Skip to main content

tv   George H.W. Bush Interview in New Hampshire  CSPAN  February 18, 2016 8:55pm-9:06pm EST

8:55 pm
everyone thinks that means cut government revenues. it doesn't. if history has anything to tell us, if we cut the tax rates to the people, the result in broadening of the base of the economy and the prosperity that results results in everyone, including government, getting more revenue. in other words, we bake a bigger pie. now government has reduced the productivity of the machine and even of the individual. it's reduced it with taxes on the individual and take away incentive. they have taxes on businesses that make it it difficult for them to invest. we have the highest percentage of industrial plant and equipment in america in any of the industrial nations. our rate of productivity is lower than that of our
8:56 pm
competitors. now if we can restore that to business and individual and i believe it's done through a reduction in the tax rates, we will have gone a long way toward ending inflation. if we'll go back to spending within its means. increase in the quantity of money available. now some people think that you have to choose between inflation and recession. i don't believe that at all. and california's proposition 13 proved that. the people in california rebelled against the property taxes which were making it impossible for people to stay in their own homes.
8:57 pm
it's been about 15, 16 months now. there are 100,000 fewer public employees in california. but the private sector in these 15 months has increased 532,000 new jobs have been created in this period. personal earnings are up 14%. retail sales are up 14%. the state ended with a $3 billion surplus. so i truly believe that it is government intervening, government getting in the way and by the same token with regard to energy. we had the cheapest, most abundant energy and fuel in the united states of any part of the world has ever had all the way from the first oil well drilled in pennsylvania in 1859. up until 1971 when again the government intervened with price controls, restrictions, controls on the marketing, virtually nationalizing the energy
8:58 pm
industry. plrly in the field of petroleum. in these nine years, we have had the increasing prices and we have had the increasing scarcity of fuel. now it must be evident that if in nine years of government interventionism, you have had the shortage and the high price and almost 120 years of no governmenter intervention, we had plenty. we better look at government instead of the energy industry as responsible for our problem today. >> thank you for being with us on election '80. >> thank you. c-span's coverage of the presidential candidates continues this week with campaign events in south carolina and nevada. e leading up to the south carolina gop primary and the nevada democratic caucuses on saturday, february 20th. our live coverage of the results starts on saturday at 7:30 p.m. eastern with the candidate speeches and your reaction to the results on c-span, c-span
8:59 pm
radio and road to the white house rewind continues with an interview with republican presidential candidate george h.w. bush from the 1980 campaign. taped by salem high school students in new hampshire, it played on cable access in parts of new hampshire and massachusetts. this is the first time it's aired on national television. george bush would finish second in the 1980 new hampshire primary behind nominee ronald reagan, who would go on to defeat jimmy carter in the general election. this is about ten minutes. >> leadership is a quality the american people have demanded from a president. many americans feel we have thot received strong, effective leadership. how would you define leadership? >> i think leadership is having a conviction, a conviction in essence of the direction you want your country to go, a
9:00 pm
direction that can offer hope of freedom to countries around the world and hope for your own people. and it's also a con suspect of having people following, looking over your shoulder and people being with you. it ka notes to me respect, it ke notes principle. >> to help further clarify your position, who would you select as the three most effective leaders in history and why? >> history, that's pretty tough. i would say in relatively recent history certainly abraham lincoln. he set a direction for the country and that direction contrary to modern perceptions of lincoln's presidency was holding the union together. it didn't matter how he did it. it was the survival of the union. and he set his sights on that.
9:01 pm
he did it and in the process he demonstrated a great passion for people. clearly, i'd put general eisenhower as a strong leader. there, though, it was the focus and the matrix was the war itself. he was a great hero, he was a quiet man in a sense. not given to flam boy yans, but he generated confidence. i'm predicting an eisenhower revival. 2% inflation, respect abroad, this man had leadership quality. he was a a decent individual. character has to be a part of leadership. eisenhower had character. and then if i went for a third, i would probably take winston churchill. churchill during the early days of the most troubled days for the brits at world war ii. he had a different style, but it
9:02 pm
was the best for people under siege. there are three different types really, but three, i think, amazing individuals. >> taking those qualities you mentioned there, what decisions have you made in. the past which reflect leadership? >> i have u had tough leadership jobs. the two, i guess, that are the most difficult would be heading the republican party during the last days of the nixon presidency, the last two years of nixon's presidency, because as history will show this is the first time that the interest of the party did not always coincide with the interest of an incumbent president. that was one. then i think another most difficult job maybe thee most difficult was leading the
9:03 pm
central intelligence agency just at a moment when it was very fashionable to jump a all over it, to tear it down, to take a handful or some of the abuses from the past and make use those to show there was an immorality to intelligence. so both of them were challenging leadership assignments, and i hope i did them with the integrity of the institution i served intact when i finished the job. and that is not -- it's a tough assessment to assess one's own leadership, but i believe i did that. . i believe i had the republic respect of people who i agreed and disagree d. i hope in the last one the cia job, i elevated the moral of the people. i did not try to elevate myself into the public limelight in either of these jobs. people say how come sometimes have lacked a name identification, and i think it's a style. i judge it can you lead with
9:04 pm
respect. can you accomplish your objective and then have the respect of people not always agree with you, but the respect of those that you lead. i think i did that in those two assignments. >> i'd like to do now is move into the future somewhat. today americans were aware and confronted with crisis situation. americans are faced with inflation/recession, the rise in food prices, the rise in fuel prices. we have an unemployment problem. we also have an energy crisis. these are the kinds of problems you would face on a dilly basis if elected president. how would you handle these problems and please be specific about it. >> you know, it's interesting that mr. blumenthal awhile back made a kvery can sid assessment having been treasury secretary under president carter.
9:05 pm
he pointed out no matter how well intentioned the president lacked the will to make the tough decisions necessary to break the back of inflation. first, let me say i don't think the period in the '80s on these questions of inflation and energy will be easy. the early '80s it's going to be tough and for any candidate for president or anything else to say there's a quick and easy fix out there is wrong. but i think you chart a course and my course in general would be emphasize the fundamentals of economics. we have gotten away from that. spend your way into prosperity. i would change it. more specifically within a fundamental framework of conservative economics, i would restrict the growth of federal spending. i would compel the congress to do that. and if they didn't, i would veto legislation. hold the growth rate to around 6.8%. i would find ways, a


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on