 Thank you, Mr. President, for joining us today here on News 4. Well, please do. There are several issues that are of unique interest to the people of Michigan and the people of Detroit. Right now, the auto companies are negotiating with the UAW. Many of the workers are saying that Reaganomics has not worked for them, that the auto companies are registering record profits that they have been forced to give concessions. What do you say to these workers? Well, I think Reaganomics has moved or worked for everyone in that we do have a recovery. And we have seven million more people at work today than we're working in 1980. Now I hope that in the coming negotiations, certainly government should not interfere as a former union president myself. I believe that these problems are between management and labor to work out. But I do think that we have to keep in mind, yes, workers did make some concessions. On the other hand, while the automobile companies now are back in a profit position, there were several years there in which they were running tremendous losses. And I hope that there will be not only fairness as there should be, but some restraint also in the negotiations that we don't do anything right now at this point to turn off the recovery, the expansion that we're having. It is one of the best recoveries in all the seven or eight recessions that have occurred since World War II. And other than that, I'm not going to inject myself into the middle of that battle, but I don't think it's fair for anyone to suggest that they have not benefited from this recovery. We were in a very precarious state, our entire industrial capacity as a nation. Mr. President, you promised during your campaign a balanced budget at the end of your first term. Instead of a balanced budget, we have record deficits. Chairman Lee Iacocca of Chrysler Corporation calls that the largest threat to a healthy auto industry that exists. How do you answer it? Well I answer it by saying that we have had continuous deficits for 50 years. I've been one of the loudest voices I guess back over the years in saying that this was a false policy for this country to follow. It followed a policy that believed that a little inflation was good for us. And I, 20 years ago, said that a little inflation one day becomes runaway inflation and it did in this present time. Now when I promised an economic program that before the end of my term, first term would eliminate deficits, before the election even took place, the economy had so worsened that I said that promise no longer could be kept, that the situation had changed from the time that I, with the help of some fine leaders in this country and business executives had put together an economic plan to try and bring us down from inflation and deficits and everything else. We are going to continue to try. The size of the deficits now were in large part brought about by the recession that we were in. They were cyclical as it's called because they were the product of that recession. As we recover, we're finding that our own projections of deficits are too high. We're also finding that our projections of the government revenues after our tax cut, our projections were too low, that we are receiving more money than we had anticipated in tax revenues. So all of this is helping to bring down the deficits below the projected point. More than that, we have to continue reducing government costs. The federal government simply costs too much and is taking too higher percentage of the gross national product to not, well, to continue doing that would run the risk of going back into the repeated cycles of recessions that we've had. But I think now that with this economy, which is on a sound basis, with continued trimming of government spending, I think that we will get a handle on the recession. Mr. President, let's talk about something real pleasant now. An organization that has been going up faster than the gross national product and I'm talking about our own Detroit Tigers. Have you been following their exploits? Yes, I have. As a matter of fact, I know that they're in first place of the Eastern Division of the American League and the, I think their win-loss run is about 695 percent or so. And all I can say is, bless you boys. And all we can say is thank you, Mr. President, and the Detroit Tiger fans are grateful. Okay. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Yes, you're all. One other thing I didn't tell you, I'm sorry, Mr. President. I'll put this up as we get back to you when we're on now. Mr. President, my name is Don Cannon. I'm with WTAE Television in Pittsburgh. And my first question deals with social security. You have proposed and Congress is about to dispose of an increase in payments to recipients. Now today, Mr. Pickle, chairman of the House Social Security Committee, is saying that the tax FICA will have to be raised next year or the taxable base will have to be raised to cover this increase. How do you respond to that, sir? No, I don't think it will. But I'll tell you why we felt it was fair to do what I announced the other night. It is true that the regulations for governing social security, COLA's, as they're called, cost of living increases, prescribes that there is no cost of living increase if inflation is below 3%. Now there is a possibility that it may fall just below 3% in the third quarter of this year, which is the measuring point as to whether or not or what the COLA will be. And we have asked, as a part of our program that puts social security on a sound financial footing when it was due to go bankrupt along about July of 1983, and the bipartisan commission that came up with a proposal to fix this, part of it called for a six-month delay in a cost of living adjustment for the people on social security. And because of that, because of their taking that six-month delay, we just felt that it was only fair that even if inflation went below the three-point mark, and it may very well do that because for the last three months it's been running at 3.3% that it would only be fair for us for one more time to give this cost of living increase. Then if we continue on down with inflation, why this would be the end? This would be a one-time thing. And we think that's only fair. Mr. President, Mr. Mondale, in his acceptance speech last Thursday in San Francisco said you had a secret tax plan that regardless of who was elected president next year or this year, taxes would have to be raised that he was leveling with the American people and you would not. What's your response to that, sir? Well, my response is that he was half right. He was right about the fact that he would give us a tax increase because if you look at his record when he was a senator, he's voted