The Exchange; Interview with Steve Forbes

From New Hampshire Public Radio I'm Laura Conaway and this is the exchange. Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes is our guest today. Forbes is a businessman. He's made millions at his family's Forbes publishing company. This is Forbes second run for the White House four years ago. He joined the presidential race about five months before the New Hampshire primary. He became largely known for his flat tax plan. But this time he's had more time to develop positions on a wide variety of issues and he emphasizes broad themes such as opportunity choice and freedom. Free. From the fear of the IRS. Free. To choose schools that work for our children. Free to choose doctors we trust free for our young people. To choose how their. Social Security taxes are invested. Put them in their own retirement accounts away from the grasping hands of the Washington politicians.

Forbes was considered one of the more moderate candidates in 1996 and his focus then was more on economic issues. Today he's counted among the party socially conservative candidates in his speeches and writings. He says that fiscal reforms alone are not enough. Without attention to the nation's moral challenges as well among those moral challenges is abortion. Forbes says he's solidly pro-life and unlike several of his rivals would only appoint judges who share that view. Four years ago his position on abortion is less clear. He often said he wanted to create a climate where abortions disappear in America today in exchange Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes is with us. And we want to hear from you too. It's your chance to talk with another presidential candidate. They exchange phone numbers are 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9 and Mr. Forbes. Welcome back to the exchange you were here four years ago. Good to see you again. Nice to see you. Thank you very much. Why did you decide to give another go and run for president again.

The vacuum is still there. There's still a huge disconnect between Washington and the American people. We've had seven years of spin sizzle smoke and mirrors. I think the American people want real things done. Whether it's a plan of action on the tax code health care education Social Security life rebuilding our military it all ties together I think from Abraham Lincoln's words at Gettysburg a new birth of freedom. But we have enormous opportunities but those opportunities won't happen unless we work to make them happen. And the traditional political politicians Washington special interests lobbyists. They just want a trim around the edges. We need real changes. So the vacuum is what you call a disconnect between what people want and what's happening in Washington. Washington has its own way of doing things as I refer to it. You might call it the rooster theory of government. They make a lot of noise in the morning. The sun comes up. They send out a press release proclaiming the good thing they did at the end of the day as the sun goes down. They'll denounce their opponents for this disaster.

Vow to work through the night to bring the sun up in the morning. Sad thing is they actually believe it. They talk and talk and talk but not much real is done. And one I think one of the frustrations of the American people right now is the feeling that no matter who you vote for it is politics and business as usual. And as an independent outsider I think that my putting real proposals on the table is something that is going to have growing appeal to make positive things happen. Help real working people. Now why do you think you have a better chance this time versus four years ago. What about you has changed a lot about the country has changed. I think you touched on it in the introduction. And that is time I got in the race very late in 1996 didn't have the opportunity to get the broad base message out didn't have the opportunity to build the kind of grassroots volunteer citizens organizations that you need in the early states particularly states such as New Hampshire. This time we do. And I think that when people start to

focus on this race and most people really haven't yet still summer I think that they'll be pleased and impressed with what we're offering real substance. I think it's a race basically between the status quo doing things the traditional way. Little changes here. Lots of talk there versus real positive change with a bold agenda such as I've put forth in a whole host of areas and we'll talk about those areas in just a moment such as taxes and Social Security. But I wonder do you feel like a more conservative candidate this time around I don't think that the labels would describe but I think that the American people recognize some things have to be done. And I was in. I've been traveling around the country and giving this message coming from Lincoln's words to people everywhere cutting across the traditional lines of the Republican Party and people respond

very positively to it. I was in Tampa yesterday at the National Baptist Convention of 20000 African-American pastors and I got a very warm response. We talked about the need to put parents in charge of education. What Social Security reforms needed there and how this can be an opportunity to create real family nest eggs and real family capital and people respond to it. So I think it's more going to those words of Lincoln a new birth of freedom. I think that's what excites people. So Steve Forbes hasn't really changed because I'm sure you've seen the analyses that you were regarded as an economic candidate the last time and now you're you know in definitely a more conservative wing of the candidates out there the philosophy and the positions are the same. No they they've been consistent. But I think in the last few years I've had a chance to talk to more audiences get the broad base message out. But in 1996 for example I did put forth a plan of action on the life issue in Arizona. I

certainly touch what was then considered the third rail of American politics which was Social Security and showed that you can discuss it. And when that it isn't the third rail done the same thing in health care put forth proposals such as medical savings accounts to put the patient in charge again. So I think that I've had a broad based message but when I started in 96 at the end of September I was an unknown asterisk. And so I let off with the tax issue in a very bold way. I wanted to show this was a campaign of substance and the clock ran out on us. A recent editorial the New York Post encouraged you to run for Senate from your home state of New Jersey. It said the American people don't see the presidency as an entry level position and that as a senator you'd gain some experience you'd have a national platform and then you could run for the White House again. How do you feel about people who say you know Steve Forbes gets some more in office experience before you run for president.

