 Good evening. I'm Ruth Heinerfeld of the League of Women Voters Education Fund. We're pleased to be in Baltimore for the first of our 1980 presidential debates. The League is a non-partisan organization. We're presenting these debates to provide citizens an opportunity to see and hear the candidates state their positions on important issues of concern to us all. Our moderator is Bill Moyers. Thank you, Mrs. Heinerfeld. My colleagues and I agreed to participate tonight, although the questioners are limited by the constraints of the format, because we thought with the League of Women Voters that it is desirable to seek a comparison of views on a few issues in a joint appearance by the men who would be the next president of the United States. Former Governor Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party candidate, and Congressman John Anderson, who is running as an independent, accepted the League of Women Voters invitation to be here. President Carter declined. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Anderson will respond with their views on certain issues posed by questions from my colleagues. Carol Loomis of Fortune magazine. Daniel Greenberg, a syndicated columnist. Charles Cordray of the Baltimore Sun. Lee May of the Los Angeles Times. James Bryant Quinn, Jane Bryant Quinn of Newsweek, and Soma Golden of the New York Times. None of the questions has been submitted in advance to either the League of Women Voters or to the candidates or to their representatives. Gentlemen, thank you both for coming. The ground rules you agreed upon with the League are brief. Each panelist will ask a single question. You will have two and a half minutes in which to respond. After you've stated your positions in those two and a half minutes, each of you will have one minute and 15 seconds for response. At the close of the debate, each of you will have three minutes for closing remarks. We ask the convention center audience to abide by one simple ground rule. Please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate. You may do that on November 4th. Having won the toss of the coin, Mr. Anderson will respond to the first question from Carol Loomis. Mr. Anderson, opinion polls show that the American public sees inflation as the country's number one economic problem. Yet as individuals, they oppose cures that hurt them personally. Elected officials have played along by promising to cure inflation while backing away from tough programs that might hurt one special interest group or another and by actually adding inflationary elements to the system, such as indexing. They have gone for what is politically popular rather than for what might work an amount to leadership. My question and please be specific. Is what politically unpopular measures are you willing to endorse, push and stay with that might provide real progress in reducing inflation? Well, Ms. Loomis, I think it's very appropriate that the first question in this first debate of campaign 80 should relate to the economy of the country. Because it seems to me that the people who are watching us tonight, 221 million Americans are truly concerned about the poor rate of performance of the American economy over the last four years. Now Governor Reagan is not responsible for what has happened over the last four years, nor am I. The man who should be here tonight to respond to those charges chose not to attend. But I want to answer as specifically as I can the question that you have just put to me. Let me tell you that I first of all oppose an election year tax cut. Whether it is the 10 percent across the board tax cut promised to the taxpayers by my opponent in this debate tonight, or whether it is the twenty seven point five billion dollar tax cut promised on the 20th of August by President Carter, I simply think that when we are confronting a budget deficit this year and this fiscal year will end in about ten days. And we are confronted with the possibility of a deficit of sixty billion dollars, perhaps as much as sixty three billion dollars, that that simply would be irresponsible. That once again the printing presses will start to roll. Once again we will see the monetization of that debt result in a higher rate of inflation. Even though we've seen some hopeful signs perhaps in the flash report on the third quarter that perhaps the economy is coming out of the recession, we've also seen the rise in the rate of the prime. We have seen mortgage rates go back up again, a sure sign of inflation in the housing industry. What I would propose, and I proposed it way back in March when I was a candidate in my own state of Illinois, I proposed eleven point three billion dollars specifically in cuts in the federal budget. I think we've got to have fiscal restraint and I said at that time that one of the things that we could do that perhaps would save as much as five to seven billion dollars, according to one of the leading members of the House Budget Committee, was to recalculate the index that is used to determine the cost of living benefits that are paid to civil service retirees, to military retirees. That we ought to, in addition to that, we ought to pay those retirement benefits on the basis of once a year rather than twice a year and save seven hundred and fifty billion dollars. In other words, fiscal restraint, I think, is necessary. Ms. Loomis? Mr. Reagan, repeating the question, and I would ask you again to engage in as many specifics as you possibly can. What politically unpopular measures are you willing to endorse, push and stay with that might provide real progress in reducing inflation? I believe that the only unpopular measures actually that could be or would be applied would be unpopular with government and with those perhaps some special interest groups who are tied closely to government. I believe that inflation today is caused by government simply spending more than government takes in at the same time that government is imposed upon business and industry from the shopkeeper on the corner to the biggest industrial plant in America, countless harassing regulations and punitive taxes that have reduced productivity at the same time they have increased the cost of production. And when you are reducing productivity at the same time that you are turning out printing press money in excessive amounts, you're causing inflation and it isn't really higher prices, it's just you are reducing the value of the money, you are robbing the American people of their savings. And so the plan that I have proposed and contrary to what John says, my plan is for a phased in tax cut over a three-year period, tax increase in depreciation allowances for business and industry to give them the capital to refurbish plant and equipment, research and development, improve technology, all of which we see our foreign competitors having and we have