 Listen everybody wire up here and we do this for this is the only taping goes on at this office for interviews and you're And then if you have any need of a transcript or anything from this or a tape why Because with a budget question speaker O'Neill says that your offer of a down payment on deficit reduction It's disingenuous because you're not willing to put either your defense budget or Or a proposed tax increases on the table No, when you invite people to come in as negotiators from both sides with varying views There's no restriction on what can be put on the table and Everything is subject to discussion and negotiation there What we've thought we could do in this political season instead of going along with the thought that Election years are ruled out for any kind of progress or anything is to see if we cannot discuss the Non-contentious issues and find some agreement that will whittle at this at this deficit Well anyone as I say no subject is ruled out for discussion. I feel very strongly myself With regard for example to taxes We had a tax increase last year Premised on the idea that we were going to get $3.00 and spending cuts for every dollar of increased revenue. We never got the $3.00 and spending cuts We think we're owed something Decision not to ask for very much in the way of cuts only five billion dollars I think Can you tell us why you didn't do more? Yes, it's pretty much the cuts we got last year and We discussed this at great length the We know there are more cuts and we need and we know we need more cuts, but rather than Polarize and have a No result We've come in with about as I say those cuts that we didn't get and Again the non-contentious ideas to see if we can come together in a bipartisan package for the Congress And but we think that there are more more cuts than we have put in there But we know that if we had if we had done everything that we thought we could get we couldn't get it not when the Voices we were getting from the opposition were calling for more spending even than we've suggested in this budget Could we look forward to what might happen in a second term? When this budget was released Dave Stockman was talking about structural reforms and tough bolts to bite If you're reelected would you try to reduce the big middle-class entitlements? And if so what would be the prime targets? Well, I've Yes, I've read something about supposedly the middle class and their entitlements I don't think we've aimed anything at any class or any group this misconception that has been Quite a drumbeat from Resulted in the drumbeat from the other side that somehow we've penalized the poor and the needy We are taking care of more people better then and spending more on this than any other Without any time and in our previous history and So we don't think that there but any of our economic program has Penalized particularly those people At the lower level actually if there are individuals who suffer from our economic program They are people who've been dropped from various things like food stamps because they weren't morally eligible for them Maybe some instances technically but even in many cases weren't even technically eligible for those programs We have tried to redirect The effort toward the people with the greatest need What about veterans benefits for example about what veterans benefits do you think that could be cut and maybe in a second term? I'm not going to discuss things like that and what we may do in the second term But this is only a down payment on what must be done at Getting government to backed within its means now Let me just give us an example that takes you 3,000 miles away from here is the type of thing that I think is More prevalent in government In California We succeeded with the most comprehensive welfare reforms that have ever been attempted in this country We saved there at a state level two billion dollars for the taxpayers We were able to increase the grants to the needy by 43 percent and they hadn't had this was in 1971 and to they hadn't had a raise in their grants since 1958 in spite of all of the inflation Now I guess what I'm saying is that every time over the years that people have tried to curb government spending Those who defend it and the special interest groups have come back and said all right What program do you want to do without? Well, that is a trap that no one should let themselves get pulled into Maybe there are some programs that government shouldn't be performing or conducting the If so why those should be eliminated whether there's a deficit or not simply because then there's something that's a needless expense But basically government has some programs that are governments legitimate function what those of us who have advocated savings are saying is Government can be run more efficiently and more economically than it has been run And I think we've proved that in the in the cuts so far People think that if if you want to mandate for cutting the budget you ought to send up the cuts now and before the election No You In a political season I Have some idea of what's going to happen in the politicizing of things of that kind we had an example it had to do with a program that That needed reforming because the program is going broke in 1981 would have been broke by 1983 in 1982 because we suggested Correcting that and preventing bankruptcy of the program Nothing was done We were kicked from every side and it became the political issue of 1982 But after the election in 1982 a bipartisan group came together and came in with a plan That restored fiscal integrity to that to that program now. This is pretty much what we have in mind now Let us deal now with the less contentious issues that can further reduce this Present deficit as we have estimated to say by a hundred billion dollars over the next three years Knowing that that is not enough We must go farther the other hand I Don't think that the score is in yet on the half of the deficit