I think the American people don't want another traditional politician what they want is somebody who's going to make positive things happen. And as an independent outsider business person CEO I can make that happen. I've had more executive experience than all of my opponents running a real business. As a businessman I've tried I've been around the world doing business not posing for photo ops or doing junkets or getting photos for campaign brochures. But to do real things I visited 60 countries around the world met with business leaders and political leaders and others there to make real things happen. Do real stories. And so I'd put my experience around the world against anybody else's. And in terms of the political sphere in recent years I have headed up citizens organizations such as Empower America which was founded by Bill Bennett Jack Kemp and Jeane Kirkpatrick and then I had I was an honorary chairman of one that we

started after 96 Americans for hope growth an opportunity to make real things happen. We got involved in a number of issues statewide and national and we did help make real things happen such as an across the board income tax cut in the state of Iowa. So in terms of making things happen I'd match my record against others to the public square. You mentioned foreign policy actually. And the news is all about East Timor today. What would you do as president with that situation if anything. Well I think that the administration should have recognized that giving up East Timor was going to be a real hard thing to do for Indonesia because Indonesia is not a homogenous nation and they're very worried the military that the whole archipelago can break up into various states. So it should have been clear that this was not going to be a smooth process. That's why they seized it when the Portuguese left over 20 years ago. And so I think we should have been prepared Certainly the Australians are ready to do it with a

piece for forced to make this thing happen smoothly. Instead they just let chaos happen particularly at a time when the government of Indonesia is in a transition phase. So that's an example of bad handling. And I think eventually they are going to have to have an Australian led peace force to restore order there. But this was again an example of homework not being done. And you see the same thing happening very ominously with Russia Press Vice President Gore is headed up our foreign relations with Russia and it's been an unmitigated disaster. We've known for years that tens of billions of dollars were being siphoned off by a corrupt elite in the Kremlin who are no more democratic than their communist predecessors. They could have fit in the apparatchik regime fact some of them were former apparatchiks of the old regime. They could fit right in. And as a result of our turning a blind eye to massive stealing massive oppression the words democracy and free enterprise free markets in the eyes of the average Russian has become oppression. We have allowed

incredibly with Russia the rise of a new system of serfdom. Do you realize four out of ten Russian workers are on paid workers for the government are not paid. Teachers are not paid. Many workers in the for mines and other sectors are on paid for out of 10. And when they do get paid it's a princely sum of about 20 30 40 dollars a month. We at the very least should tell the kleptocrats in the Kremlin We won't even consider aid unless one you become current as a government on paying your workers and to you deny export licenses to concerns in Russia that aren't paying their workers in a timely manner. They saw natural resources. These elites these thieves rake in billions deposited overseas and the workers go unpaid. You have diseases in Russia diptheria coller that we thought we had eradicated in the modern world. So that's another Chinas another one where weve had drift and no real rules of engagement. And when you

have that kind of drift you can get disasters that could loom with Taiwan. So Indonesia is part of a bad pattern. You're listening to the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. I'm Laura Conaway our guest today Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes. This is Forbes the second run for the presidency. In 1996 he joined the race about five months before the New Hampshire primary. He became known mainly Then for his flat tax plan. This campaign he says he's had more time to flesh out positions on a variety of issues including Social Security health care and what Forbes calls the moral challenges facing the country. We'd like to hear from you this morning the exchange phone numbers are 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7. If you're in Concord join us at 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. Again it's your chance to speak with a Republican presidential candidate what would you like to hear the candidates talking about. Again 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9 and Mr. Forbes Before we go to the phones let's start talking about some of the major themes of this campaign.