the greatest percentage of outmoded industrial plant and equipment of any of the industrial nations. Produce more, have stable money supply and give the people of this country a greater share of their own savings. Now I know that this has been called inflationary, am I upon it? And by the man who isn't here tonight. But I don't see where it is inflationary to have people keep more of their earnings and spend it and it isn't inflationary for government to take that money away from them and spend it on the things it wants to spend it on. I believe we need incentive for the individual and for business and industry and I believe the plan that I have submitted with detailed backing and which has been approved by a number of our leading economists in the country is based on projections, conservative projections out for the next five years that indicates that this plan would by 1983 result in a balanced budget. We have to remember when we talk a tax cut we're only talking about reducing a tax increase because this administration has left us with a built-in tax increase that will amount to 86 billion dollars next year and 500 billion dollars over the next five. Mr. Anderson? But tomorrow in addition to saying that this is no time for a tax cut in view of the incipient signs of renewed inflation in addition to calling for restraint in federal spending 15 months ago I also suggested we ought to have an emergency excise tax on gasoline. I say that because I think this year we will send 90 billion dollars out of this country to pay for imported oil even though that those imports have been reduced and since I first made that proposal 15 months ago the price of gasoline which was then 80 cents has gone up to about a dollar and 30 cents. In other words we've had a huge increase of about 50 cents a gallon since that time and all of that increase has gone out of this country or much of it into the pockets of OPEC oil producers for as I have proposed we ought to take put that tax on here at home reduce our consumption of that imported oil recycle those proceeds then back into the pockets of the American workers by reducing their tax payments their social security tax payments by 50 percent that I think in addition would be an anti-inflationary measure that would strengthen the economy of this country. Mr. Reagan? Well I cannot see where a 50-cent a gallon tax applied to gasoline would have changed the price of gasoline it would still have gone up as much as it has and the 50 cents would be added on top of that and it would be a tax paid by the consumers and then we're asked to believe that some way they would get this back to the consumers well why why take it in the first place if you're going to give it back why not leave it with them and John spoke about 15 years ago on the position that he or 15 months ago and what he believed in 15 months ago he was a co-signer and advocating the very tax cut that I am proposing and said that that would be a forward step in fighting inflation and that it would be beneficial to the working people of this country. The next question goes to Mr. Reagan from Daniel Greenberg. Well gentlemen what I'd like to say first is I think the panel and the audience would appreciate responsiveness to the questions rather than repetitions of your campaign addresses. My question for the governor is every serious examination of the future supply of energy and other essential resources including air land and water finds that we face shortages and skyrocketing prices and that in many ways we're pushing the environment to dangerous limits. I'd like to know specifically what changes you would encourage and require in American lifestyles in automobile use, housing, land use and general consumption to meet problems that aren't going to respond to campaign lullabies about minor conservation efforts and more production. Well I believe that conservation of course is worthy in and of itself. Anything that would preserve or help us use less energy that would be fine and I'm for it but I do not believe that conservation alone is the answer to the present energy problem because all you're doing then is staving off by a short time the day when you would come to the end of the energy supply to say that we are limited and in a dangerous point in this country with regard to energy I think is to ignore the fact. The fact is that in today's oil wells there is more oil still there than we have so far taken out and used but it would require what is known as secondary or tertiary efforts to bring it out of the ground and this is known oil reserves, known supplies. There are hundreds of millions of acres of land that have been taken out of circulation by the government for whatever reason they have that is believed by the most knowledgeable oil geologists to contain probably more oil and natural gas than we have used so far since we drilled that first well 121 years ago. We have a coal supply that is equal to 50% of the world's coal supply good for centuries in this country. I grant you that prices may go up because as you go further and have to go deeper you are adding to the cost of production. We have nuclear power which I believe with the safest, the most stringent of safety requirements could meet our energy needs for the next couple of decades while we go forward exploring the areas of solar power and other forms of energy that might be renewable and that would not be exhaustible. All of these things can be done when you stop and think that we are only drilling on 2% have leased only 2% of the possibility for oil of the whole continental shelf around the United States. When you stop to think that the government has taken over 100 million acres of land out of circulation in Alaska alone that is believed by geologists to contain much in the line of minerals and energy sources then I think it is the government and the government with its own restrictions and regulations that is creating the energy crisis that we are indeed an energy rich nation. I would like to say at this point that the candidates requested the same questions to be repeated for the sake of precision on the part of the interrogator. So Mr. Greenberg you may address Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson I'd like to know specifically what changes you would encourage and require in American lifestyles in automobile use, housing, land use and consumption to meet problems that aren't going to respond to campaign lullabies about minor conservation efforts and more production. Mr. Greenberg I simply cannot allow to go on past the statements that have just been made by Mr. Reagan who once again has demonstrated I think a total misunderstanding of the energy crisis that confronts not only this country but the world. When he suggests that we have 27 years supply of natural gas, 47 years supply of oil and all the rest and