Steve Forbes Stump Speech at Barbara Pressly's Home in Nashua (New Hampshire)

You are all very welcome. We are proud in New Hampshire to play this wonderful role in meeting the people who want to be president of our country. We are very proud and we feel a responsibility. It is my great privilege to introduce to you a gentleman who wants to do that very very thing. Mr. Steve Forbes. Thank you very much Barbara. And I'll try to keep my remarks very brief since some of you are in parts of the house that they can't hear the voice quite as easily as others. You may be grateful or ungrateful depending on the way with my message or not. But it is great fun to be here tonight. And what I thought I would do is make some comments about the 1996 election then open it up for a few questions and answers concerning the 96 campaign. This will be one of the most important elections in American history. It will be important because we'll set the direction not only for our country but for much of the

rest of the world as well. The fact of the matter is that if America becomes a self-confident dynamic forward looking moving ahead energetic nation other nations are going to follow our example. But the truth is that if America gets in trouble then the world is in trouble. No nation in history occupies the position that we do today. Our power comes not only from the traditional sources of economics and military strength our power also comes from the very example of our democracy of turning opportunity from a world of rhetoric to word of reality. And so if America does it right others will be encouraged to follow our example. So what we do in this election will not only affect us in the short term. It will set our direction well into the next millennium. I think the real issue in 1996 is not that America can't do better. I think we can. But the real issues are what stands in the way of America

moving ahead. What are the barriers What are the obstacles. As you know many people today are frustrated. We are the strongest nation on Earth. We're the strongest nation in history. We won the Cold War. And people rightly ask why is it then that we're not doing better here at home. Why is it that two incomes in a family can't seem to do the job that one income could in previous generations. Why is it that so many young people feel if they won't have the chance to get ahead the way that their parents and grandparents did and they wonder to what has happened to the quality of life in America in our streets in our homes and our schools and for our families. Why does it seem to have been under assault in the last 30 years. I believe that America does have the potential for the greatest economic boom and spiritual renewal in our history. Obviously the spiritual part cannot come from the government or what the government can do is get out of the

way take the burdens off the American people and then I'm convinced people are going to move forward. In short when the American people have the tools they will do the job. And in 1996 we can get the mandate to return the tools to the people and then I think we're going to astound ourselves and the world with our achievements and our opportunities. So 1996 we do have this unique opportunity. And before I touch on what I think are the basic obstacles that stand in the way of our moving ahead. Let me just make one observation that I think is unique to America and that is contrary to what a lot of observers would lead you to believe. I think that an America values and economics are really one and the same by values. I mean honesty hard work reft faith trust a belief in progress a belief an individual opportunity and responsibility and a belief that we're on this earth and in this land for a higher purpose. And so let me touch now on the obstacles.

All of the changes that I'm talking about all have the common thread and theme of giving individual Americans more opportunity and responsibility and more control over their lives. That is what I think is the promise of 1996 and these changes all do that. Return it to the people. And then I think the people run with it. We are in essence like a marathon runner. We're ready for a gold medal run. We have 250 pound cinder blocks around our legs. The question is how do we get those cinder blocks off so that we can move ahead. I think to start to get America moving the way we know America can move so that we can fulfill our promises of people and as a nation we have to start by changing the culture of Washington and change the culture of Washington. We have to attack the principal source of power in Washington. And that power is the tax code you know from history that the power to tax is the power to destroy. And

politicians do trade favors. They do trade favors for loopholes. In fact the tax code has become so cluttered that even the tax collector can't understand it anymore. So it is un-American. If people can't understand something as basic as the tax code then we have something that is truly un-American and immoral. And so no one outside of Washington could have consciously devised something that is more and comprehensible more understandable more corrupting more anti-family anti-growth anti opportunity anti anything you might like then the tax code that we have today. And ladies and gentlemen there's only one thing to do with it. Only one thing to do with this monstrosity. You can't reform it. You can't trim it around the edges. The only thing to be done with that is to scrap it kill it bury it and hope it never rises again to terrorize the American people.