In your speeches such as the one we heard at the beginning of the show you say that it's about freedom and choice and then you list several issues and the first that you often talk about is freedom from the IRS the Internal Revenue Service. Are you still promoting the 17 percent flat tax plan. Absolutely. And one of the things I find when I go around the country is that people almost regard taxes today as they do the weather. They feel they've been burned and betrayed so often they get a tax cut it's taken away what you get and one hand is taken out of the other hand. And that's why they're turned off on the political process. But if they believe that something might actually happen. Watch out. They want it to happen. And if people just add up all the taxes you pay. It's not just federal income tax it's Medicare taxes Social Security taxes. Look at your phone bill excise taxes. Most states have a state income tax and sales tax and the property taxes electricity taxes you have water taxes gasoline taxes you get marriage you pay a fee and then you have the marriage penalty you go to the airports and the runways still pay the ticket

tax you go to a hotel you pay an occupancy tax it adds up 30 40 50 cents on the dollar no matter what your income. And I think we can start on the federal level of giving people a chance to have more control over their lives be able to make decisions on quality of life decisions by taking this current income tax code and junking it. There's no way you can reform something that's ten times the size of the Bible or 1500 times the size of the American Constitution. That's how big it is. That's how big it is and nobody knows what's in there. You know you talk about black holes in the universe. Just look at this federal income tax code. It is bizarre. And so I say get rid of the thing put in a simple flat tax single rate tax that would work with generous exemptions for each adult and each child a family of four would pay no federal income tax on their first $36000 of income and then only 17 cents on the dollar above 36000. And so if you're in 40 you subtract

36 paid the tax and for there are no death taxes either. And a few weeks ago I met a family from Exeter or the Daley family. They own a fish market. They have three kids and they calculated with my flat tax that they would save enough money to buy health insurance for their family. They can't afford it right now. So it all ties together and with my flat tax that family making 36000 would save $1600 in federal income taxes right off the bat. I mean real savings for real people just want to and just might have been working with a couple of detailed questions. No mortgage deduction no charitable deductions. Those are the big ones that people hate to get rid of. That's true it is those exemptions 13000 for each adult 5 000 for each child. And for those who worry about my my plan as a tax cut. But I know people are very skeptical. So one change I did make from 96 is that under this new system you will have a

choice. You can file under this new system or if you wish you could stay with the old system. See for yourself which one is better. And ninety nine percent of the people I think will say new is better but see for yourself one of the criticisms of this tax that you've talked about for years is that it helps wealthy people more because it taxes wages only it doesn't tax investments which is often a source of the major source of income for wealthier Americans. How do you respond to that criticism. Well dividends and interest are taxed. They would be taxed at 17 percent because their income because it would be the the tax would be paid by the corporation. It's sort of like a withholding with your wages so businesses would pay taxes. Businesses would pay that tax. The thing is all income is tax. Tax wants tax at the source. Now I recognize that politically given the vagaries of Washington instead of having businesses pay that 17 percent they may want the individual to pay 17 percent on dividends and interest. But one way or the other those

dividends and interest are taxed at 17 percent. So if I make a wages only then I'm taxed on those wages. But if I don't have to work for a living and I get no capital gains in interest and dividends then I'm not I'm not paying taxes the interest and dividends are taxed at the business level not by the equivalent it's the equivalent when you get your salary. They don't pay you. GROSS they take out they do the deductions they say they do the withholding. In effect you have the withholding on the interest and dividend so that 17 percent is paid and paid and paid once. So all income is taxed income is taxed taxed at the source. I think it's more efficient to have the companies write the 17 percent check to the IRS instead of you as an individual. But if you want to have to do it instead of the company that's your privilege. Let's go to the phones again 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. You're listening to the Exchange in New Hampshire Public Radio. Our guest

today Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes. Our first calls from Exeter Christians on the air. Hi Christian. Hi. Hi. How are you. Christian All right. I wanted to ask you about I guess a special interest. You know I read the news. I want to pick on Bush but the 50 million dollar raised figure is always bandied about what crosses my mind. Where is this money coming from. Who is it coming from. What is it going to cost us. I'm wondering what specific steps or methods are you going to use to break that traditional insider as special Money Power that I just think cost us a lot. How are you going to do that. So you asked about campaign finance. Christian thank thank you very much Christian. I think you raise a couple of very is a very good point. Clearly the Washington lobbyists the special interests have chosen their own candidate showering money

upon that candidate because they don't want a real change in how business is done. And that's one advantage I have as an independent outsider. I'm not beholden to PACs not beholden to special interests. I can do try to do what is best for America in terms of campaign finance reform. To be blunt the rules are written to protect incumbents. The rules are written to protect business as usual. And what I would do is remove the caps on individual giving as long as there's full and prompt disclosure. And that way you can see each day on the Internet who's giving how much. How how if you're selling your soul to someone. And that way it makes it easier for people to raise the resources to be able to mount a campaign against an insider and give you one example. Thirty years ago Gene McCarthy a senator from Minnesota challenged a sitting President Lyndon Johnson a half a

dozen people of means liked what he said liked his position on the Vietnam war and therefore they helped they put up the bulk of the financing of his campaign. Therefore he was able to concentrate on campaigning and getting a debate going and he pulled a near upset off in New Hampshire. Now if he'd had to raise the money under the current rules it never would have worked. He never could have mounted that challenge. So the key is allow people to give as long as there's full disclosure prompt disclosure and that way we avoid what we have today where special interests become more important. All of these independent committees set up you don't know where the money comes from where it's going. I think openness is the key. And less regulation. I don't want Washington telling us who can run what you can say and when you can say it. Christian what do you think. Well it sounds good. Yeah. I hope you get it Mr. Forbes.