that we really all we have to do is to get the government off the back of the oil industry and that's going to be enough. I agree with what I think is the major premise of your question, sir, that we are going to have to create a new conservation ethic in the minds of the American people and that's simply why I proposed 15 months ago the emergency excise tax on gasoline that I did. I did it as a security measure to be sure because I would rather see us reduce the consumption of imported oil than have to send American boys to fight in the Persian Gulf. But at the same time I think it's going to take a dramatic measure of that kind to convince the American people that we will have to reduce the use of the private automobile. We simply cannot have people sitting one behind the wheel of a car in these long traffic jams going in and out of our great cities. We are going to have to resort to van pooling, to car pooling. We're going to have to develop better community transportation systems so that with buses and light rail we can replace the private automobile in those places where it clearly is not energy efficient. I think that with respect to housing, when we are consuming, even though our per capita income today is about the same as that of the Federal Republic of Germany, we are consuming about by a factor of two the amount of energy that they consume in that country. Surely there are things that we can do in the retrofitting, in the redesign of our homes, not only of our houses, but of our commercial structures as well that will make it possible for us to achieve. According to one study that was published a short time ago, the Harvard Business School study indicated that just in the commercial sector alone of the economy, we could say between 30 and 40 percent of the energy that we consume in this country today. So I think, yes, we will have to change in a very appreciable way some of the lifestyles that we now enjoy. Mr. Reagan. Well, as I've said, I am not an enemy of conservation. I wouldn't be called a conservative if I were. But when my figures are challenged, as the president himself challenged them after I made them, I think it should be called the attention of John and the others here that my figures are the figures of the Department of Energy, which has not been overly optimistic in recent years as to how much supply we have left. That is the same government that in 1920 told us we only had enough oil left for 13 years. And 19 years later told us we only had enough left for another 15 years. As for saving energy and conserving, the American people haven't been doing badly at that. Because in industry today, we're producing more over the last several years and at 12% less use of energy than we were back in about 1973. And motorists are using 8% less than they were back at that time of the oil embargo. So I think we are proving that we can go forward with conservation and benefit from that. But also I think it is safe to say that we do have sources of energy that have not yet been used or found. Mr. Anderson. Mr. Greenberg, I think my opponent in this debate tonight is overlooking one other very important fact and that is that we cannot look at this as simply a national problem. Even though it's true that perhaps between now and the end of the decade, our total consumption of oil may not increase by more than perhaps a million or two barrels of oil a day. The rest of the western world we are told may see its consumption increase from 51 million barrels to about 66 million and that additional 15 million barrels is going to cause scarcity. It is going to cause scarcity in world markets because there are at least five reputable studies, one even by the American Petroleum Institute itself, that I think clearly indicates that somewhere along around the end of the present decade, total world demand for oil is simply going to exceed total available supplies. I think that conservation, I think that a change in lifestyles is necessary and we had better begin to plan for that now rather than later. This question goes to you Mr. Anderson from Charles Cordry. Mr. Anderson, you and Mr. Reagan both speak for better defense, for stronger defense and for programs that would mean spending more money. You do not either of you however come to grips with the fundamental problem of manning the forces of who shall serve and how the burden will be distributed. This will surely be a critical issue in the next presidential term. You both oppose the draft. The questions are how would you fill the understrength combat forces with numbers and quality without reviving conscription and will you commit yourself here tonight? Should you become the commander in chief to propose a draft however unpopular if it becomes clear that voluntary means are not working? Mr. Cordry, I am well aware of the present deficiencies in the armed forces of this country. When you have a report as we did recently that's six out of ten conus divisions in this country, continental United States army divisions simply could not pass a readiness test. That two out of three divisions that were to be allocated to the so-called rapid deployment force could not meet a readiness test and in most cases that failure to meet the test was because of a lack of manning requirements and inability to fill many of the slots in those divisions. Yes I have seen figures that indicate that perhaps as of September 1980 this very month that there is a shortage of about 104,000 in the ranks between E-4 and E-9 and there were reports public reports not long ago about ships that could not leave American ports because of a lack of crews. I talked to one of the leading former chiefs of naval operations in my office a few weeks ago who told me about 25,000 chief petty officers being short but I think that that is clearly related to the fact that going back to the time when the all volunteer army was created in 1973 and I worked hard for it and supported it. We simply have failed to keep pace with the cost of living and today on the average the average service man is at least 15 percent and I happen to think that's a very modest estimate 15 percent below what has happened to the cost of living over that period of time and as a result the families of some of our young service men are on food stamps today and I think that's shocking it's shameful so yes I told the American Legion National Convention the VFW National Convention when I spoke to each of those bodies I outlined a very specific program of increasing pay and allowances, re-enlistment bonuses that only make sense but I would leave you with this thought sir to be quite specific in my answer to your question that of course to protect the vital interests of this country if that became impossible if I could not despite the very best efforts that I asked the congress to put forward to to raise those