We should replace this monstrosity with a simple flat tax with generous exemptions for adults and for children. And let me just take a moment to explain this because my opponents want you to believe that the flat tax is the source of all your future woes. That if your dog has fleas it'll be because of the flat tax that it's going to destroy your homes destroyed charities wrecked the schools make the skies fall make it snow if you don't want it to snow rain if you don't want it to rain. Can anything else that bothers you. Let's get to the facts. Under a flat tax you will pay less tax less tax with a flat tax. That is its promise by cluttering the tax code. Don't let the politicians don't let the Washington insiders scare you about what you're

supposedly going to lose. Look at what you're going to gain. The flat tax is a tax cut. It means less tax paid by you. Let me explain it to you because the politicians don't want you to know this information first. Under a flat tax each one of you as individuals will have an exemption from the tax from the federal income tax of thirteen thousand dollars if each one of you for every child it's $5000. Let me walk it through you slowly because there may be somebody from Washington here. I want them to understand it. If you're a if you're a single person your first $13000 of income is free of federal income tax. If you're a couple 13 times to $26000 free from federal income tax you have two kids. That's thirty six thousand twenty six plus ten. You have three kids it's 41000. Let's take that family for their first thirty six

thousand dollars is free of income tax. That's thirty six thousand dollars of tax exemptions tax deductions. They get up front. Now compare that with your own tax return today. I think you'll find that most of you come out far ahead. That family of four for example now pays $3000 a year to Uncle Sam in federal income tax on a flat tax they pay zip zero. Anything above the thirty six thousand level. Remember that thirty six thousand remains tax free. Anything above that 36000 level a flat 17 percent rate there's going to be no tax on your pensions no tax on your social security and no tax on your personal savings. Moreover on the business side a flat 17 percent rate and when it's when it's phased in. No your investments are written off in year one. Now the reason a flat tax will work here is that not only does it get

rid of the major source of political pollution in Washington but it also enables every American family. Almost every American individual to keep more of what you earn that's good for America even if it's bad for Washington you keep more of what you earn you're smarter with your money than the government. Moreover it reduces barriers to job creating investments and that's essential in this fast changing economy. We need to not only create more jobs but better paying jobs as well. That flat tax will do that. Now let me just hit on the three big disasters that opponents of the flat tax would try to scare you with only in Washington could they devise these. Let me give them to you first. They say it's going to hurt your home. It's going to hurt homeownership hurt the value of your home. Only in Washington would they think that making the American people more prosperous is bad for home ownership. Just think of it this way you keep more of what

you earn it's easier to put a nest egg together for a down payment because you don't have to worry about taxes on your personal savings anymore. And even the critics even the critics of the flat tax acknowledge that it will lead to lower interest rates. So if you have more money in your pocket it's easier to put a nest egg together. The cost of financing the mortgage your monthly payment becomes cheaper outside of Washington. People realize that this will help housing you have more money. The cost of the mortgage is cheaper it's easier to put together the down payment that should be good for housing. It won't hurt it. But the politicos don't want you to know that in Washington. They also say it's going to hurt charitable giving as if the only way American people give is that they're bribed by the tax code. America was known as a generous and giving nation long before we had the federal

income tax even in the 1980s when the top rate was cut from 70 percent in income taxes to 28 percent. The Chicken Littles all said this would hurt charitable giving but each time they cut the tax rates. You know what happened. Giving went up not down and short when the American people have more pay give more and with a flat tax. The American people will have more. And finally the doom stirs the fear mongers. The Chicken Littles I hate to take chicken littles name in vain. But he's part and parcel of this posse. They finally say that it's going to increase the deficit. Let me tell you something. Don't take my word for it but every time in the past that we've reduced the tax burden on the American people. You know what's happened. Government revenues have gone up not down now or in the early 1960s when John Kennedy tax cuts were put in a lot of Chicken Little said