for every tax increase ever proposed and I think sometimes has proposed them himself. So I'm quite sure that he would raise taxes. I'm quite sure that I would not because to me a tax increase is a last resort when there is no other thing to do. The tax increase, I think, could very well upset the recovery that we have. I believe the biggest single factor in the recovery that we have right now which has resulted in a restoration of profits to the automobile industry, to the housing industry. We're building twice as many homes as we were building in 1980. Now, I mentioned those two industry because either one of them can start a recession all by itself. Well, to have a tax increase could very well upset this recovery. The tax cut that we've had is the biggest factor, as I say, in that recovery. And so I have no secret plan. What we do have, I have asked the Treasury Department to study and bring to me by December some proposals for tax reform, number one, to simplify it. The tax code has become so complicated that the average citizen just cannot compute what they owe the government. And we want to have a more simple and a more fair tax system. And we want to see if we can't have one that will broaden the base so that we can actually reduce the rates on the individual's paying. When you stop and think that because of the complexity of the tax law right now, there is probably $100 billion of tax that is legitimately owed and not being paid. And those who are freeloading on their fellow taxpayers, I think should be brought into the payment of tax. Mr. President, will you accept the recommendations of the US International Trade Commission that the domestic steel industry needs relief in the form of tariffs and quotas over the next few years to bail out the industry? Well, we have their finding that the steel industry has been harmed by imports, but they then will be coming back with recommendations as to what the answer should be sometime in September. And my comment can only be that I am waiting to see what their recommendations are going to be. Finally, sir, you had a bad addiction for the tigers. Do you have one for the pilots? We're in last place, as you know. Well, you know, in the job that I'm in, I know that I can't really take sides with anyone. So having been a sports announcer and broadcasting major baseball myself, I can just wish them well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Gangadine. Hello, Mr. President, this is Mike Schneider in Miami. It's good to be able to talk to you again, sir. Good to talk to you, Mike. First question is, Mr. Caster just celebrated yet another anniversary in power in Cuba. Lots of questions there. He reportedly wants to talk to the United States, and there are rumors in Miami right now that the United States is negotiating in some secret capacity with the Cubans, possibly about the return of the Mariel criminals. Is that true? What can you tell us about that? Yes, there's been an indication that they are willing to talk about this, and we have been in communication with them and certainly are ready to talk. No plans have been set as yet for that, but to talk about the so-called Marialitos. Is there a good possibility that those people can be returned in the near future? I believe so, unless they go back on things that they have already said to us, and we see no indication of that. Yes, I think that, I think it's a matter of numbers and deciding how many, but they've expressed a willingness to take back. How soon could that be, sir? Possibly this year? I would hope so. The Simpsons was only built, sir. A lot of people down here have very strong emotions on that, especially in the Cuban-American community, there's been strong support for it. Those people thought that you supported that bill. Now we hear that if the House version of it is accepted and goes to your desk, you in fact will not sign it. That's what we've heard. Is that true, and if so, why was the parent flip-flop? Well, now, Mike, it's no flip-flop with me, and I never comment on whether I'll veto something until I see it finally on my desk, because sometimes what's been an apple up on Capitol Hill turns into an orange before it gets here, or vice versa. But it is true that I favor and support the Senate version of that bill. The House has injected some things in the bill that I find it very difficult to support. It would give us very great problems. Now, it hasn't gone into conference yet, but some place in conference, they usually come down between the two versions, and I will have to wait and see what is there. But yes, I've had to say that the House version would be unacceptable to me because of the things that had been added. If I may, sir, what is it in the House version that you find objectionable? Well, for one and a number of things, but for one alone is a tremendous cost factor that didn't exist in the other bill. The question now refers back to Mr. Mondale's charges that he, of course, says that he will raise taxes, and he claims that you will too. You say that you want that you'll try to cut spending, and there are many people in our area concerned that the spending cuts could come, of course, in Social Security or in Medicare packages or in the packages that they aid the elderly. What can you say to reassure those people? Well, first of all, with regard to Social Security, we have absolutely no plans whatsoever to change that. As you will remember, Social Security was made the object of a great deal of demagoguery in the 1982 election, and there were a great many faults which had the terrible effect of frightening many people dependent on that program. In spite of the fact that we tried in every way we could to tell them, we were not going to pull the rug out from under them. But we were faced with Social Security bellying up bankrupt in July of 83. In fact, to get some checks out, we had to borrow money. Then after the election, we had a bipartisan commission put together and we worked out a plan which has put Social Security on a sound footing for as well as far as we can see to the year 2025. So we're not making any changes in that. Now, Medicare is a problem that we have to meet because Medicare has something of the same problem that Social Security previously had, and it is faced not as immediate in danger as was Social Security, but it is faced with problems of fiscal insecurity in the next few years before 1990. So we are going to have to follow the same procedure and come up with a plan that ensures the fiscal soundness because there are 28 million people in this country depending on Medicare for their health services. Mr. President, there are those who claim that a second Reagan administration would be a much more dogmatic conservative