Which is caused cyclically by the recession our economic program and reforms first of all on Reducing spending have been implemented less than half of what we proposed But on the tax program and as I say we compromised a year ago and gave those who demanded that a Chunk I think of what they were asking for but we haven't really felt For a long enough period the full impact of what the tax cuts that we've made Have done Are you satisfied right now if we're talking about the increase in the money supply right now? I am I am not going to deny that there have been volatile changes in that in the past and that there has Has been a period in which they fell below even their own track and in which the string was pulled to tightly on the money supply which I think had an effect on the interest rates not Coming down after they had started to come down several stages I Have to say that the monetary policy has certainly been most helpful in Getting a handle on inflation from double digits down to 3.2 for last year But now I do know that they are in their track that they have They have deemed is and is apparently in Pretty much in the context of our growth what our requirements are Some people in Wall Street worried that the Fed might might ease too much It might rekindle burst of inflation by the end of the year on the other hand some of your allies like Congressman Jack Kent They said no at the problem is just the opposite. They're going to tighten up too much They should focus on getting interest rates down. Which do you think is the greatest concern if you look six seven months ahead? I think either one of them is wrong Let me point something out if we had a chart here in front of us for the increase in the money supply in 79 1980 the steepest increase in the money supply in the history of this country and double digit inflation for two years in a row Interest rates the prime rate at 21 and a half at one point inflation took 19 percent in this country and then Realizing in that chart if we were looking at it would have a peak going up like that then when they did pull the string The end of 1980 and on into 1981 They came down so steeply that I feel that Probably had something to do with the additional Depth of the recession that took place. I know they call it two recessions that we had one in 79 and 80 And then we had a reprise and then we had one again in in 81 in July when the bottom fell out Of course politically in this season. They're saying that it was our economic program that did it in 1981 Only our economic program wasn't in place until October and then only a small fraction of it, but There with the string pulled that tightly There is no question it had a salubrious effect on inflation, but it also Kept the interest rates high Well, I don't think they're going to I We have reason to believe that That their policy and and not just that great dip there has been a time recently as they said when they got below It isn't It's a kind of a clumsy tool They they don't There isn't a fine tuning that they can always be exact You have to take what they're doing over a little longer period of time than just month to month but I do know that Their track is set and they're apparently in that track now. It's my understanding that they intend to stay in that In that range, Mr. President we turn to foreign affairs for a moment. I'd be relieved Your administration is obviously anxious to resume the arms negotiations with the Soviet Union No, and yet at the same time you're saying the Soviets are violating existing arms treaties And we don't seem to be able to do very much about it You think it might be misleading to let people believe that this kind of negotiation on this kind of a treaty is going to solve any of our problems the you're talking about our reporting to the Congress on supposed violations or apparent apparent violations That is required of us an act of Congress We didn't just go running out and say hey, let's blow the whistle on the Soviets if they're doing something They demanded that and we gave them as exactly as we could The evidence that we had as to Whether there were things that were actually apparent violations of an agreement There were some that were ambiguous and they gave the appearance of that and we presented that evidence Their evaluation whatever they want to evaluate But we also said yes, we said that this only strengthens our position of Insisting that a major part of any future treaties must be verification The ability to verify whether the treaties are being Are being kept but after you decided they aren't being kept as you have in some cases here What do you do then? We call them to the attention and have to the Soviet Union But as I say, I think that in the in the negotiations that we hope will resume that This is our evidence as to why we're justified in seeking Full verification You proposed a big research program for what everyone calls a Star Wars missile defense Do you agree that actually deploying that kind of a system would require the renunciation of the salt one treaty? And are you ready to do that if you have to? my My ambition or my dream for if there is a defensive weapon You see here's a new weapon in the world and for the first time it is a weapon that has no defense against it except deterrence That we each have it it's like two fellows with a gun pointed at each other both of them cocked and both with their fingers in the Trigger and we're going to stand spend the rest of our life doing that My dream was that if if we could find a weapon That offered a defense against those We could then immediately take the next step and say now doesn't common sense dictate That we eliminate these weapons and that would include our own If we had the defensive weapon and no one else had it, but we also had the missiles Wouldn't it be the proof of our sincerity if we said look we've we've got it made we've got both now and we tell you We will eliminate ours along with