Why do you think we need a change. All right thank you very much for that call so full disclosure. But being able to give as much money as you want. Yes as long as you Laura want to do what you know then people can see how much you gave and to whom you gave it and when you gave it on a prompt basis. Absolutely. But how does that stop the influence of special interests. Couldn't. Doesn't that mean special interest could just give more and more and more. Well then again you see who is who is doing it. It is absolutely open. There's no disguising it. No. Funneling it through independent committees. It's absolutely out in the open. And I think too it makes it easy if you're committed to let's say you like a candidate and you say boy I want this person to have a chance to get that message out there and you want to help out in a major way should be free to do so. Because right now if you are an incumbent you have the Rolodex to get the contributions you have the access to all the PACs you have access to the press. You have the government in effect sending out mailings on your behalf. You have all those advantages. How does a challenger challenge you the challenger needs resources to get the name across

get the message across get the get get around all the advantages incumbent has. So you had more turnover in Congress when you didn't have these onerous restrictions than you do now. It is very rare. It happens occasionally. But for at us when an incumbent runs for re-election for Congress for the house or for the Senate it is very rare that that incumbent is defeated. Ninety five percent of the time the incumbents win. Let's go next to Dover and Carl's up next. Hi Carol. Hi Laura. Mr. Forbes Hi Carol thanks for taking my call. Thank you for calling. I'll be brief. Basically what I wanted to know was what your position on Tibet is what sort of policy you would pursue with China especially regarding Tibet but also regarding human rights violations and the like. And also if you would quickly a position on the recent World Bank project to relocate Chinese excuse me into in Tibet.

It's a good question. And let me answer first about China itself and then we'll focus on Tibet. Part of the problem with China today is we have an administration that wants us to think. Either you have a new Cold War or appeasement. I think the key that's a false choice. I think the key is to let the Chinese know what the rules of engagement are. And that way we have a chance for a peaceful relationship. The rules of engagement should include we will not be run out of Asia. The United States will keep a strong presence in that region which means that China is not going to be permitted we're not going to allow them to use force to retake Taiwan the Chinese have agreed in the past not to use violence against Taiwan. We should hold them to it. And unfortunately the Clinton White House is giving off very dangerous ambiguous signals on human rights which touches on Tibet. We should make it clear we will denounce human rights abuses in China in every international forum possible. And if they want to denounce us fine we we will win that kind of

openness contest. But the abuses are real whether it's Buddhists in Tibet Christians in China itself the shooting of prisoners to sell their organs for cash forced abortions prison labor the death factory orphanages The list goes on and dissidents will tell you Karl how important it is that we put the spotlight on these abuses. And what about most favored nation trading status. That is an issue for Republicans that this gets. We do want openness with China. We want trade but that means China has to reduce trade barriers. And finally finally if China wishes to transfer or sell dangerous technology to rogue states such as North Korea they should know sanctions will be applied against specific Chinese companies that do business in the United States that way don't blow the relationship up. But they know if the fences continue we're going to blacklist more companies and in Tibet itself Tibet should be an independent state. We don't have the means right now

to bring about Tibetan autonomy and independence but that doesn't mean we acquiesce in what China started to do in the early 1950s and suppressing Tibet and that's where the World Bank project. I think that's an example of where putting the spotlight on a potential abuse. Now they're beginning to do a little bit of backpedaling on it because the Chinese know now the world is watching. That was a bad project the World Bank shouldn't have done it and I hope they'll back off from it. Karl thanks for the call. Thank you. All right. And we are going to take a short break when we come back. A lot more of your phone calls for Steve Forbes and we'll talk about other issues including health care. Stay with us. This is the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. Monday on the exchange. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch a Republican candidate for president. Join us Monday for the exchange in. Support for the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio comes from our contributing listeners and we also received

support from Laconia savings bank financial services business of the year with 14 offices in New Hampshire Member FDIC equal housing lender. In. The. See America is certainly doing well on paper these days. At a long line of prosperity. Families are doing better unemployment slow. Something is still missing. And that is time spent with our families. That's why I'm running for president and this is the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. That's an ad