paying incentives and allowances of course I would not leave this country go undefended Mr. Cordray Mr. Reagan I will just repeat the two questions how would you fill the understrength combat forces with numbers and with quality without reviving conscription and will you commit yourself here tonight should you become the commander-in-chief to propose a draft however unpopular if it becomes clear that voluntary means are not solving our manpower problems Mr. Cordray it's a shame now that there are only two of us here debating because the two that are here are in more agreement than disagreement on this particular issue and the only one who would be disagreeing with us is the president if he were present I too believe in the voluntary military as a matter of fact today the shortages and non commissioned officers that john mentioned are such that if we tried to have a draft today we wouldn't have the non commissioned officers to train the draftees now I believe the answer lies in just recognizing human nature and how we make everything else work in this country when we want it to work recognize that we have a voluntary military we are asking for men and women to join the military as a career and we're asking them to deal with the most sophisticated of equipment and a young man is out there on a billion dollar carrier in charge of the maintenance of a 25 million dollar aircraft working a hundred hours a week at times and he's earning less for himself and his family while he's away from his family then he could earn if he were in one of the most menial jobs working 40 hours a week here at home as an aid to enlistment we had an aid 46 percent of the people who enlisted in the voluntary military up until 1977 said they did so for one particular reason the gi bill of rights the fact that by serving in the military they could provide for a future college education in 1977 we took that away from the military that meant immediately 46 percent of your people that were signing up had no reason for signing up so i think it is a case of pay scale of recognizing that if we're going to have young men and women responsible for our security dealing with this sophisticated equipment then for heaven's sakes let's go out and have a pay scale that is commensurate with the sacrifice that we're asking of them along with this i think we need something else that has been allowed to deteriorate we need a million man active reserve that could be called up in an instance notice and that would be also trained ready to use that type of equipment both of these i think would respond to the proper kind of incentives that we could offer these people the other day i just i'll hasten i just saw one example down in texas i saw a high school that is military your time is up mr i get i'm sorry i'll catch up with it later you can finish it after it's over uh mr anderson tomorrow's i must say that i think i have a better opportunity however of finding the necessary funds to pay what admittedly will be very very substantial sums of money we signed one bill or we passed one bill just a couple of weeks ago in the house of representatives for five hundred million dollars a half a billion dollars that is just a down payment in my opinion but unlike governor reagan i do not support a boondoggle like the mx missile i've just gotten a report from the air force that indicates that the 30-year life cycle cycle cost of that system is going to be a hundred billion dollars the initial cost is about 54 billion dollars uh and then when you add in the additional cost not only the construction of the system the missiles and the personnel and so on when you add in the additional cost over the like life cycle cycle of that system over 100 billion dollars i would propose to save the taxpayers of this country from that kind of costly boondoggle mr reagan well let me just say that with regard to that same missile system i happen to support and believe in the missile itself but that's not the 54 billion dollar cost that john is talking about he's talking about that fantastic plan of the administration to take thousands and thousands of square miles out in the western states and first he was going to dig a racetrack and have it going around in the racetrack so it would meet the requirements of salt to treaty and now he's decided it'll have a straight up and down thing so it can be both verifiable and yet hideable from the soviet union we need the missile i think because we are so out of balance strategically that we lack a deterrent to a possible first assault but i am not in favor of the of the plan that is so costly and therefore if i only had another second left i'd say that that high school class in a military training 40 of its 80 graduates last year entered the united states service academies west point anapolis and the air force academy and to see those young men made me very proud and to realize that there are young people in this country that are prepared to go into that kind of a career in service of their country this question comes to you mr reagan from my colleague lee may mr reagan the military is not the only area in crisis american cities are physically wearing out as housing streets sewers and budgets all fall apart and all of this is piled upon the emotional strain that comes from refugees and racial confrontations now i'm wondering what specific plans do you have for federal involvement in saving our cities from these physical and emotional crises and how would you carry out those plans in addition to raising military pay without going against your pledge of fiscal restraint i don't think i'd have to go against that pledge i think one of the problems today with the cities is federal aid the mayors that i've talked to in some of our leading cities tell me that the federal grants that come for a specific cause or a specific objective come with such red tape such priorities established by a bureaucracy in washington that the local government hands are tied with regard to using that money as they feel it could best be used and for what they think might be the top priority if they had that money without those government restrictions every one of them has told me they could make great savings and make far greater use of the money what i have been advocating is why don't we start with the federal government turning back tax sources to states and local governments as well as the responsibilities for those programs 75 percent of the people live in the cities i don't know of a city in america that doesn't have the kind of problems you're talking about but where are we getting the money that the federal government is putting out to help them new york is being taxed for money that will then go to detroit but detroit is being taxed for money that let's say will go to chicago while chicago is being taxed to help with the problems in philadelphia