it will hurt government revenues. Revenues went up because the American economy was buoyant. People could keep more of what they earn. They had the incentive to get ahead. I had the chance to get ahead in the 1980s. They said the Reagan tax cuts would hurt revenues. Let me just give you one number one number by the end of the 1980s federal income tax receipts personal income tax receipts were two hundred billion dollars a year higher than they were at the beginning of the decade. The problem was that the Washington culture spent that money and then some. But when I'm president that's not going to happen. As a matter of fact we're going to have real cuts in Washington not the Washington variety where they think that slowing the growth of spending is a spending cut. It's sort of like saying if you go on a diet say you proclaim to your friends I'm on a diet. And then a month later you say I put on 10 pounds but the diet succeeded because I would have put on 15 pounds

otherwise. When when when I'm president it's going to be a real diet. And we're going to start the spending cuts with the IRS. We're going to bust up the IRS. That's when we're going to start on the. And. By the way the interests of full disclosure I will admit that there's going to be one new federal program that I'm going to propose even though I'm a conservative Republican and that is job retraining for the IRS. So. So the flat tax works by removing the burden on the American people. America can move ahead. There are other reforms as well. Term limits for Washington politicians. We need that to enable American citizens to get involved on a national level. So you have to take it for granted either you get involved in the

public life at the national level it's very different. We're going to make it possible for citizens to get involved by putting term limits in as you know especially you environmentalists know that. Still water can stagnate. We're going to have flowing water again in Washington. Not the kind they have now from the Potomac River but the political kind. And it's going to be good and cleansing also too. We need lower interest rates are too high. Today yes they've come down but they're high by historical standards and the reason is simple the dollar now is like a yo yo on value 30 years ago. I'll do my political pandering now. None of you are old enough to remember what we had 30 years ago. How is that. But 30 years ago in America when the dollar was a fixed measure of value. A typical American family could get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at four and a half percent. But just imagine waking up tomorrow morning and

Dolgin this fantasy G-rated fantasy. A flat tax. Thirty six thousand of exemptions for a family of four 17 percent rate above 36000 and a 4.5 percent mortgage. Don't you think life in these United States would be better. Don't you think that the quality of life would be better. You know what. What we can make it happen. We also get families off the treadmill. We're now they're on the treadmill and the treadmill is winning. Other reforms would include medical savings accounts for Medicare which gives beneficiaries more control more coverage at less cost. Social Security will keep the old system for current retirees and those are going to retire in the next 12 to 15 years because real life decisions have been made on the basis of those promises. But we know and especially younger people know what the current system is going to be put. By the time they retire it's going to be busted. So while we still have time why don't we put in a new system for younger people

where a portion of the payroll tax that now goes to Washington would instead go to these young people's own individual savings or retirement account that would take it out of the hands of the Washington politicians. The money would be invested in the American economy which would make America stronger and there'd be more there for the young people when they retire when they are with the current system. Just look at what the politicos did with the finance of Social Security. Just look what they've done with Medicare. Just look what they did with the S&L. I think you'll see the virtue the further away we can get it from them the better. There were other reforms as well including education giving parents more control more choice and also downsizing government. There's a lot that can be eliminated but they all have again one common thread and a common theme of returning power and opportunity and responsibility to the American people. Let me just close with one observation on foreign policy. We can get into the Q&A if you want to go into detail. And that is simply this we must avoid making the mistake that America made in

the 20s and 30s when we turned our backs on the world. And when the world paid a fearful price for it regardless of what happens in Bosnia we must keep a presence in Western Europe and we must keep a presence in Asia. We are a stabilizing influence. I remember 10 years ago the chancellor of Germany telling me when we got on this subject he said America must not leave Europe to its own devices. He said you've seen twice in this century what happened when you did that. Don't let it happen again. The same is true of Asia. Who knows what's going to happen with Russia and China. Who knows what's going to happen but I guarantee you this if we're not involved with Asia Japan will feel the need for its own rearmament program in reaction to what China's doing. We don't want it. The Japanese people don't want it. And I guarantee you their Asian neighbors don't want it. So we do play a stabilizing influence there. So in some in 1996 we have a wonderful opportunity to restore and

renew hope growth and opportunity in America. We can make America again not a fortress but that shining city on the Hill. But if we don't move in a positive direction then bad forces will arise out of frustration and we've missed a unique historic opportunity to truly make this an American world not in a conquest sense but in a sense of the best example and the best way. I'm an optimist. I think we will do things more right than wrong. And I'm convinced that when historians look back that they'll conclude that once more America will have proven wrong with critics and the skeptics and America once again will take her place as the leader and inspiration of the world. Thank you very much. From the kitchen. OK. We're going to take it.