from Republican presidential campaign of Steve Forbes and Mr. Forbes is in our studio today. We'd like to hear from you to the exchange phone numbers are 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 in Concord 2 2 4 8 9 8 9 and Mr. Forbes Before we go back to the phones quickly let's talk about that campaign ad. I was struck by it because you know how would a President help me spend more time with my family. Well this is where what I've been proposing helps make it possible least gives you the chance to make that kind of choice. I mentioned earlier how much we now pay in taxes in essence with a two income family today in essence one of you works for the family one of you works to pay all the taxes tolls fees and levy to government with a flat tax. We would get a significant tax cut and at least that will give you at least the chance to make a decision do I want to spend a few hours more at home instead of doing the overtime at the factory or the office. It puts a little more power into your hands and that's what we need to do. Let you

make those choices instead of being forced into it. You have a chance to get off the treadmill and say this is what I think I have to do and now I have a chance to do it. Is the tax cut big enough to really take significant amounts of less time at work. We take for example family making 36000 which would save over $1600 in terms of taxes. That may mean you spend a few hours a couple of hours a week at home instead of at work. In terms of overtime it just puts a little more power into your hands. And I think that once we start on that people are going to say I want to be able to make those quality of life decisions. I don't want to have to be forced to do things. We are a free country and I think these are means to give people more control. Same thing on schools. You may wish to choose a school where you think they are helping reinforce the values of what you're trying to teach at home. I visited a school in Harlem New York the family Academy taking kids from the roughest backgrounds kids from homes with no natural parents and the getting a first grade

education. But in that school they go to 5 p.m. Why why why do we have this one size fits all mentality. And so by giving people those kind of choices I think they will have a chance for a better quality of life. It sounds like the tax cut giving people more time with their families would work more for people who maybe are hourly or maybe they don't have salaried jobs because I don't think that you know I for example could say to my boss Well I've got 600 extra dollars now I'm leaving at three instead of five. You know what I mean. But again in terms of one one nice thing about the flat tax is that when a couple earns more under the current code it's rigged the more no matter how fast your income grows the taxes grow faster. You never have it at the end of the day if your income goes up 10 percent your taxes go up 15 percent. And what I've found is that couples certain couples want to have at least the opportunity where one spouse can say I can really ratchet down we'll have to make adjustments but I want to ratchet down and then I'll get back in it full

time again. But at least you have a chance to make those choices. I want to give people more choice. Let's go back to the phones the next calls from Wolfeboro runs up from Wolfeboro. Hi Ron. Hi Laura. Thanks for having. Sure. Morning Mr. Forbes. Hi Ron how are you. Thanks. My question is in the same subject your taxes. First of all I'd like to ask how will the budget be balanced approach but gets a big tax break. Secondly it seems unfair that someone makes five million pays taxes at the same rate someone at 36000 in terms in terms of rate. Yeah the tax rate. Well again with with a simple flat tax you the more you make the more you pay. Under the current code with all of its complexities with seven and a half million words to hide behind you can find people with similar incomes and paying vastly different amounts of income

taxes. This way it's very simple. You make more you pay 17 cents on the dollar. And in terms of the family making 36000 under the flat tax their first 36000 your first 36000 is free of federal income tax. So that say that very well Social Security is another issue. And I do have a reform there where we keep the current system for those running those about to go on it. But for younger people you have a choice of going into a new system if you so choose where the bulk of your payroll taxes the bulk of your Social Security taxes will be deposited directly into your own personal individual retirement account which will give you a much more secure retirement. And in terms of your first question on balancing the budget when you reduce the burden on people this way you get more long term growth which means more government revenue. Moreover because of the simplicity of the code because you can't jiggle it and find ways around it you have more compliance

and in the past every time we've reduced the tax burden revenues have gone up not down when Kennedy John Kennedy proposed cutting income taxes in the early 60s by 20 percent. People said well that's going to blow 20 percent whole in revenues when those tax cuts were enacted. Revenues went up not down. The same thing happened in the early 80s. The problem in the 80s was the government got the extra money spend it and then spend some more. That's a spending problem not an income problem but government revenues go up. You don't think that the super rich the people that are making five 10 million dollars a year should pay taxes at a higher rate than working people. Ron I hear your point. You seem to be saying proportionally correct. Yeah. Why. Why should these two levels be equal. Thirty six thousand thirty six million. Well again it's the essence of simplicity and compliance and fairness that the more simple and the more you make the more you pay. Right now Ron people with those kind of incomes probably many of them pay even less than they would from the flat tax because of all the ways you can find around this current code. And as I mentioned