wouldn't make a lot more sense if the government let them keep their own money there in the first place but there are other things that we can do with the inner cities and i've believed i have talked of heavy zones in those cities that are run down where there is a high percentage of people on welfare and offer tax incentives the government isn't getting a tax now from businesses there because they aren't there or from individuals who are on welfare rather than working and why don't we offer incentives for business and industry to start up in those zones give them a tax moratorium for a period if they build and develop there the individuals that would then get jobs give them a break that encourages them to leave the social welfare programs and go to work we could have an urban homestead act we've got thousands and thousands of homes owned by government boarded up being vandalized that have been taken in in mortgage foreclosures what if we had a homestead act and said to the people for one dollar we sell you this house all you have to do is agree to refurbish it make it habitable and live in it just as a hundred or more years ago we did with the open land in this country urban or country renewal of homesteading Mr. May Mr. Anderson let me ask you what specific plans do you have for federal involvement in saving cities from the physical and emotional crises that confront them and how would you carry out those plans in addition to raising military pay without going against your pledge of fiscal restraint Mr. May I recently saw a Princeton University study that indicated that the cities of America large cities of this country are in worse shape today than they were in 1960 it seems to totally belie the claim that I heard President Carter make a few days ago that he was the first president that had come forth with a real urban strategy to meet the problems of urban America incidentally just this past week the crown jewel in that program that he had devised was stolen I guess because a conference committee turned down the ambitious plan that he had to increase the amount of money that would be available to the economic development administration for loan guarantees and direct loans and credits I'm happy to say that in contrast to that the Anderson Lucy platform for America program for the 80s has devoted considerable time and in very specific detail we have talked about two things that ought to be done to aid urban America we call first of all for the creation of a four billion dollar urban reinvestment trust fund to do exactly what you spoke about in your question to rebuild the streets to rebuild the cities the leaking water mains I was in north Pittsburgh I think it was a few weeks ago in my campaign the water mains in that city had begun to leak and literally there wasn't money available to fix them and until we can begin to recreate the basic infrastructure of the great cities of America particularly in the upper midwest and in the northeast they simply are not going to provide the kind of economic climate that will enable them to retain industry enable them to retain the kind of solid industrial base that they need so that they can provide jobs we have also provided in our program for a four billion dollar community trust fund and we've told you where the money is coming from it's going to come from the dedication by 1984 of the excise revenues that today are being collected by the federal government on alcohol and tobacco that money I think ought to be put in to rebuilding the base of our cities in addition to that jobs programs to re-employ the youth in our cities would be very high on my priority unless both the youth opportunities act of 1980 and a billion dollar program that I would recommend to put youth to work in energy projects in conservation projects in projects that would carry out some of the great national goals of our country Mr. Reagan your response yes government clear john claims that he is making plane where the money will come from it will come from the pockets of the people it will come from the pockets of the people who are living in those very areas and the problem is with governments federal state and local taking 44 cents out of every dollar earned that the federal government has preempted too many of the tax sources and if the cities if pittsburgh does not have the money to fix the leaking water mains it's because the federal government has preempted now the federal government is going to turn around and say well you have this problem we will now hand you the money to do it but the federal government doesn't make money it just takes it from the people and in my view this is not the answer to the problem stand in the south Bronx as I did in the spot where jimmy carter made his promise that he was going to with multi billion dollar programs refurbish that area that looks like bombed out london in world war two I stood there and I met the people and I heard them ask just for something that would give them hope and I believe that well all of the promises have been broken they've never been carried out but I believe that my plan might offer an opportunity for that if we would move into those areas and let encourage with the tax incentives the private sector to develop and to create the jobs for the people Mr. Anderson well of course where has the private sector been Governor Reagan during the years that our cities have been deteriorating it seems to me that to deny the responsibility of the federal government to do something about our crumbling cities is to deny the opportunity for one thing to 55 percent of the black population of our country that is locked within the inner cities of the metropolitan areas of our country we simply cannot ignore the fact that in those cities today we have 55 youth unemployment among black and Hispanic youth and why is that it's because they have lost their industry and why have they lost their industry is because they no longer present the kind of viable economic climate that makes it possible for industry to remain there or to locate there I think government has a responsibility to find jobs for the youth of this country and that the place to start is to assist in the very important and necessary task of helping cities rebuild Jane Bryant Quinn has the next question for you Mr. Anderson Mr. Anderson many voters are very worried that tax cuts nice as they are will actually add to inflation and many eminent conservatives have testified that even business tax cuts as you have proposed can be inflationary as long as we have a budget deficit now Mr. Reagan has mentioned that he put out a five-year economic forecast which indeed he did but it contained no inflation number you have published a detailed program but it too doesn't have any hard numbers on it about how these things work with inflation so I would like to ask you if