administration that you'd be pushing harder on your so-called social agenda, pushing for a constitutional ban on abortion for a ban on school busing. Would that happen under a second Reagan administration? Well, I have been strongly in favor of a number of measures, the tuition tax credits for one, and now we've made some progress in the last few days on the prayer in schools. But I certainly wasn't seeking to impose prayers, I simply wanted to give them permission to pray if they wanted to and it would be up to them. And with regard to abortions, I feel that unless and until someone can establish that the unborn child is not a living human being, then that unborn child is protected by the constitutional protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And if you found a body and you didn't know whether it was dead or alive, you wouldn't bury it until you found out for sure that it was not living. And I feel the same way about the unborn child. In fact, all of the medical evidence so far proves definitely that the unborn child is a living human being and we have no right to take his life unless they would be taking that life in protection of the mother's life. Mr. President, thank you very much for letting the people of South Florida know how you feel, we appreciate it. Thank you. What? I thought that they had until September to bring in the recommendations. I'll be the first one to do five. Mr. President, it is far as to say that you're in Atlanta, it's a pleasure to talk with you. For us to know. Let's tell us some good old fashioned politics. Geraldine Ferraro has said that if this is a campaign without national debate, then it will dwindle to name calling. Jimmy Carter has said he's convinced that you're going to try to avoid a debate. And you've said you're going to leave it up to your campaign manager. It's a critical issue. Why not decide yourself and declare whether or not you wanna debate? I've said it all the way. I support the idea of debate, debated in the last election and would do so in this next one. I did not accept that statement of Vice President Mondale that we should have a half a dozen or more debates. As a matter of fact, I think we could bore the pants off the viewers if we did something of that kind. But I believe that there is something that we can agree upon in the nature of debating and I look forward to doing that. How many would you like, sir? Frankly, I think two would be as many as the public should stand for. But again, as I did say, that I think that those who work on the planning of strategy and the schedules and so forth have to be considered in this and I'm looking forward to listening to their counsel and advice. Would you like Vice President Bush to debate Ms. Ferrero? That is another issue that I think has to be decided involving them and involving strategy. Remember, the election really is between the two candidates for president. You can't get elected Vice President unless the head of the ticket wins. So let's talk about the environment. Anne Burford left the Environmental Protection Agency under a cloud. You have reappointed her to an advisory committee on oceans and environment, on oceans and atmospheres and that has upset environmental groups. Since she left the EPA in such a shambles, why reappointed? Well, I don't think she did leave it in the shambles and I just believe that when someone has been the victim of an attempted lynching, someone ought to come to the rescue. Anne Burford was called up to appear before the House Committee and the House Committee was demanding documents from her and we ruled with the advice of the Justice Department that we were going to stand for executive privilege and not make them available because those documents were part, well, they were investigatory reports and if it developed that in the continuing investigation there was reason for legal action against other individuals, that could be compromised by opening up those records. So she was simply carrying out our orders in refusing to make those records available and certainly didn't deserve the treatment that she received and I said from the very first that while they made it impossible for her to do anything but resign that I was going to find a place for her because I wanted her as a part of our administration. Mr. President, an environmental issue of critical concern to Georgians, the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Originally 6,500 acres were intended to be purchased under your administration that has been cut to something less than half and whether more critical lands will be purchased is up in the air. Will you free more money for purchase? Well, my understanding is that in the review of that land and the study of that land, 3,600 acres has been approved for additional addition to that park. At the same time, more land, I don't know whether it's limited to the 6,500 or the balance of it that you mentioned or whether it's even more, more land has been or is being studied and we are talking about trying to get together with counties, local communities and the state in efforts for joint purchase of additional land. And I can't tell you what the situation is with regard to that right now or what the balance is that's being considered. Mr. President, Nicaragua, you are giving money for what some people call a not-so-secret war there. You are supporting anti-Sandinista guerrillas whose open aim is to overthrow the government yet your administration has been saying you don't support the overthrow. How do you square those two? No, actually, what those people are, those so-called guerrillas or contras as they're called in Nicaragua, are actually, for the most part, people who were participants in the original revolution and then had that revolution stolen from them by the Communist Sandinistas and some of them were ousted from the country, some of them were jailed, they were denied any part in the government. What we're trying to support down there is the honest desire of the people of Nicaragua to have the revolution that was promised them. The Sandinistas and the others had promised the Organization of American States that the revolution's goals were freedom of the press, freedom to have labor unions, human rights, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, all the things that we believe are democratic. Once in, the Sandinistas ousted the others and have a totalitarian Marxist-Leninist, a communist government. Totalitarian and with a denial of the rights of the citizens and the people down there are being oppressed by that government and we believe that we have an obligation to support the legitimate demands of the Nicaraguan people. Mr. President from Atlanta, thank you for the conversation. Thank you.