the code right now is rigged so that your taxes always grow faster than your income and that hurts working people. You go you get kicked into 15 from a 15 to 28 percent bracket. Never forget it's the middle class that gets hit by that kind of code. Ron we're going to move on but I appreciate the question. Thanks. Let's go next to Concord and Phoenix is up next. Hi Phoenix. Hi. Thank you for taking my call. Sure. I'm just really curious about this concept particularly of freedom choice and opportunity because I don't see with your pro-life or anti-choice stance how you're supporting freedom choice an opportunity for American women. Well in terms in terms of the life issue. I believe that life begins at conception and should and only natural death that they knew being a baby should be protected by the laws. It is a separate soul a separate life. I recognize Phoenix that many Americans don't

agree with my stance with my pro-life stance and that's why I believe the highest form of statesmanship is to try to find ways to bring people towards your goal find common ground even if it's short of the ultimate goal as a way of bringing people towards the goal. And that was the importance for example of partial birth which even many pro-choice people feel is a form of infanticide. Create a consensus enacted into law and hope to persuade people to the next step. And I think that the partial birth debate the rise of sonograms I think the ground is shifting. But I think you can't impose. I can't tell you what to believe. I can try to persuade you so that we can move towards that goal. And that's why you need to approach it with dignity with compassion patience understanding to try to bring people each step of the way and I have faith that ultimately we can reach the goal of the life amendment.

But Phoenix You seem to feel that freedom of choice includes the freedom to choose an abortion. And so it's a mixed message there. Absolutely and I think that making a statement that you want to end all abortions in the United States currently there is no form of contraception which is 100 percent safe. And in terms of preventing pregnancy except for abstinence and for certainly many married people and many single people that's not a realistic choice for them. And you've talked a couple of times now today about how you feel you shouldn't force decisions on people they should have an opportunity to make their own choice. And I feel again that supporting our differences of opinion is one thing but putting legislative barriers in place that prevent me from acting on my personal choice is really inappropriate especially if freedom choice and opportunity are things that you take seriously. I'd like you could consider taking us seriously for the women of this country. Phoenix thanks a lot for the call. Thank you Phoenix. But again I think there it's it comes

down to when do you think that that new being should be protected by the laws. And I recognize that we may have a disagreement on that. And I have obviously we have a lot of ground ahead to try to persuade you of that and it won't be enacted into law. A life amendment unless there is an overwhelming consensus but I believe that more and more people especially women and surveys show this are coming to see the need for more restrictions and even if you don't agree with the ultimate goal I think that many people do agree now that partial birth is unacceptable that there ought to be consent. In the case of with parents in the case of minors that there ought to be restrictions after the first trimester. And so enact those into law and then try to persuade people of the next step. So is that what you as president would do you would start with these you would gradually kind of create a consensus enacted those into law and then hope to persuade people the next step if you don't persuade people or it doesn't happen. That's

the essence of democracy. I believe that persuasion can work but I don't underestimate the difficulty of the task ahead. But I think it can happen. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 if you're in Concord join us at 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. Our guest today in the exchange Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes. We'd like to hear from you again 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7. Concord is 2 2 4 8 9 8 9. This is his second run for the presidency. He's a businessman from New Jersey. He ran for president last in the New Hampshire primary coming in fourth. Forbes has primarily this time pushing market based solutions to problems including school choice medical savings account private privatizing Social Security. He also says he'd like to offer Americans the biggest tax cut in history a 17 percent flat tax. Let's go back to the phones Mr. Forbes The next call is from Hampton falls sparrows on the air. Hi sparrow. Good morning Mr. Forbes. Good morning Sparrow how are you. Thank you. Do you have for improving education. And if so how do you plan to implement it.

It's a good question Sparrow because education is one of the most important things we do as a society is absolutely basic. And while there are many good school districts in America clearly overall our schools are not doing the job with our young people. You see it in reading scores you see it in math and science we're lagging kids from other countries. And my core belief is that I want parents to have the freedom of choice to choose the school they think works best for their child. And that way give teachers the freedom the teachers they know best without bureaucratic regulations or fear of lawsuits. And I've seen in inner cities such as Milwaukee where they have a choice to experiment kids getting a first rate education even though they come from very very rough backgrounds have enormous disadvantages. And we shouldn't settle for anything less than the best schools schools in the world. And I think that comes from freedom for parents parents not politicians should make those choices.

