Bush: ‘A New Spirit’; Gore: ‘Crucial Time’

Federal Budget

Lehrer: . . . when you said that you questioned whether or not Governor Bush was experienced enough to be president, you were talking about strictly policy differences?

Gore: Yes, Jim. I said that his tax cut plan, for example, raises the question of whether it’s the right choice for the country, and let me give you an example of what I mean.

Under Gov. Bush’s tax cut proposal, he would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense all combined. Now, I think those are the wrong priorities.

Now, under my proposal, for every dollar that I propose in spending for things like education and health care, I will put another dollar into middle-class tax cuts. And for every dollar that I spend in those two categories, I’ll put $2 toward paying down the national debt.

Bush: Well, let me just say, obviously tonight we’re going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we ought to do. People need to know that over the next 10 years, there’s going to be $25 trillion of revenue that comes into our Treasury, and we anticipate spending $21 trillion. And my plan says why don’t we pass $1.3 trillion of that back to the people who pay the bills. Surely we can afford 5% of the $25 trillion that are coming to the Treasury [for] the hard-working people who pay the bills. There’s a difference of opinion. My opponent thinks the government--the surplus is the government’s money. That’s not what I think. I think it’s the hard-working people in America’s money, and I want to share some of that money with you so you’ve got more money to build and save and dream for your families.

Gore: . . . The governor used the phrase “phony numbers,” but if you--if you look at the plan and add the numbers up, these numbers are correct. He spends more money for tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of his new spending proposals for health care, prescription drugs, education and national defense all combined.

Abortion

Lehrer: Gov. Bush, if elected president, would you try to overturn the FDA’s approval last week of the abortion pill, RU-486?

Bush: I don’t think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more rare in America. And I’m worried that that pill will create more abortion--will cause more people to have abortions.

This is a very important topic, and it’s a very sensitive topic because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America--as the life of the elderly and the life of those living all across the country, life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child born and unborn ought to be protected in law and welcomed in life.

But I know we’ve got to change a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe is we can find good common ground on issues like parental notification or parental consent, and I know we need to ban partial-birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreements. I believe banning partial-birth abortion would be a positive step toward reducing the number of abortions in America.

. . . Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage to--to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely we can work together to create a culture of life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor’s life with a gun will understand that that’s not the way America is meant to be. And surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America.

Gore: Well, Jim, the FDA took 12 years, and I do support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug.

Now this is indeed a very important issue. First of all, on the issue of partial-birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a woman’s life or to act if her health is severely at risk.

And that’s not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision’s going to be overturned. I support a woman’s right to choose. My opponent does not. It is important, because the next president is going to appoint three, maybe even four, justices of the Supreme Court. And Gov. Bush has declared to the anti-choice groups that he will appoint justices in the mold of [Antonin] Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman’s right to choose.

Lehrer: Governor . . . [to] make sure I understand your position on RU-486. If you’re elected president . . . you won’t support legislation to overturn this?

Bush: I don’t--I don’t think a president can unilaterally overturn it. I think the FDA’s made its decision . . .

Gore: Well, Jim, you know, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement the day before yesterday . . . he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision . . .

Supreme Court

Lehrer: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the Supreme Court, or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life?

Bush: Voters should assume that I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. But the voters will know I’ll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. And that’s going to be a big difference between my opponent and me.

I believe that--I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government; that they’re appointed for life; and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn’t misuse their bench. I don’t believe in liberal, activist judges; I believe in strict constructionists, and those are the kind of judges I will appoint.

I’ve named four Supreme Court judges in the state of Texas, and I would ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They’re good, solid men and women who have made good, sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.

Lehrer: What kind of appointments should they expect from you, Vice President Gore?

Gore: Both of us use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don’t favor litmus tests. . . . And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment. And when the phrase “strict constructionist” is used, and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying that the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I mean, it’s very clear to me. And I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade. . . .

Bush: I’ll tell you what kind of judges he’ll put on there. He’ll put liberal, activist judges who will use their bench to subvert the legislature, that’s what he’ll do.

Gore: That’s not right.

Foreign Policy

Lehrer: . . . Vice President Gore, if President [Slobodan] Milosevic of Yugoslavia refuses to accept the election results and leave office, what action, if any, should the United States take to get him out of there?

Gore: Well, Milosevic has lost the election. His opponent, [Vojislav] Kostunica, has won the election, it’s overwhelming. Milosevic’s government refuses to release the vote count. There’s now a general strike going on, they’re demonstrating. . . .

