternative, how they're going to do better, I don't know. Now, we need a tight budget. But there's no question that this administration has singled out things that affect the most vulnerable in American life and they're hurting. One final point, if I might. There's another part of the lopsided economy that we're in today. And that is that these heavy deficits have killed exports and are swamping the nation with cheap imports. We are now $120 billion of

imports, three million jobs lost, and farmers are having their worst year. That's another reason to get the deficit down. Mr. Mondale, is it possible that the vast majority of Americans who appear to be prosperous have lost interest in the kinds of programs you're discussing to help those less privilege than they are? I think the American people want to make certain that that dollar is wisely spent. I think they stand for civil rights. I know they're all for education and science and training, which I strongly support. They want these young people to have a chance to get jobs in the rest. I think the business community wants to get involved. I think they're asking for new and creative ways to try to reach it with everyone involved. I think that's part of it. I think also that the American people want a balanced program that gives us long-term growth so that they're not having to take money, it's desperate to themselves

and their families, and give it to someone else. I'm opposed to that too. And now it is time for Harvey Buddle for this period, Mr. President. Yes, the connection that's been made again between the deficit and the interest rates. There is no connection between them. There is a connection between interest rates and inflation. But I would call here attention that in 1981, while we were operating still on the Carter Mondale budget that we inherited, that the interest rates came down from 21 and a half down toward the 12 or 13 figure. And while they were coming down, the deficits had started their great increase. They were going up. Now, if there was a connection, I think that there would be a different parallel between deficit getting larger and interest rates going down. The interest rates are based on inflation. And right now, I have to tell you, I don't think there is any excuse for the interest rates being as high as they are because

we have brought inflation down so low. I think it can only be that they're anticipating or expecting, not hoping, that maybe we don't have a control of inflation. It's going to go back up again. Well, it isn't going to go back up. We're going to see that it doesn't. I haven't got time to answer with regard to what you say. Mr. President, Mr. Mondale. Mr. President, if I heard you correctly, you said that these deficits don't have anything to do with interest rates. I will grant you that interest rates were too high in 1980, and we can have another debate as to why energy prices and so on. There's no way of glossing around that. But when these huge deficits went in place in 1981, what's called the real interest rates, the spread between inflation and what a loan costs you doubled? And that's still the case today. And the result is interest costs that have never been seen before in terms of real charges and it's attributable to the deficit. Everybody, every economist, every

businessman, believes that. Your own Council of Economic Advisors, Mr. Falstein and his report told you that. Every chairman of the Finance and Ways and Means Committee, Republican leaders in the Senate and the House are telling you that. That deficit is ruining the long-term hopes for this economy. It's causing high interest rates. It's ruining us in trade. It's given us the highest small business failure in 50 years. The economy is starting downhill with housing. You're both very obedient. I have to give you credit for that. We now start our final round of questions. We do more to have time for your rebuttal. We start with Diane. Since we are reaching the end of the question period. And since in every presidential campaign, the candidates tend to complain that the opposition candidate is not held accountable for what he or she says. Let me give you the chance to do that. Mr. Mandel, beginning with you. What do you think the most outrageous thing is your opponent

said in this debate tonight? I'm going to use my time a little differently. I'm going to give the President some credit. I think the President has done some things to raise the sense of spirit and morale, good feeling in this country, and he's entitled to credit for that. What I think we need, however, is not just that, but to move forward, not just congratulating ourselves, but challenging ourselves to get on with the business of dealing with America's problems. I think in education when he lectured the country about the importance of discipline. I didn't like it at first, but I think it helped a little bit. But now we need both that kind of discipline and the resources and the consistent leadership that allows this country to catch up in education and science and treaty. I like President Reagan. This is not personal. There's deep differences about our future, and that's the basis