QUESTION Is there anyone in that kitchen out there who has a question. They don't have what I have. You don't want them to feel neglected in the name of the dining room. Then there's the question of. Question concerns people making 50 to 70000 The criticism is that the flat tax will hurt them again. I want to emphasize they're talking about a fantasy use my flat tax proposal. I was on Meet the Press two weeks ago and I got hit. The host said of the show he said Isn't it true that families with 50000 will be hurt under the flat tax they'll pay more.

I said Tim where is your arithmetic. If you take 50000 minus 36000. And even though it was early in the morning we couldn't figure out the remainder was 14000 at a 17 percent rate meant that family would pay under the flat tax about 22 23 hundred which is less than half of what that family pays today. That was a revelation to them. So one of the things that we're going to be doing is doing a mailing in the next week and a half where you will be able to do your own arithmetic depending on your own. 10:40 and you will find that you're going to that the flat tax will mean less tax. Contrary to what the demagogues would like you to believe. Yeah but that but in essence what we're relying on is your own good sense that you can figure this out yourself that you won't give in to the fears.

You'll do the arithmetic and you'll find that the politicians Washington politicians as usual are giving you another line of bull. I won't say anything more because there are some young people here. Any question among those who might point a question on a flat tire. OK we'll start over. Yes we're on that's right. You may go to watch the president. They love to work with Congress. The question is if you didn't hear at night is how do we expect to get the flat tax passed against a Washington that is not very enthusiastic about it. And the answer is twofold. First we need that's why we need a mandate in 1996. So it's unmistakable as to what the people want when you get a mandate even in Washington. Things happen. They do like to keep their jobs. And so if the voters make unmistakably clear what they want you have a very good chance of getting it.

Number two there will be moments there will be moments when things bogged down in Congress. That's the way that if the institution and so there will be moments or I will have to go over the heads of Congress make a direct appeal to you to write your representatives telegraph them e-mail them fax them whatever else you do to get their attention to put heat on them to move the thing along. Other presidents have done it successfully on occasion but I'm not an insider. I can't play the insider game. It's only going to be with your support and trying to do one or two things at a time. We can make it happen. But it can happen. We still have a very vibrant democracy. Q Is there a question from the hallway you don't want to leave the room out any question from the hallway from somewhere. Can't say you're going to rule. On gun control. I believe in the second amendment. I think the current legislation is fatally flawed and I think that we should

concentrate we should concentrate on getting guns out of the hands of shouldn't have them that works. New York City is trying it. They've reduced their murder rate by 35 percent. Other parts of America are trying get more community policing proactive approach getting the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have in the first place. That's the way we should go. And that's certainly the approach I would take as president. The other question is What about how is investment income treated under the flat tax and under the flat tax. Again the Washington politicos don't want you to know this but all income is taxed but it's taxed at the source. That means for better compliance and it also means you collect it faster on investment income. The tax taxes effectively paid at the business level. It's like a 17 percent

withholding. They write the check to Washington. I'd rather have that than have you get a blizzard of 10 90 nines and have to write the check in April have the business write the check and it's like withholding on your income. They send the money on to the IRS. I'd rather have businesses doing that than you having to do it but all income is effectively taxed under the flat tax. That's one of the beauty parts of it but it's taxed at the source and that's how we avoid taxing your own personal savings and having you go through the contortions. There we do it on the business level so you don't have to worry about it. What you get is yours and so you have a better chance to put together a nest egg because you know anytime you have a kid or a grandchild the first thing that comes in your mind is gee if we want to send this child to college. Boy that's a big chunk of money. And then you have to figure out. But then we have tax complications. Do we buy savings bonds because you don't pay tax on the income and to cash it in. Do you have to wait to