Now, we have to take measured steps because the sentiment within Serbia is, for understandable reasons, still against the United States because . . . they still have some feelings lingering from the NATO action there, so we have to be intelligent in the way we go about it.

But make no mistake about it, we should do everything we can to see that the will of the Serbian people, expressed in this extraordinary election, is done, and I hope that he will be out of office very shortly.

Lehrer: Gov. Bush . . .

Bush: Well, I’m pleased with the results of the election, as the vice president is. It’s time for the man to go, and it means that the United States must have a strong diplomatic hand with our friends in NATO. That’s why it’s important to make sure our alliances are as strong as they possibly can be to keep the pressure on Mr. Milosevic.

But this will be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well; be a wonderful time for the president of Russia to step into the Balkans and convince Mr. Milosevic it’s in his best interest and his country’s best interest to leave office. . . .

Lehrer: But what if he doesn’t leave . . . is this the kind of . . . that you, as president, would consider the use of U.S. military force to get him gone?

Gore: In this particular situation, no . . . But I think we need to be very careful in the present situation before we invite the Russians to play the lead role in mediating.

Bush: Well, obviously, we wouldn’t use the Russians if they didn’t agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President.

Gore: Well, they don’t. [Laughter.]

Bush: But let me say this to you . . . I wouldn’t use force. I wouldn’t use force . . . because it’s not in our national interest to use force in this case. . . . it’s up [to] the people in this region to figure out how to take control of their country.

Education

Lehrer: . . . Both of you have promised . . . to change dramatically public education in this country. But of the public money spent on education, only 6% of it is federal money. . . . You want to change 100% of public education with 6% of the money. Is that possible?

Bush: . . . We can make a huge difference by saying, “If you receive federal money, we expect you to show results. . . .”

That’s my vision for public education all around America. Many of you viewers don’t know, but Laura and I sent our girls to public school. They went to Austin High School. And many of the public schools are meeting the call. But unfortunately, a lot of schools are trapping children in schools that just won’t teach and won’t change. So here’s the role of the federal government: one is to change Head Start into a reading program; two is to say that if you want to access reading money, you can do so, because the goal is for every single child to learn to read. There must be K through 2 diagnostic tools, teacher-training money available.

Three, we’ve got to consolidate federal programs to free districts, to free the schools, to encourage innovators . . . to let schools reach out beyond the confines of the current structure to recruit teach-for-the-children type teachers.

Four, we’re going to say if you receive federal money, measure--third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade, sixth grade, seventh grade, eighth grade--and show us whether or not children are learning to read and write and add and subtract, and if so, there will be a bonus plan and--but if not, instead of continuing to subsidize failure, the money will go to the parent so the parent can choose a different public school. The federal money attributed to the child will go to the parent for public school or charter school or tutorial or Catholic school. . . .

Gore: . . . I strongly support new accountability; so does Gov. Bush. I strongly support local control; so does Gov. Bush. I’m in favor of testing as a way of measuring performance--every school, every school district, have every state test the children. I’ve also proposed a voluntary national test from the fourth grade and eighth grade, and a form of testing that the governor has not endorsed. I think that all new teachers ought to be tested, including in the subjects that they teach. We’ve got to recruit a hundred thousand new teachers, and I have budgeted for that. We’ve got to reduce the class size so that the student who walks in has more one-on-one time with the teacher. We ought to have universal preschool, and we ought to make college tuition tax deductible, up to $10,000 a year. . . .

Lehrer: . . . What’s the choice between the two of you on education?

Bush: . . . There is no new accountability measure in Vice President Gore’s plan. He says he’s for voluntary testing. You can’t have voluntary testing. You must have mandatory testing. You must say that if you receive money, you must show us whether or not children are learning to read and write and add and subtract. That’s the difference. You may claim you’ve got mandatory testing, but you don’t, Mr. Vice President. And that is a huge difference. . . . I believe if we find poor children trapped in schools that won’t teach, we need to free the parents. I think we need to expand education savings accounts; that’s something the vice president’s--the vice presidential running mate supports. No, there’s big differences of opinion. He won’t support freeing local districts from the strings of federal money. . . .

Gore: . . . I do have mandatory testing. I think the governor may not have heard what I said clearly. The voluntary national test is in addition to the mandatory testing that we require of states--all schools, all school districts, students themselves, and required teacher testing, which goes a step farther than Gov. Bush has been willing to go . . .

Gov. Bush is in favor of vouchers, which take taxpayer money away from public schools and gives them to private schools that are not accountable for how the money is used and don’t have to take all applicants. . . . I don’t think private schools should have a right to take taxpayer money away from public schools . . .