of my campaign. Follow up in a similar vein then. What remaining question would you most like to see your opponent forced to answer? Without any doubt, I have stood up and told the American people that that $263 billion deficit must come down. I've done what no candidate for President has ever done. I told you before the election what I do. Mr. Reagan, as you saw tonight, President Reagan, takes the position it will disappear by magic. It was once called voodoo economics. I wish the President would say, yes, the CBO is right. Yes, we have a $263 billion deficit. This is how I'm going to get it done. Don't talk about growth because even though we need growth, that's not helping. It's going to go in the other direction as they've estimated. And give us a plan. What will you cut? Whose taxes will you raise? Will you find a touch that defense budget? Are you going to go after social

security and Medicare and student assistance and the handicap again as you did last time? If you just tell us what you're going to do, then the American people could compare my plan for the future with your plan. And that's the way it should be. The American people would be in charge. Mr. President, the most outrageous thing your opponent has said in the debate tonight. Well, now, I have to start with a smile since his kind words to me. I'll tell you what I think has been the most outrageous thing in political dialogue, both in this campaign and the one in 82. And that is the continued discussion and claim that somehow I am the villain who is going to pull the social security checks out from those people who are dependent on them. And why I think it is outrageous, first of all, it isn't true. But why it is outrageous is because for political advantage, every time they do that, they scare millions of senior citizens who are totally dependent on social security, have no

place else to turn. And they have to live and go to bed at night thinking, is this true, is someone going to take our check away from us and leave us destitute? And I don't think that that should be a part of political dialogue. Now, now to, I still, I just have a minute here. Okay, all right. Now, social security, let's lay it to rest once and for all. I told you never would I do such a thing. But I tell you also now, social security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of social security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce a deficit. It would go into the social security trust fund. So social security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit. Now, as again, to get to whether I have, I'm depending on magic, I think I have talked

in straight economic terms about a program of recovery that was, I was told, wouldn't work. And then, after it worked, I was told that lowering taxes would increase inflation and none of these things happened. It is working and we're going to continue on that same line as to what we might do and find in further savings cuts. No, we're not going to starve the hungry. But we have 2,478 specific recommendations from a commission of more than 2,000 business people in this country through the Grace Commission that we're studying right now and we've already implemented 17% of them that our recommendations is to how to make government more efficient, more economic. And to keep it even, what remaining question would you most like to see your opponent forced to answer? Why? The deficits are so much of a problem for him now, but that in 1976, when the deficit was $52 billion and everyone was panicking about that,

he said, no, that he thought it ought to be bigger because a bigger deficit would stimulate the economy and would help do away with unemployment. In 1979, he made similar statements, the same effect that the deficits, there was nothing wrong with having deficits. Remember, there was a trillion dollars in debt before we got here. That's got to be paid by our children and grandchildren, too, if we don't do it. And I'm hoping we can start some payments on it before we get through here. That's why I want another four years. Well, we have time now if you'd like to answer the president's question or whatever rebuttal. Well, we've just finished almost the whole debate and the America people don't have the slightest clue about what President Reagan will do about these deficits. And yet, that's the most important single issue of our time. I did support the 76th measure that he told about because we're in a deep recession and we need some

stimulation. But I will say as a Democrat, I was a real piker, Mr. President. In 1979, we ran a $29 billion deficit all year. This administration seems to run that every morning. And the result is exactly what we see. This economy is starting to run downhill. Housing is off. Last report on new purchases. It's the lowest since 1982. Our growth is a little over 3 percent now. Many people are predicting a recession. And the flow of imports into this country is swamping the American people. We've got to deal with this problem. And those of us who want to be your president should tell you now what we're going to do so you can make a judgment. Thank you very much. We must stop now. I want to give you time for your closing statements. It's indeed time for that. From each of you, we will begin with President Reagan. I'm sorry, Mr. Reagan, you had your every bottle and I just cut you off because our time is going. You have a chance now for every