you will commit to publish specific forecasts within two weeks so that the voters can absorb them and understand them and analyze them showing exactly what all these problems you've mentioned tonight on energy on defense on the cities how these impact on inflation and what inflation is actually going to be over five years. Miss Quinn I would be very happy to accept the challenge of your question tonight to tell the voters of this country exactly what I think it's going to cost because I believe that all too often in past elections politicians have simply been promising people things that they cannot deliver when these presidential debates were held just four years ago I remember the incumbent president who was willing to debate president Ford telling the American people that they simply ought not to vote for somebody who promised more than they could deliver well we've seen what has happened we haven't gotten either the economies in government that were promised we haven't gotten the 4% inflation that we were supposed to get at the end of mr. Carter's first term instead we had I think in the second quarter a consumer price index registering around 12% and nobody really knows with the latest increase in the wholesale price index that's about 18% on an annualized basis what it's going to be let me say this I think my programs are far less inflationary than those of Governor Reagan his own running mate when he was running for the presidency said that they would cost 30 percent inflation inside of two years and he cited his leading economic advisor a very distinguished economist Paul McEvoy as the source of that information he wants so far as to call it voodoo economics I've been very careful I have been very careful in saying that what I'm going to do is to bring federal spending under control first I would like to stand here and promise the American people a tax cut as Governor Reagan has done but you know it's gotten to be about $122 difference somebody worked it out and they figured out that between the tax cut that Governor Reagan is promising the American people and the tax cut that Jimmy Carter is promising in 1981 his is worth about $122 more so you dear voters are out there on the auction block and these two candidates are bidding for your votes and one is going to give you $122 more if you happen to be in that range of about a $20,000 a year income I'm going to wait until I see that that inflation rate is going down before I even begin to phase in the business tax cuts that I've talked about but I think by improving productivity they would be far less inflationary than the consumption oriented tax cut that Governor Reagan is recommending Mr. Quinn Mr. Anderson I'll call you for that forecast Mr. Reagan will you publish specific forecasts within two weeks so that the voters can have time to analyze and absorb them before the election showing exactly what all these things you've discussed tonight for energy cities and defense mean for inflation over the next five years Ms. Quinn I don't have to I've done it we have a backup paper tonight to my economic speech of a couple of weeks ago in Chicago that gives all of the figures and we used yes we used the the senate budget committees projections for five years which are based on an average inflation rate of seven and a half percent which I think that under our plan can be eliminated and eliminated probably more quickly than our plan but we wanted to be so conservative with it that people would see how how well it could be done now John's been in the congress for 20 years and John tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes well if you've got a kid that's extravagant you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker the government has never reduced government does not tax to go to get the money it needs government always needs the money it gets and when john talks about his non-inflationary plan as far as I have been able to learn there are 88 proposals in it that call for additional government spending programs now I speak with some confidence of our plan because I took over a state california 10 of the population of this nation a state that if it were a nation would be the seventh ranking economic power in the world and that state we controlled spending we cut the rate of increase in spending in half but at the same time we gave back to the people of california in tax rebates tax credits tax cuts five billion seven hundred million dollars i vetoed 993 measures without having a veto overturned and among those vetoes i stopped 16 billion dollars in additional spending and the funny thing was that california which is normally above the national average in inflation and unemployment for those six years for the first time was below the national average in both inflation and unemployment we have considered inflation in our figures we deliberately took figures that we ourselves believed are too conservative i believe the budget can be balanced by 1982 and 1983 and it is a combination of planned reduction of the tax increase that carter has built into the economy and that's what he's counting on for his plan that he's going to get a half a trillion dollars more over the next five years that he can use for additional programs or hopefully someplace down the line balancing the budget we believe that that's too much additional money to take out of the pockets of the people mr anderson mr morris i'm not here to debate governor reagan's record as governor this is 1989 not 1966 but i do know that despite his pledge to reduce state government spending that it rose from 4.6 billion dollars when he took office in 1967 to 10.2 billion dollars during his eight years in office spending in other words more than doubled and it rose at a faster rate than spending was rising in the federal government but on his very optimistic figures about his tax cut producing a balanced budget by 1983 and the fact that he is using he says the figures of the senate budget committee that senate budget committee report does not accommodate all of the reagan defense plans it doesn't accommodate the expenditures that he calls for for accelerated development and deployment of a new man strategic bomber for a permanent fleet in the indian ocean for the restoration of the fleet to 600 ships to the development and deployment of a dedicated modern aircraft interceptor in other words i have seen his program cost it out to the point where it would amount to more than 300 million dollars a year just for the military and i think the figures that he is given are simply not going to stand up would you have a comment mr. well some people look up figures and some people make up figures and john has just made up some very interesting figures we took the senate report of course but we did factor in our own ideas with regard to increases in the projected military