Economy

Gore: I think that the American people deserve credit for the great economy that we have, and it’s their ingenuity, I agree with that. . . . But you know, they were working pretty hard eight years ago, and they had ingenuity eight years ago.

The difference is we’ve got a new policy, and instead of concentrating on tax cuts mostly for the wealthy . . . I want tax cuts for the middle-class families, and I want to continue the prosperity and make sure that it enriches not just the few, but all of our families.

Look, we have gone from the biggest deficits to the biggest surpluses. We’ve gone from a triple-dip recession, during the previous 12 years, to a tripling of the stock market. Instead of high unemployment, we’ve got the lowest African American and lowest Latino unemployment rates ever in history, and 22 million new jobs.

But it’s not good enough. Too many people have been left behind. We have got to do much more, and the key is job training, education, investments in health care and education, the environment, retirement security. . . .

Bush: Two points. One, a lot of folks are still waiting for that 1992 middle-class tax cut. I remember the vice president saying, just give us a chance to get up there; we’re going to make sure you get tax cuts. It didn’t happen. And now he’s having to say it again. It’s--they’ve had their chance to deliver a tax cut to you.

Secondly, the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government. The Senate Budget Committee did a study of the vice president’s expenditures. They projected it could conceivably bust the budget by $900 billion.

That means he’s either going to have to raise your taxes by $900 billion or go into the Social Security surplus for $900 billion. This is a plan that is going to increase the bureaucracy by 20,000 people.

His targeted tax cut is so detailed, so much fine print that it’s going to require numerous IRS agents. No, we need somebody to simplify the code, to be fair, to continue prosperity by sharing some of the surplus with the people who pay the bills, particularly those at the bottom end of the economic ladder.

Gore: Now, the fact is, you’re going to have a hard time convincing folks that we were a whole lot better off eight years ago than we are today. But that’s not the question. The question is, will we be better off four years from now than we are today? And as for the surest way to threaten our prosperity, having a $1.9-trillion tax cut, almost half of which goes to the wealthy, and a $1-trillion Social Security privatization proposal is the surest way to put our budget into deficit, raise interest rates and put our prosperity at risk.

Lehrer: I want to--

Bush: I can’t let the man--I can’t let the man continue with fuzzy math. It’s $1.3 trillion, Mr. Vice President. It’s going to go to everybody who pays taxes. I’m not going to be one of these kinds of presidents that say, ‘You get tax relief, and you don’t.’ I’m not going to be a pick-and-chooser. What is fair is everybody who pays taxes ought to get relief.

Lehrer: On Social Security . . . many experts say that it will be impossible for either of you . . . to keep the system viable on its own during the coming baby boomer-retirement onslaught without either reducing benefits or increasing taxes. Do you disagree?

Gore: I do disagree because if we can keep our prosperity going, if we can continue balancing the budget and paying down the debt, then the strong economy keeps generating surpluses. And here’s what I would do, here’s my plan.

I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt, and the interest savings I would put right back into Social Security. That extends the life of Social Security for 55 years. . . . there are are millions of seniors who are living almost hand-to-mouth, and you talk about cutting benefits--I don’t go along with it. I am opposed to it.

I’m also opposed to a plan that diverts one out of every six dollars away from the Social Security Trust Fund. You know, Social Security is a trust fund that pays the checks this year with the money that’s paid into Social Security this year.

The governor wants to divert one out of every six dollars off into the stock market, which means that he would drain a trillion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund over the--in this generation, over the next 10 years, and Social Security under that approach would go bankrupt within this generation. . . . I will veto anything that takes money out of Social Security for privatization or anything else other than Social Security.

Lehrer: Governor?

Bush: . . . He doesn’t want you to know that what he’s doing is loading up IOUs for future generations. He puts no real assets in the Social Security system.

The revenues exceed the expenses in Social Security to the year 2015, which means all retirees are going to get the promises made. So for those of you who he wants to scare into the voting booth to vote for him, hear me loud and clear: A promise made will be a promise kept. And you bet we want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money--see, that’s a difference of opinion; the vice president thinks it’s the government’s money. The payroll taxes are your money; you ought to put it in prudent, safe investments. . . .

Gore: . . . I give a new incentive for younger workers to save their own money and invest their own money, but not at the expense of Social Security--on top of Social Security. My plan is Social Security Plus. The governor’s plan is Social Security “minus.” Your future benefits would be cut by the amount that’s diverted into the stock market, and if you make bad investments, that’s too bad. . . . If you cut the amount going in--one out of every six dollars--then you have to cut the value of each check by one out of every six dollars, unless you come up with the money from somewhere else. . . .