bottle before your closing statement. Is that correct? No, I might as well just go with the price. You want to go with it? I don't think so. You want to wait. I'm all confused now. Technically, you did. I have little voices that come in my year. You don't get those same voices. I'm not hearing it from here. I'm hearing it from here. You have waved your every bottle. You can go with your closing statements. Well, we'll include it in that. Four years ago, in similar circumstances to this, I asked you the American people to question. I asked, are you better off than you were four years before? The answer to that obviously was no. And as the result, I was elected to this office and promised a new beginning. Now, maybe I'm expected to ask that same question. Again, I'm not going to because I think that all of you or not everyone, those people that are in those pockets of poverty and haven't caught up, they couldn't answer the way I would want them to. But I think that the most of the people in this country would say, yes, they are better off than they were four years ago. The question, I think, should be enlarged is America

better off than it was four years ago. And I believe the answer to that has to also be yes. I promised a new beginning. So far, it is only a beginning. If the job were finished, I might have thought twice about seeking reelection to this job. But we now have an economy that for the first time, well, let's put it this way, in the first half of 1980, gross national product was down a minus 3.7 percent. First half of 84, it's up 8.5 percent. Productivity in the first half of 1980 was down a minus 2 percent. Today, it is up plus 4 percent. Personal earnings after taxes per capita have gone up almost $3,000 in these four years. In 1980 or 1979, a person with a fixed income of $8,000 would

was $500 above the poverty line. And this may be explains why the numbers still in poverty. By 1980, that same person was $500 below the poverty line. We have restored much of our economy with regard to business investment, it is higher than it has been since 1949. So there seems to be no shortage of investment capital. We have, as I said, cut the taxes, but we have reduced inflation. And for two years now, it has stayed down there, not a double digit, but in the range of four or below. We believe that we had also promised that we would make our country more secure. Yes, we have an increase in the defense budget. But

back then, we had planes that couldn't fly for lack of spare parts or pilots. We had Navy vessels that couldn't leave harbor because of lack of crew or, again, lack of spare parts. Today, we're well on our way to a 600-ship Navy. We have 543 at present. We have our military. The morale is high. I think the people should understand the two-thirds of the defense budget pays for pay and salary or pay and pension. And then you add to that food and wardrobe and all the other things, and you only have a small portion going for weapons. But I am determined that if ever our men are called on, they should have the best that we can provide in the manner of tools and weapons. There has been reference to expensive spare parts, hammers costing $500. Well, we are the ones who found those.

I think we've given the American people back their spirit. I think there's an optimism in the land and a patriotism. And I think that we're in a position once again to heed the words of Thomas Paine, who said, we have it in our power to begin the world over again. Thank you, Mr. Reagan. Mr. Mandel, the closing words and our yours. I want to thank the League of Women Voters and the City of Louisville for hosting this evening's debate. I want to thank President Reagan for agreeing to debate. He didn't have to, and he did, and we all appreciate it. The President's favorite question is, are you better off? Well, if you're wealthy, you're better off. If you're middle income, you're about where you were, and if you're a modest income, you're worse off. That's what the economists tell us. But is that really the question that should be asked? Isn't the real question

as will we be better off? Will our children be better off? Are we building the future that this nation needs? I believe that if we ask those questions that bear on our future, not just congratulate ourselves, but challenge us to solve those problems, you'll see that we need new leadership. Are we better off with this arms race? Will we be better off if we start this Star Wars escalation into the heavens? Are we better off when we de-emphasize our values and human rights? Are we better off when we load our children with this fantastic debt? Would fathers and mothers feel proud of themselves if they loaded their children with debts like this nation is now over a trillion dollars on the shoulders of our children?

Can we say really say that we will be better off when we pull away from sort of that basic American instinct of decency and fairness? I would rather lose a campaign about decency than when a campaign about self-interest. I don't think this nation is composed of people who care only for themselves. And when we sought to assault social security and Medicare as the record shows we did, I think that was mean-spirited. When we terminated 400,000 desperate, hopeless, defenseless Americans who were on disability, confused and unable to defend themselves and just laid them out on the street as we did for four years, I don't