spending that we believe would over a period of time do what is necessary now also with regard to the figures about california the truth of the matter is we did cut the increase in spending in half it at this john doesn't quite realize he's never held an executive position of that kind and i think being governor of california is probably the closest thing to the presidency if that's possible of any executive job in america today because it is the most popular state and i can only tell him that we reduced in proportion to other states the per capita spending the per capita size of government we only increased the size of government one-twelfth what it had increased in the preceding eight years and one journal the san francisco chronicle a respected newspaper said there was no question about the fact that governor reagan had prevented the state of california from going bankrupt our final question comes from soma golden and it's directed to mr reagan i'd like to switch the focus from inflation to god uh this week cardinal maderos of boston warned catholics that it's sinful to vote for candidates who favor abortion this did not defeat the two men he opposed but it did raise questions about the role of church and state you mr reagan have endorsed the participation of fundamentalist churches in your campaign and you mr anison have tried three times to amend the constitution to recognize the quote law and authority unquote of jesus christ my question do you approve of the church's actions this week in boston and should a president be guided by organized religion on issues like abortion equal rights and defense spending mr reagan oh i'm it's my question well whether i agree or disagree with some individual or what he may say or how he may say it i don't think there's any way that we can suggest that because people believe in god and go to church that they should not want reflected in those people and those causes they support their own belief in morality and in the high traditions and principles which we've abandoned so much in this country going around this country i think that i have found a great hunger in america for a spiritual revival for a belief that a law must be based on a higher law for a return to traditions and values that we once had our government in its most sacred documents the constitution and the declaration of independence and all speak of man being created of a creator that we're a nation under god now i have thought for a long time that too many of our churches have been too reluctant to speak up in behalf of what they believe is proper in government and they have been too too lax in interfering in recent years with government's invasion of the family itself putting itself between parent and child i vetoed a number of bills of that kind myself when i was in california now whether it is right for on a single issue for anyone to advocate that someone should not be elected or not i won't take a position on that but i do believe that no one in this country should be the denied the right to express themselves or to even try to persuade others to follow their lead that's what elections are all about miss golden okay i i would point out that churches are tax exempt institutions and uh go i'll repeat my question do you approve do you approve the church's action this week in boston and should a president be guided by organized religion on issues like abortion equal rights and defense spending miss golden certainly the church has the right to take a position on moral issues but to try as occurred in the case that you mentioned that specific case to try to tell the parishioners of any church of any denomination how they should vote or for whom they should vote i think violates the principle of separation of church and state now governor reagan is running on a platform that calls for a constitutional amendment banning abortion i think that is a moral issue that ought to be left to the freedom of conscience of the individual and for the state to interfere with a constitutional amendment and tell a woman that she must carry that pregnancy to term regardless of her personal belief that i think violates freedom of conscience as much as anything that i can think of and he is also running on a platform that suggests a litmus test for the selection of judges that only judges that hold a certain quotes view on the sanctity of family life ought to be appointed to the federal judiciary one of the three great independent branches of our government no i believe in freedom of choice i don't believe in constitutional amendments that would interfere with that i don't believe in trying to legislate new tests for the selection of the federal judiciary on the amendment that you mentioned i abandoned it 15 years ago and i have said freely all over this country that it was a mistake for me or anyone to ever try to put the judaeo christian heritage of this country important as it is and important as my religious faith is to me it's a very deeply personal matter but for me to try in this very pluralistic society of ours to try to frame any definition whatever of what that belief should be is wrong and so not once but twice in 1971 i voted on the floor of the house of representatives against a constitutional amendment that tried to bring prayer back into the public schools i think mother ought to whisper to johnny and to susie as they button their coats in the morning and leave for the classroom be sure to say a prayer before you start your day's work but i don't think that the state the board of regents a board of education or any state official should try to compose that prayer for a child to recite mr agin the litmus test that john says is in the republican platform says no more than the judges to be appointed should have a respect for innocent life now i don't think that's a bad idea i think all of us should have a respect for innocent life with regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion there's one individual who's not being considered at all that's the one who's being aborted and uh i've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born i uh i think that technically i know this is a difficult and an emotional problem and many people sincerely feel on both sides of this but i do believe that maybe we could find the answer through medical evidence if we would determine once and for all is an unborn child a human being i happen to believe it is mr anderson i also think that that unborn child has a right to be wanted and i also believe sir that the most personal intimate decision that any woman is ever called upon to make is a decision as to whether or not she shall carry a pregnancy to turn and for the state to interfere in that decision under whatever guise and with whatever rationale for the state to try to take over in that situation and by edict command what the