everyone else This is Dwight Eisenhower Wrote a letter to a publisher in his closing days in office And he said we are coming to a point in which for the first time in history we have weapons That render obsolete any of the previous notions we've ever had about victory or defeat in war That there can be with these weapons No defeat or victory as we have known it only the destruction of mankind Now he said reaching that point isn't a time that we sat down together and Figured out a better way to settle disputes than by war Well, I feel that way very definitely and I think that the my hope is that if we can continue and resume the Negotiations with regard to nuclear weapons. We are going to the data set for the multi the MBFR Negotiations, but the others that starting down that road Everyone will see the wisdom of Total elimination I remember being with you time and time again in 1980 in which you basically argued that The reason we had to build up our defenses was just was to persuade the Soviets that it was futile But then we think that they could help do us in this area that if we build up our defenses That sooner or later the Soviets would realize this and out of self-interest they would become more reasonable Yes, certainly build up our defenses. You see signs that the Soviets have become more reasonable well, I think that what we're seeing is a part of of Negotiations and I think that what we've accomplished here is what I had talked about and I said then also in that campaign over and over again that I would stay at a table Well meaning our country our negotiators stay at a table as long as was necessary to bring about a reduction in our arms the salt treaties and The reason I've never been enthusiastic about them They were simply setting trying to set caps on how many more you could have And I was shocked when a knowledgeable person in that field told me shortly after I arrived in this office That had we ratified salt to Under the terms of that treaty the Soviet Union would have been able to add the equivalent of The megaton age that we dropped on Hiroshima Every 11 minutes since the treaty was ratified now The reason for negotiating I feel must be to reduce the weapons now you're asking about That I think this it is too early to say this we do know this we know that they are Pretty much at their maximum of output and have been for a long time We also know that we have been unilaterally disarming over a period of years They didn't have to demand that we eliminate a B1 bomber Even without going to a negotiating table we canceled it and we were doing this with weapons cease We were reducing our Navy. We were Unilaterally disarming Now it seemed to me that the only way that we were going to convince them that common sense called for reduction of arms was to build our own our defenses to where they we had a deterrent capacity but to make it evident That we were going to maintain a deterrent policy They would then have to look and say how much would they have to build To try and get a sufficient advantage over us And I don't think they can and I don't and I think then they know that they know the industrial might of this nation Let me turn you to Levin on it. I may sir as you know House Speaker O'Neill provided the crucial support for the bipartisan consensus on the war powers resolution three months ago. He now says that your policy Lebanon is a failure the house next week is expected to pass a resolution which would call on you to bring How are you going to respond to that? Well, I'm going to respond that he may be ready to surrender, but I'm not As long as there is a chance for peace The mission remains the same and the very fact that since along about last August For the first year that they were there are and it's not just the Marines There is a multinational force. We have three allied powers who feel as strongly as we do who are in there the multinational force was sent in at a time when Lebanon after years of Civil war literally in which there virtually was no government Certainly, they did not have authority over their own territory The Israelis because of the threats to their northern border and the actual assaults in their northern border had finally advanced and gone all the way to the Ejibre route The PLO with its terrorist bands was widespread throughout the country. They were less refugees than they were An occupying force the Syrians had moved in for their own purposes Beirut was the battlefield the casualties were mainly civilian The idea was and we had I had proposed that we take up where Camp David left off and Try to bring about overall peace through negotiations between the Arab nations and Israel You couldn't do that as long as this situation prevailed in Lebanon the idea was that if the Other international forces could or the other countries could be made to withdraw then the Lebanese government would have to Have the authority and then have the military capability of taking over the areas previously occupied by these other forces But which now would be in the hands of the same militant Lebanese forces who had been in a state of civil war and that The multinational force would be a stabilizing force while Lebanon strengthened itself and then moved out to do this when we went in the Understanding was that both Israel and Lebanon or Israel and Syria had agreed That they would withdraw both saying when the other we will withdraw together the PLO had been Taken out removed from the country great progress was made with the removal of the PLO this The Israeli signed an agreement and have already made phased withdrawals back toward their own border Syria for whatever reason of their own Renigged and has now said they won't withdraw This is a stumbling block and this is Asked the number of troops over there or you have to get them out Well, what he was really What he was really admitting Was the fact that they reneged because Syria is bent on Territorial conquest it wants Lebanon or