think that's what America is all about. America is a fair society and it is not right that Vice President Bush pays less than taxes than the janitor who helps him. I believe there's fundamental fairness crying out that needs to be achieved in our tax system. I believe that we will be better off if we protect this environment and contrary to what the President says, I think their record on the environment is inexcusable and often shameful. These laws are not being enforced, have not been enforced, and the public health and the air and the water are paying the price. That's not fair for our future. I think our future requires a President to lead us in an all-out search to advance our education, our learning, and our science and training because this world is more complex and we're being pressed harder all the time. I believe in opening doors. We won the Olympics in

part because we've had civil rights laws and the laws that prohibit discrimination against women. I have been for those efforts all my life. The President's record is quite different. The question is our future. President Kennedy once said, in response to similar arguments, we are great, but we can be greater. We can be better if we face our future, rejoice in our strengths, face our problems, and by solving them build a better society for our children. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Monday. Thank you, Mr. Monday, and thank you, Mr. President, and our thanks to our panel members as well. And so we bring to a close this first of

the League of Women Voters Presidential Debates of 1984. You too can go at each other again in the final League debate on October 21st in Kansas City, Missouri. And this Thursday night, October 11th at 9 p.m. East in daylight time, the Vice President George Bush will debate Congresswoman Geraldine Ferrara in Philadelphia. And I hope that you will all watch once again, no matter what the format is, these debates are very important. We all have an extremely vital decision to make. It's more gentleman, I thanks. Once more to you, I thanks, and now this is Father Waters, wishing you a good evening. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. President and Mr. Mondale, looking very affable, standing to believe you can't hear what they're saying. The debate marked by an unusually lively studio audience who, despite two or three requests,

not to, continue to applaud whenever they want it to. This is Mondale, congratulating the former Vice President and this is Reagan, congratulating the former Vice President, and joined Mondale's right by at least two of their children, three of their children.

And then I'll send him the panelists, who would have been four, as Barbara Walters told us at the beginning, but one, a reporter for the New York Times declined his invitation to appear because he disagreed with the procedures for selecting him. Good, Walter Mondale closed the gap against Lionel Reagan tonight, or did Mr. Reagan score the final knockout punch on Mr. Mondale or neither of the above. Three sets of differing opinions from two former presidential debate coaches, two present-day political analysts, and two newspaper editors when we return in just a moment on

most of these public television stations. The McNealaire or NewsHour special edition of the 1984 presidential debates is funded by AT&T, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, this and other public television stations. This is PBS, the public broadcasting service. Tonight, a special edition of the McNealaire or NewsHour on the presidential debates of 1984. And welcome back to this special edition of the NewsHour, and to a matching of opinions on the

presidential debate between and among three sets of observers who watched and listened with us, two men who were involved in coaching presidential debaters in the past. Mike Duvall in New York, and two words or less, who won? Well, I think the debate itself was a draw, which means, of course, that in terms of the election, Mondale lost. Jerry Raphson. Walter Mondale won this debate. He did exactly what he had to do. Next, two men with different political persuasions who now analyzed politics regularly on this program and elsewhere. David Gurgen. I think Mondale won the debate. Big win. Well, I think he certainly made it possible for him to reach the level of support, you know, that of his potential support, whether he can get the country to change governments is a much tougher issue, but I don't know that that was possible for what he could have done and he did everything I think he could do. And finally, two newspaper editors who think and write differently about politics and most other things. Joe McQuaid, going with your sports analogy, Jim,

I don't think Mondale laid a glove on the guy, and the verdict will be in on November 6th. Albert Skardino? Mr. Larry, if it was a question of image, I think Mondale won going away. Robin? Yes. Now, in more detail, with the debate we're seen by the two men who coached previous presidential candidates and whom we talked to earlier, Gerald Raffshoon, who coached Jimmy Carter and Mike Duval, Gerald Ford. How do you think that Mondale did in terms of what he had to do in terms of enhancing his image? I think to a large degree, he performed well, and perhaps in terms of the performance even better than the president. In terms of the substance, clearly nothing different, nothing new. I think, as we said earlier at the top of the show, before the debate, that Mondale had to try to force an error on the part of the president.