Thanks for the phone call. How does choice make schools better. I'm sure you've heard criticism that encouraging students to use public monies to go to other schools drains money from the public schools and hurts those children. Actually what it does is to bring up the level of all schooling because if schools know that they are going to have to perform or parents have a recourse they'll get their act together. They'll recognize those teachers who are doing a good job. I mentioned Milwaukee they've had a choice experiment Laura for several years earlier this year the Supreme Court refused to throw the experiment out. After that Supreme Court move the regular school system of Milwaukee suddenly made this offer to parents. They said if you enroll your child in kindergarten we have the school system guarantee that your child will be reading at grade level by second grade or the school system at its own expense will provide the tutoring and teaching necessary to bring your child up to speed. So it brings everyone up. You see the same thing in Cleveland where people where

parents have thousands have the choice and they're taking it and their kids are getting a good education. It's all a means to an end. And I think it would bring about a renaissance in public education just as freedom is brought about many of the glorious things we've done in this country. We have another call from Enfield Craigs up from Enfield. Hi Craig. Good morning to you. Morning. Yes. Mr. Forbes It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Nice to be with you Craig. Yes sir. I am calling on one of the truly divisive issues of the day in this country which I'm going to call the gun problem and I should be interested to hear your take on it and what the country needs to do about it. Please carry on. I think the key thing Craig is enforcement. We have a lot of laws on the book but sadly in various areas those laws are not being adequately enforced. Give you a couple of quick examples. It is a federal offense to bring a gun within 1000 feet of a school. Last

year there were over 6000 cases of individuals mostly kids caught bringing guns to school out of those thousands of cases Greg. Only a handful I think 13 or 14 were actually prosecuted. You've got to make it clear especially the young people certain things are just not acceptable. And if you do what you're going to pay a price for it. Another example is the Brady law. It is a it is a crime for a felon to try to buy a gun in Washington piously pats itself on the back that hundreds of people who shouldn't have been buying guns were caught because of the Brady law. What they don't say is that those are and those criminals who are with people with criminal records felony records who are trying to buy those guns they weren't prosecuted for violating the law they just said no don't do that. Which just meant they'd go elsewhere and try to get a gun. So you got to enforce the law. And we've seen law enforcement can work. You've seen it in Boston where they've reduced the murder rate in the 90s by two thirds. You've seen it in New York with those same kind of

reforms they start out in Boston was brought to New York where the murder rate has been reduced by almost 70 percent. Now there are loopholes that have to be closed. For example if a juvenile is convicted of a violent crime that individual should never be allowed to own a gun again and under current law in many parts of the country if you reach a certain age that records expunged and you can buy the gun that shouldn't happen. And also too in this high tech age I don't understand why you can't have a with high technology if you want to buy a gun they should be able to see very quickly. Quick check to see if you have a record that should prevent you from having access to a firearm. So the key is forcemeat the Democratic proposal to institute a three day waiting period on purchases at gun shows is absolute hogwash since we already have an instant check system for buyers at gun shops. Yes that's right. And with that kind of technology we should do it in a matter of seconds. Craig thanks for the call. You're welcome. So we don't need new laws we just need better enforcement of

existing laws in terms of guns. Well we need obviously to close some of those loopholes. For example there's another one in terms of adults passing firearms to minors illegally those penalties should be very real but enforcement is the key. And if you have good enforcement as we've seen in two major cities it has dramatic results. Would one of those loopholes that you talk about be the fact that right now at gun shows some dealers apparently don't have to do background checks some people who are not official licensed dealers at gun shows don't have to do background checks. I'm not familiar with that but I do know with computers you should be able to see very quickly if somebody has a felony record. You don't want felons with guns period. Let's go next to Northhampton Judy is up. Hi Judy. Next morning good morning Mr. FORD. Hi Judy. Good morning hope. Hopefully soon. President Ford. I like that. Thank you. You made my morning. Thank you. You know so my question is why is Congress so again taking the Social Security Trust off budget primarily

Judy because they want to raid that trust fund to fund to spend it on other things. Let me say this. And you hit on something very important. If the if in the private sector you did to a pension fund what Washington does the Social Security trust fund. You'd be liable to go to jail. It's illegal to pull the money out throw in an IOU and spend it on current expenses. And so yes it should be taken off budget. But that's why too I think we can keep the current Social Security system for those people who are on it and those people are about to go on it. But we must phase in a new system for younger people where those taxes are at least the majority of those taxes go to their own personal retirement accounts. It belongs to them. Couldn't touch it till a certain age. But that way you don't have to worry about what politicians do. It's safe and secure and you'll have far more in your retirement than this current system can possibly give you. But also too it helps most those with the least you take a couple making $30000 today.