a large part thereof to be Syria They are an occupying force violation of what they had previously agreed to But we look at the progress that had been made We look now that there is a government of Lebanon and Due to our own training of that their military force. We have an army unit. No one everyone's so busy talking about the Marines They don't know notice this that the army has been in their training. We have been equipping them they are Really a first-rate military force. They don't have the numbers yet by April. However There'll be double the number of of Brigades that they presently have Of course Syria's got some fifty seven thousand armed or military on Lebanese soil But as long as there is a chance for victory for peace I Don't know of any of the multinational forces that are in there the four nations in there that Are desirous of leaving we are not just sitting over their fingers crossed We are studying and planning and where we can be more effective and where we can resist because As I said started to say a moment ago about last August The terrorist attacks that are being leveled against the multinational forces are being leveled because of the success of this plan and Now they want to drive us out because they can't recognize their territorial ambitions as long as we're there Now can the United States in the face of this? Can the United States? suddenly up and regardless of our Allies in the multinational force or anything else say well, we're going to get out and if we get out that means the end of Lebanon and if we get out it also means the end of any Ability in our part to bring about an overall peace in the Middle East and I would have to say that it means a Pretty disastrous result for us worldwide Well you've seen us retaliate in the event of when we've had artillery targets to fire back it No, but let me say this also with regard to that Enough civilians have been the targets in this war It is true that these terrorist groups and the Syrians and others in the Druze make use of civilians and launch their assaults by rocket or artillery or whatever from civilian Enclaves and residential areas where to fire back You are a threat to civilian targets on the matter of the terrible tragedy the terrorist group We set out the best ability we had of reconnaissance and intelligence to make sure that we could locate the perpetrators their Their stronghold so that we would not just be killing somebody without knowing who in revenge you might say whether they had anything to do with the dastardly deed or not and we were Had some feelings that we had located but there was additional information. We wanted that the people Valve were still there and Someone else evidently knew more than we did or was not as careful as we were and took that target out Before we could get to it Was as simple as that So you don't expect to do anything more about that pledge to on the Marines well unless we continue trying to the best of our ability intelligence wise to Get evidence on the locale of these these type terrorists and where they might be and And we have as I said the other night in my speech We are contacting our own allies and friends worldwide as to how We can together Combat this new kind of warfare. I don't think any country modern times has ever been prepared for this kind of assault and You don't fight it the way you The way you take a grenade a for example if we could shift to another hot spot The We're gonna have an election next month in El Salvador and one of the leading candidates is Roberto doba song Recently the State Department wouldn't give him a visa even to visit the United States and I'm wondering if he's elected down there Whether he'll be able to support his government Well, that's going to be depend a lot on what kind of a government and what kind of policies he follows We are determined and I think George shows and before him vice president Bush Brought a letter from me down there expressing my views and then expressed his own and very forcefully and Appropriately have made it plain. We have very definite feelings about the violence and the violation of human rights whether from the left or right I Think the thing that we have to recognize though is That the left and the right are Literally together on their goals The guerrillas we know what they're after the destruction of a democratic government the first such Government that I think that country's had in 400 years But those from the right Who are opposed to the democratic principles and policies that this government is implementing? There they have the same goal as the left They're trying to destroy that same democratic government Now Acceptance well, I always have accepted women frankly when I was assailed by that one woman in the Business women's meeting over there for my story about us and what we might do I Wasn't joking. I really meant it. I think they have in our Magnificent civilizing influence, but I also think you can't look around the world and Their belief that women can be entrusted with certain professions and jobs that they have never Were not often had before Does not surprise me I Had the greatest esteem for a go to my air I have to for a for a Margaret Thatcher But I also think that of England wants to look back in its history. They did pretty well with a Queen Victoria And we forget What No, because she knows how I feel but really, this is I think they're I think it's like lacking a sense of balance or humor for some people to get so imbued with something that they set standards that Are a little extreme I certainly as I said had never met anything derogatory I spoke with great Admiration when I sometimes use the terms I'm a little more careful now because if they're going to offend someone I don't want to don't want to do that But I don't know whether I should tell this story or not I'll tell you they'll shut off the tape I'll tell them I'll tell it off the record because it might not be diplomatic Victoria