That simply did not happen. Joe Raffshoon, you disagree. You said Mondale won the debate. Yes, I think it was the best performance of his career. In counting, I think he bested the president on six of the eight questions and probably tied on one. He didn't force the president to make any mistakes, particularly, but he put him on the defensive. He really kind of, in sports analogy, controlled the ball. Whether or not he gets a big boost in the polls remains to be seen. But if he did this well on this first debate, I think it's going to increase his confidence for the next debate. It's going to encourage a lot of Democrats out there to wake up and stop tuning this campaign out. I think that is what Walter Mondale had to do tonight. The next few days, he may get a few points boost in the polls, but it certainly does arrest the apathy or stops the apathy that the Democrats have had. I really think the president, I think Ronald Reagan was

off tonight. It certainly wasn't up to his 1980 debate performance. Frankly, it was more like one of his average press conferences with the exception that he had an adversary there who capitalized on each of his mistakes. Before the debate, you said you really hoped that Mr. Reagan would define the mandate he seek and define the future. Did he do that? I think, Robin, he did it about three times twice in response to a question and at the end. By saying that he has no secret agenda, no new tax plan, that he clearly puts his election on the record of his last four years. He is saying, what I have done in this last four years is why I want you to vote for the next. Do you agree with Gerald Wright Schoon that he was off this evening? I think that he was, you didn't see a knock out blow, I don't think you could in that format. I think it's important. If you close your eyes and say, can I remember one quote from this debate?

Nothing comes to mind, to my mind, from Mondale, but America is better off, does come to mind. And by saying that to the voter, if you were better, if you feel that you were a winner, then that is what I'm asking and that's the mandate. Remember, experience shows this, Robin. And on election day, the voters don't shoot Santa Claus. And I think most people are going to say they are better off over the last four years. Okay, we'll move on to Jim. Yes, again, the Republican David Gurgen and Democrat Alan Barron, Mr. Gurgen was communications director in the Reagan White House. Now at the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Barron publishes a newsletter on politics called the Barron report. David Gurgen is probably nobody on this group who's observed Ronald Reagan more than you have was he off tonight? I didn't think he was off. No, I think the main thing, you know, everybody said he's going to make a big gap. He's going to hand this thing over and his mic said he did not. And he was warm, personal. I thought he was nervous in the beginning. It took him a while to hit it stride. But I thought about the third or fourth question in, and frankly, I thought Mondale was a little nervous in the beginning too, but I thought by the

third or fourth question in, we had vintage Reagan. To be honest about it as history issues. Then he's Reagan and Reagan had his best. I thought he was more effective when he was a challenger in the sense that he could go on the attack more easily. When you're the incumbent, what you've got to do is defend the record. And that's a harder task in some ways, but I thought he made a strong vigorous defense of what he had achieved. I thought in particular in the last four or five questions when he really sort of hit his stride and began to say into kinds of things, I think he needed to say in this debate. I thought he was very effective then. I thought his closing statement was highly effective. Alan Barron, do you think that there's going to be any evidence of a change in the polls as a result of this tonight? I don't know. My guess would be that there would be some, but it's a gradual thing. Of course, by Thursday, you'll have to debate between Ferraro and Bush and so forth. But I think what we will do will be to bring Mondale's constituency much back. In 1968, they talked about Humphrey closing the gap with Nixon. Nixon's polls never changed. The oil is at about 43%, Humphrey moved from 29 to 44, and this is the area that I think Mondale did every 99% of what he

could do to raise himself from that 37-38 up to the level that he normally should have. Now, he could go beyond that, but I think he raised himself. He certainly moved to the threshold of, I think David mentioned earlier, Pat Cadell's quote about presidential credibility. He did do that. Yeah, he seemed like a statesman. I think you have to give a lot of credit to Walter Mondale on this debate tonight. I thought he was one of his best performances, as Jerry said. I thought he was very gracious, which was a positive thing. But I think the most important thing was that he reached out to the constituency he needs in order to put himself back. You agree with that, too, Alan. I agree with that, and I think that where I disagree with Mike, a minute ago, in terms of Reagan setting out a vision for the next four years, all of the controversial stance he took even four years ago about, well, environmental regulations have gone to two strict, and we've got to be realistic and cut back in this. He didn't say that he just denied that he did it all and said, well, we're just taking care of the environment and the poor, and all these things, he denied it all. He ran as the candidate of the status quo,