Bush: . . . Let me tell you what your plan is. It’s not Social Security Plus, it’s Social Security “plus huge debt,” is what it is. You leave future generations with tremendous IOUs.

Character

Lehrer: Gov. Bush, are there issues of character that distinguish you from Vice President Gore?

Bush: . . . I’ve been disappointed about how he and his administration [have] conducted the fund-raising affairs. You know, going to a Buddhist temple and then claiming it wasn’t a fund-raiser is just not my view of responsibility. . . .

Gore: Well, I think we ought to attack our country’s problems, not attack each other. . . . This current campaign financing system has not reflected credit on anybody in either party, and that’s one of the reasons I’ve said before, and I’ll pledge here tonight: If I’m president, the very first bill that Joe Lieberman and I will send to the United States Congress is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. . . .

Bush: You know, this man has no credibility on the issue.

Closing Statements

Bush: . . . It’s been a good, lively exchange. Obviously, we have huge differences of opinion. Mine is that I want to empower people in their own lives. I also want to go to Washington to get some positive things done.

It’s going to require a new spirit--a spirit of cooperation. It’s going to require the ability of a Republican president to reach out across the partisan divide and to say to Democrats, “Let’s come together to do what’s right for America.” It’s been my record as governor of Texas. It’ll be how I conduct myself if [I’m] fortunate enough to earn your vote as president of the United States.

I want to finally get something done on Medicare. I want to make sure prescription drugs are available for all seniors, and I want seniors to have additional choices when it comes to choosing their health care plans. I want to finally get something done on Social Security. I want to make sure the seniors have the promise made will be a promise kept, but I want younger workers to be able to manage some of their own money, some of their own payroll taxes in the private sector, under certain guidelines, to get a better rate of return on your own money.

I want to rebuild our military, to keep the peace. I want to have a strong hand when it comes to--when it comes to the United States and world affairs. I don’t want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman; I want to be the world’s peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that’s well equipped. I want to have antiballistic missile systems to protect ourselves and our allies from a rogue nation that may try to hold us hostage or blackmail a friend.

I also want to make sure our education system fulfills its hope and promise. I’ve had a strong record of working with Democrats and Republicans in Texas to make sure no child is left behind. I understand the limited role of the federal government. But it can be a constructive role when it comes to reform by insisting that there be strong accountability systems . . .

Gore: . . .This is indeed a crucial time in American history. We’re at a fork in the road. We have this incredible prosperity, but a lot of people have been left behind. And we have a very important decision to make. Will we use the prosperity to enrich all of our families and not just the few?

One important way of looking at this is to ask: Who are you going to fight for? Throughout my career in public service, I have fought for the working men and women of this country, middle-class families. Why? Because you are the ones who have the hardest time paying taxes, the hardest time making ends meet. You are the ones who are making car payments and mortgage payments and doing right by your kids. And a lot of times there are powerful forces arrayed against you. And make no mistake about it; they do have undue influence in Washington, D.C., and it makes a difference if you have a president who will fight for you.

I know one thing about the position of president. It’s the only position in our Constitution that’s filled by an individual who is given the responsibility to fight not just for one state or one district or the well connected or wealthy, but to fight for all of the people, including especially those who most need somebody who will stand up and take on whatever powerful forces might stand in the way.

There’s a woman named Winifred Skinner here tonight, from Iowa. . . . She’s 79 years old. She has Social Security. I’m not going to cut her benefits or support any proposal that would. She gets a small pension, but in order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to go out seven days week, several hours a day, picking up cans.

She came all the way from Iowa in a Winnebago, with her poodle, in order to attend here tonight. And I want to tell her I am going to fight for a prescription drug benefit for all seniors, and I’m going to fight for the people of this country, for a prosperity that benefits all.

Instant Reactions

An issue-by-issue look at how viewers responded to the debate:

The methodology: The results in this table reflect the average opinions of debate watchers who chose to participate in the online research project. Participants watched the live broadcast of the debate and registered their moment-to-moment reactions using a 0-to-100 scale, in which 0 indicated they strongly disagreed with what they watched and heard and 100 indicated they strongly agreed with what they watched and heard. Although the participants in the viewer response room are not a scientific sample of all American voters, the average results were weighted to reflect the national party identification and gender of all voters.

Source: SpeakOut.com instant viewer response