14 years old for the kid so he has his own tax rate rather than the parents. It becomes very complicated stupid. Make it simple. That's what I'm trying to do. The question concerns the size of the Defense Department. I believe that there probably can be more savings done in terms of accession and acquisition programs from new weapon systems. There's a lot lot of complication there. I think it can be simplified set a goal. Let the contractor do it not micromanage them on a day to day basis. But I think we do have to be realistic. We are nearing in terms of the size of the economy a military of a size that we haven't had since Pearl Harbor the Pearl Harbor days. So I don't think you're going to get much more in terms of cutting. I think we can do it on the acquisition

side. But I do have to say I think we have to avoid what's starting to happen now with anecdotal evidence that we're starting to have parts shortages and we're starting to cannibalize existing equipment that we're not keeping our people up to snuff on that equipment. I think that's a very dangerous trend. We don't like to have to spend money on that but by golly we better do it right. Because there's a fearful price to pay when we don't do it right. And also we must avoid doing what we did in the 70s and that is cheating our people in the military and compensation. It's starting to go down in real terms. So I think we're going to have to make an adjustment there. People don't go in the military for that reason but they shouldn't be punished for going into the military. They should get an honest wage. So I don't think there's much to be saved there. I think there are a lot of efficiencies that can be done but I also see some very real needs now in terms of specific weapons programs. Yes I'm open to debate on that whether this one is right or that one is right that's legitimate.

And but I think the major savings major savings are over until we get a less dangerous world which we don't have right now. Or if you really say something about what your position is on the environment specifically in regards to whether you support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge the question concerns the environment I'll give you some general principles and then I'll proceed to offend some of you by answering a specific question on Anwar the Arctic Refuge in Alaska whether exploration should take place there in terms of basic principles on the environment. I believe First we should respect science not go in for a motion such as allare and the apples you may remember that a few years ago respects science too. There's no harm in trying to do some cost benefit analysis where feasible our resources are not infinite. Let's try to get something in return when we devote resources to it. Three you might call the principle getting the job done. I. E Supraphon where most of that money seems to

go. I know there may be some lawyers here but there are other activities you can go into if you're in super fund business. But the money should not be going to the legal profession it should be going. If there's a genuine health hazard clean the thing up don't let it drag out in the courts and finally allow a little bit of imagination and innovation. We can have goals but there's no need for fifty thousand page blueprints from Washington on how to do something have a goal. Allow a little bit of innovation and imagination and how to achieve those goals. Do those things and I think that we can continue to improve the quality of life in our country now and waar. I'm on record I believe that that can be explored in an environmentally safe fashion so that I probably lost 20 votes here but so be it. I'm not going to duck the question. I've been supportive of opening up and more. You have a question.

The what are. The story of my son who is four years ago. So you know we're not really another one in business. What you do when you try to do. You control the excesses of the regulatory agencies. Well I think on the question concerns what about the excesses of some regulatory agencies. I think they're again having some basic principles about cost benefit analysis adhering to the law and not creating new law. And Congress had this year some proposals on regulatory reform. They got through the house. Some of these measures they never made it through the Senate. I'll refrain from making the obvious conclusion about the leadership of the Senate. Can't be too partisan. But but but seriously there is a lot that can be done in regulatory reform that has gotten out

of hand. And small businesses are especially hurt by that because big companies can hire the people hire the resources so they can cope with a regulatory jungle. But small business people spend most of their time on. Instead of growing their business they have to fend off being put out of business by an overzealous bureaucracy. So yes there will be regulatory reform and then and you're sadly sadly yours is not an isolated case. Meanwhile let's go first to you and then then the other gentleman. Yes there was a sea of business. Well then the question is What about efficiencies in government. There have been a number of reports. You have the grace commission you've had other examinations you've even had

some internal examinations by the General Accounting Office which occasionally does something right. Not always but occasionally of things a way to improve efficiencies inside the government. When I'm president cabinet officers will be expected to dust those reports off. We'll give them a proper towel so they won't get dust in their lungs but to dust that stuff off and start trying to run the departments to get more from less. Every business has had to do what every families had to do at that time the public sector did it as well. The gentleman here is the National Low. There's a small struggling democracy very close to the shores of China. He's been operating for the last six in the last hundred years. There are saber rattling now going between China and Taiwan. What is your opinion. How. She asked me the question concerns what about the future of Taiwan especially now