not proposing any kind of a program for change. Yeah, that's all. Okay, Robin. Now, the use of our two newspaper editors in more detail, two men with quite different views of the two candidates, Joseph McQuaid, his editor of the Manchester New Hampshire Union leader, a newspaper that strongly supported Ronald Reagan. Albert Scardino is editor of the Georgia Gazette, a newspaper which is published in Savannah, which claims to be the first in the country to endorse Walter Mondale. Mr. McQuaid said a moment ago, Mondale didn't lay a glove on him, what do you think? I think Mondale beat him up very badly in a very general way. He showed, he did exactly what he had to do in the campaign. He got off to a very strong start. Reagan was nervous the whole time. I think the issues that Mondale raised at the press does its job in the next couple of days and analyzes what it was that Reagan said. I think he'll will have been shown to have been wrong time and again on his facts. And those are the things Mondale had to point out. Yeah, be it not badly, he says. Well, I can see that Mondale was a gracious loser. He's very good

at that. And he had absolutely nothing to offer the American people. He is going to tax the middle class out of one of the best economic recoveries in history. And if that's going to win him in the election, would the help of the press analyses go left to you? Press analyses. It's not only what the viewers think who saw the debate tonight, but how the media are going to play that debate over the next few days and reinforce these impressions or create impressions. How would you bet the newspapers of this country and the television networks are going to portray this debate? Well, I would hope they would do what Mondale has been asking them to do for the last six weeks, which is to examine the record. I think if you look at what Mondale said tonight about Social Security disability payments, for instance, the entire federal judiciary is angry at the administration for its heavy-handed way in which it's tried to cut people from the disability roles. I think the southern district of New York, the district, the federal attorney has refused to represent the administration. I think these are, if the press will examine

these in detail, I think they will tell the story to the American people. I think that will have a big effect on the direction of the campaign. What is the media message that's going to go out as a result of this debate, would you say, looking out as a professional journalist? Well, I think the media message to a great extent has been that this Ronald Reagan is a stumbling gaffman minute president, and I'm afraid he didn't show any stumbling gaffs tonight. And they'll be hard pressed to find some in the copy. The American government under Mondale in the Democrats over the past 40 years has spent billion upon billion on education and programs to get people out of poverty and wasted a great deal of time and effort in doing so and done little to do so. And when you try something revolutionary, which is what the Reagan recovery has been, people are going to get hurt. And I think that if there's a message tonight, it shows that Reagan is as sensitive as is Mr. Mondale on that issue. If you two are typical of viewers who watch this this evening, you came here as a Mondale supporter, you came here as a Reagan supporter as your two newspapers do. I hadn't changed your mind,

and it all hasn't changed your mind at all. Did you come away with any enhanced feeling for Mr. Mondale? I came away from an enhanced feeling for Mr. Mondale. I think he's a very sincere individual who was going to go down to a very hard defeat, but I think that he has put his life behind his philosophy, and he is a sincere guy who has a trouble struggling with his issues. I've got sympathy for him, but not empathy. And what did you feel for Mr. Reagan? I thought that he represented himself the way he has for the last four years, and I think this is going to make a difference in the way the election turns out because I think it a lot make it much more even and re-establish the idea that this is not going to be the last election in American history. All right. Thank you both. Yes. Good night, Robin. That concludes this McNeil-Lera special edition. We'll also have special coverage of the second presidential debate on October 21st and the Ferraro Bush debate next Thursday, and of course we'll be back tomorrow night with our regular news hour. Until then, I'm Jim Lara. Thank you, and good night. The McNeil-Lera news hour special edition of the 1984

presidential debates is funded by AT&T, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, this and other public television stations. For a transcript, send $2 to $3.45, New York, New York 10101.