 You said in your state that this was a difficult personal decision to decide whether or not to run for reelection. Was there a moment when you really thought, no, I am not going to run the second time? And if so, why? No, I can't say that, but I believe what I've said so often that the people let you know whether you should or not. And I just resisted allowing myself to think about it too early. I think campaigns are too long anyway. And I just waited to finally came to a decision. The funny thing is, both of us felt pretty much the same way. We both, several times, the thing would come up in talk or articles or conversations or anything, or something like, should we let this organizational effort go forward even without being an announced candidate. But we both had the attitude of saying that there would come a time when we would sit down and talk about it. And then there did come a time when we sat down one night. When was it? Oh, not too long ago. I'd have to say it was this fall. And there wasn't any disagreement about it. We both had the feeling that it should be done. Most people say it's going to be a close election. Whoever nominees for that grant is going to be a close election. We are an old political pro. Honestly, could you lose this election? Yes, I happen to be someone who I've never done this in all the times I've done it without the feeling I'm one little behind. What one, either perception or issue or question or political concern, have you at the moment? I won't, yes, and suppose that we rigged our programs and our tax breaks and so forth for the rich and for business. These are absolute falsehoods. Anyone who looks at it, I defy them to go back a long way in some of the tax relief programs, such as Kennedy's tax cut program in the 60s, and you will find that there were more benefits for the top five brackets, the income tax payers, and for business in those fields than there were in ours. Mr. President, there are people across this country that truly need the down and out, the poor, who look at you and they say, yeah, he is the nicest man and we like him, but his policies are causing misery. They're hurting us, we're hungry, and they don't understand, they say, if he cares about why are we hurting? What do you say to Dave, I tell you what I would like to be able to say that they don't have a chance to say to them is that, sure, when someone is having, down in his bucket, it's having hard times, and they'd like to have someone to blame, they have heard a steady drum beat that we are to blame, and what we're doing with the budget. Now, let me just point something on back when I was governor, and we conducted the most comprehensive welfare reforms that have ever been performed in this country. We saved, at the state level, it doesn't sound so big at the federal level, but we saved some two billion dollars in California to the tax payers with our reforms, and yet, at the same time, we're able to increase the grants for the truly needy people on welfare by 43%, and they have not had an increase in their grants since 1958, and I am now talking about in the 1970s that our reforms took place. Now, they've been told over and over again that because we're trying to hold down government spending, but somehow we're taking it out of their hands, we are spending more on food for the hungry, more on the needy, more on the healthcare that has ever been spent in the history of this country, but what is difficult to explain to them is that we've supported that, we've advocated and helped and have an office right here in the White House to tell people, the community that lives, what other people have found out they can do with other communities. Yes, that is a worthwhile thing, and probably were unique in this country, the New England country, where they start to do this. Just the other day, we saw a family on television in the news, wiped out before Christmas, although it gives them their home and everything else, and a few days later in the news, we saw where people from all over the United States, just on their own, were sending money and craftsmen and workers were coming from all over the country to help rebuild their house, free. That's great. If that would happen to every person who is in vacancies, the meetings in Geneva, the meetings with people who have been shooting each other for the last 14 years, coming together, the attempts on the part of President Jamile to broaden the base of his government and take in these dissident groups of Lebanese, all of this was offering a promise of success and the radicals and backed by Syrian who don't want success, who don't want peace in Lebanon, except on their terms. They are trying to drive the multinational force out because then they can have their way. If that happens, if we would yield to terrorists and say, well, we're just going to get out, the terrorists of the world know that all they have to do is perform their vicious acts and they can control the conduct of even great nations. Worse than that, it would mean the end of any possibility of long-term peace in the whole Middle East and it would probably be to war between Syria and Israel. And I don't think there could be any government of the United States that would ever stand by and see the state of Israel destroyed. Let me move to Saudi Arabia. You have said a long time, the only way to negotiate arms reduction is to do something. We have refurbished the military to a point where we haven't completely caught up with the great buildup of the Soviets, but we've caught up enough. Previous to this, you sit down with any negotiation with the Soviets and an administration says, we're going to cancel this weapon system. We're not going to build this bomber, not going to build this other program. They didn't have to give us anything in the line of disarmament. There was a campaign saying, no more of these limitation treaties like salt, where you went and what you tried to set was a ceiling on how fast you would add additional weapons. I said, let's have negotiations where we try to reduce the number we presently have on both sides. Would you make concessions to get the Soviets back to the negotiating table? We have been more flexible. They are the ones who have been adamant. They have not come back when we meet some terms of theirs and say, all right, let's negotiate on this. They have nothing to offer. You're saying, no, we won't make further concessions. No, we're saying, we'll be able to come on back. They made a statement of the start talks. They made one statement about something. They were willing to discuss a certain number of missiles, a certain number of planes, a certain number of missiles and submarines. And we've said, we're ready to talk on that. We'd like to then throw in some limitations on the number of warheads, total warheads, because each missile carries more than one warhead. They haven't come back. They're waging a propaganda campaign to try and scare our European allies into repudiating their request for the intermediate range missiles. Remember, we didn't start the Pershings and the cruise missiles for the NATO countries. They asked for that in 1979. They asked. And it was decided that the previous administration that we would provide those weapons, they did for it. And we're doing it. Deficits. Most people of Congress under the Constitution, which spends money, there is not one word of the Constitution to give the President the right to spend money. I don't have the control of that budget. They determine that. Now, the deficit has never been raised by them as a problem in all these years. But many of us, for 25 years, I've been making speeches that we cannot go on with deficit spending. And for most of those 40 years the Democrats told us deficit spending was all right. We owe it to ourselves. So we're not letting it. Right now. Right now we're out. Okay. The cuts in spending that I have asked for, and that's all I can do is ask and try to pressure them into it. My public decision, let me tell you, would be $40 billion of the present deficit right now if they had given the spending that I asked for in 1981. That would be it. So we're asking, so we're saying want to get into us now. This is where