Starting out by the time they retire under this new system even if they're very conservative with their investments and you'd have a menu of investments you couldn't do anything crazy with that money be mutual funds and the like they have over one half million dollars real capital for real people. Family nest eggs for real people. And another nice thing Judy if we have this new system is that something happens to you and you die prematurely under the current system. All those taxes are gone. Under this new system you can pass something on to your spouse or children or grandchildren it belongs to you. But you're right they're going to play games with that you know they are with this current system. Julie thanks for the phone call. Thank you very much have a nice day. OK. One of the concerns about privatization of Social Security is that if you put it in stocks and then there's a dip or a crash on the day that I turn 65 and I need the money what do I do. Well first of all there's never been a 20 year period where if you've been investing if the money's been going each each each month where you haven't had a gain

but let's say the worst happens under my plan you do have a minimum amount that you will be guaranteed. So there is a world government yet though there's this complete private privatization. There there is the guarantee that you'll have a minimum amount when you retire. Even if the world comes to an end. But the nice thing about this new system is let's say you've put 60 percent in stocks and 40 percent in bonds and the day you retire let's say the market disappears. Do you realize even if all goes down 80 90 percent in the day you retire. Even with what you have left you'd still get more in your retirement than the current system. It's amazing. Now would people be required to make these investments or you couldn't say you can take the money now and spend it or you can put it in a that you have to do this instead of the money that you pay now in taxes going to Washington would be deposited into your own private account. So say you couldn't touch it till a certain age but it would be belonging to you. And if you want to do mutual funds you can if you want to do government bonds you can if you want bank CDs

whatever you're comfortable with. It's your decision but it would be there would be restrictions and rules on what you could be offered so you wouldn't have to worry that the money is going to be run off to Siberia or something like that. It could be confusing for the average person who doesn't really understand how the market works how Bonds work each one what you find is when it comes to money. People learn very quickly and that's why you have tens of millions of Americans now doing funds 401 Ks and the like. And if you don't want to go to the market you just have your money go into the bank. Let's take one more call. There is that from Concord. Hi Sarah your last call today. Hello. Hi. Mr. FORD. I was just wanted to comment or ask a question. Sure. You're speaking very clearly as a business person and as someone who has worked with both governmental agencies and businesses myself I can understand you're talking as if you can walk into office as an outsider and get a flat tax passed and do all of these things when in reality

by becoming a candidate you have become a politician and government works is tremendously more complicated than business. And the way that it works and in order to get any of what you're talking about Don you need the cooperation of the Congress and the Senate and you need to you really you do lack experience in terms of drafting and getting through and following through the whole process of legislation. And I'm just wondering how you feel that you would be able to do this you would no longer be an outsider you would be the top politician in the country. And although you have the business background how do you see yourself moving through the legislative process. And I'll take my answer off the air here thanks a lot. Yes thank thank thank you Sarah. The way you make things happen in Washington is you just can't put a proposal on Capitol Hill and expect it to happen. I've been to Washington I've seen how Washington work. I've had an agency in

Washington radio free Europe and Radio Liberty. I know how the system works and doesn't work the way you make a major reform happen is one you get an election mandate. But then when you put it on Capitol Hill you make sure you've done what great leaders have done in the past whether it's Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt or others. You make sure you have the nation behind you. You make sure the nation understands what's there because it's going to take public pressure and public opinion to make a major reform happen. Doing it through Capitol Hill alone. I'd get cut to pieces. But with the support of the American people who want positive things to happen it's happened before major changes. We can do it again. And that's how you make major moves. I have one last campaign question for you. How do you want to be perceived on the campaign trail visa viz your major rivals. And who do you see as your major rivals. Well there are a whole host of them starting with the governor of Texas. But I don't worry about the rivals. What I think is important is to get my message based on

Lincoln's words a new birth of freedom through to the voters. They can see what I stand for. And I think they'll see that other campaigns are following in my wake in terms of specific exciting proposals. And rather than go with those who are going to do my proposals in a lighter version or a watered down version go with somebody who is leading not those who are going to play politics as usual and you press releases you often criticize George Bush for his stand in education for taxes for how he's financing his campaign. Do you run the danger Mr. Forbes of being perceived as the negative guy of the campaign. I've never attacked anyone on a personal basis. I do believe in engaging in a real debate on education for example. Governor Bush has put proposals forth that would give more power to Washington. I want to give that choice and freedom to parents and the teachers not to Washington. So we're there are honest differences. We should have a vigorous honest debate. That's what the voters are looking for. Mr. Forbes thanks a lot. We'll

see