individuals shall do and substitute itself for that individual's conscience for her right to consult her rabbi her minister her priest her doctor any other counselor of her choice i think goes beyond what we want to ever see accomplished in this country if we really believe in the first amendment if we really believe uh in freedom of choice and the right of the individual mr reagan you now have three minutes for closing remarks before beginning my closing remarks here i would just like to remark a concern that i have that uh we have criticized the failures of the carter policy here rather considerably both of us this evening and there might be some feeling of unfairness about this because he was not here to respond but i believe it would have been much more unfair to have had john anderson denied the right to participate in this debate and i want to express my appreciation to the league of women voters for a doctoring of course with which i believe the great majority of americans are in agreement now as to my closing remarks i've always believed that this land was placed here between the two great oceans by some divine plan that was placed here to be found by a special kind of people people who had a special love for freedom and who had the courage to uproot themselves and leave hearth and homeland and come to what in the beginning was the most undeveloped wilderness possible we came from a hundred different corners of the earth we spoke a multitude of tongues landed on this eastern shore and then went out over the mountains and the prairies and the deserts and the far western mountains to the pacific building cities and towns and farms and schools and churches if wind water or fire destroyed them we built them again and in so doing at the same time we built a new breed of human called an american a proud an independent and a most compassionate individual for the most part 200 years ago tom pain when the 13 tiny colonies were trying to become a nation said we have it in our power to begin the world over again today we're confronted with the horrendous problems that we've discussed here tonight and some people in high positions of leadership tell us that the answer is to retreat that the best is over that we must cut back that we must share in an ever increasing scarcity that we must in the failure to be able to protect our national security as it is today we must not be provocative to any possible adversary well we the living americans have gone through four wars we've gone through a great depression in our lifetime that literally was worldwide and almost brought us to our knees but we came through all of those things and we achieved even new heights and new greatness the living americans today have fought harder paid a higher price for freedom and done more to advance the dignity of man than any people who ever lived on this earth for 200 years we've lived in the future believing that tomorrow would be better than today and today would be better than yesterday i still believe that i'm not running for the presidency because i believe that i can solve the problems we've discussed tonight i believe the people of this country can and together we can begin the world over again we can meet our destiny and that destiny to build a land here that will be for all mankind a shining city on a hill i think we ought to get at it mr anderson you have the final three minutes mr moyer president carter was not right a few weeks ago when he said that the american people were confronted with only two choices with only two men and with only two parties i think you've seen tonight in this debate that governor reagan and i have agreed on exactly one thing we are both against the reimposition of a peacetime draft we have disagreed i believe on virtually every other issue i respect him for showing tonight for appearing here and i thank the league of women voters for the opportunity that they have given me i am running for president as an independent because i believe our country is in trouble i believe that all of us are going to have to begin to work together to solve our problems if you think that i am a spoiler consider these facts do you really think that our economy is healthy do you really think that eight million americans being out of work and that 50 unemployment among the youth of our country are acceptable do you really think that our armed forces are really acceptably strong in those areas of conventional capability where they should be do you think that our political institutions are working the way they should when literally only half of our citizens vote i don't think you do think that and therefore i think you ought to consider doing something about it and voting for an independent in 1980 you know a generation of office seekers has tried to tell the american people that they could get something for nothing it's been a time therefore of illusion and false hopes and the longer it continues the more dangerous it becomes we've got to stop drifting what i wish tonight so desperately is that we had had more time to talk about some of the other issues that are so fundamentally important a greatest story and henry steel comager said that in their lust for victory neither traditional party is looking beyond november and he went on to cite three issues that their platforms totally ignore atomic warfare presidential directive 59 notwithstanding if we don't resolve that issue all others become irrelevant the issue of our natural resources the right of posterity to inherit the earth and what kind of earth will it be the issue of nationalism the recognition he says that every major problem confronting us is global and cannot be solved by nationalism here or elsewhere that is chauvinistic that is parochial that is as anachronistic as states rights was in the days of jefferson davis those are some of the great issues atomic warfare the use of our natural resources and the issue of nationalism that i intend to be talking about in the remaining six weeks of this campaign and i dare hope that the american people will be listening and that they will see that an independent government of john anderson and patrick lucy can give us the kind of coalition government that we need in 1980 to begin to solve our problems thank you mr anderson we too wish there were more time and for all the limitations of the form and there are other forms to try the chair for one would like to see such meetings become a regular and frequent part of every presidential campaign mr reagan mr anderson we thank you for coming and thanks to our panelists carol lumas daniel greenberg charles cordray lee may jane brian quinn and soma golden and thank you in the audience at home for joining us this first presidential debate of 1980 has been brought to you as a public service by the league of women voters education fund i'm bill moyer good night