that Beijing in this time of turmoil is starting to make very threatening noises to the Taiwanese. I think there you do very quietly but very very sternly make it clear that they're not that force is not going to be allowed to be used to settle that dispute. As you indicated it's been kind of in a state of flux for a number of years and often times when the Chinese are sensible about these things they simply say yes Taiwan's part of China and then they let Taiwan go its own way because China is in a state of flux right now in the post doing Europe. There is a power battle going on hence the saber rattling. So I think we have to make it clear not in a public sense because that would almost goad the Chinese to even say rattle the saber even more. Make it clear quietly they can make a lot of noise but if they try war then then all bets are

off. It cannot that China dispute with Taiwan cannot be settled by force. This treaty if it can be done and the fact that the question is the question is What about sending the 7th Fleet to Taiwan. I was just about to say that Teddy Roosevelt some 85 years ago he never gets credit for sophisticated diplomacy. We had a very serious dispute with Japan. And so Teddy decided to send the fleet over there but to do it in a face saving way he said this was a round the world fleet to show the world how wonderful our battleships were. But the Japanese got the message and the crisis was defused so so something along those lines may may may be appropriate. Oh Harry you are in your shoes I would be spending my winter skiing in places like a lot of

what you say. Tell me about the messenger. What is it you feel me. You know. The observation was made that perhaps life would be nicer if I skied during the winter and played golf during the summer. And why why why am I running for president. Well first of all I can't skate. I'm a hopeless panderer of cross-country skiing. I can handle it downhill. It's hopeless. And golfing I've never taken up because I know that I'd get addicted to it and it would be a continuous source of frustration. But to answer this serious part of your question I believe that we're at a point in our history where it is going to take an outsider to make the changes that are needed in Washington just because circumstances are favorable for good things happening for a good course in our

history. It takes leadership to give voice and direction and to make sure that it can happen. We've seen too many times in this century what a failure of leadership has led to. Even though circumstances were favorable I'm an outsider. I've been in the private sector 25 years. I've run a business. Moreover in the last 25 years going around America seeing people trying to start small businesses seeing what holds people back what enables them to get ahead I think gives me a better understanding of the tempo and life and opportunities of America than those who have been cocooned in the Beltway for the last 25 years. I've been to 50 countries overseas as a businessman and as a publisher again I've seen firsthand what enables people to get ahead and what holds them back. I've probably visited more presidents prime ministers finance ministers and other people overseas than all of my opponents put together. Moreover I've had experience in Washington. I headed up

Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty small potatoes by Washington standards but I had to deal with appropriating committees authorizing committees. I've been involved in countless bureaucratic fights in a way I've seen the bowels of government you might say in a way that those who've served in the Senate on their purchase probably haven't seen. I've seen it in a way that they wouldn't see it in terms of a committee hearing. And so I know that town but I'm not part of the culture there. I've not spent my life there. So I think what I bring is what perhaps America may need in 1996. It would not have been what America needed during the Cold War. It may not be what America needs. 10 years from now. But at this juncture in our history at least none of the other candidates have given the indication that they understand what the obstacles are what the opportunities are where we're at and where we can go. And I think I have an understanding of international economics not to mention foreign policy that they don't have. We would not have had that disaster in Russia. We could have avoided the disaster

with the Mexican devaluation. So that's what I bring to the table. And as I say just because the circumstances are favorable It doesn't mean it's going to go right unless it has a direction. And the other candidates for all of their virtues and there are some virtues I'm chartable right now would seriously seriously seriously. They are still part I think of a pattern of the past that grew up under the cold war. But it's a very different world today. The political platelets are moving. I don't think they really realize what that means for America. What the dangers are and what the opportunities are to balance the budget. Question is how long will it take to balance the budget. There's an assumption in the question that Washington knows how to keep its books pretend pretend that it does. It doesn't but that's a whole nother series of reforms. We will be able to get Washington's finances in order certainly by the year 2002.

I think it can be done faster with the kind of changes I'm talking about. Right now the emphasis has been on spending cuts. But I know from business and I think you realize too that spending cuts alone did not create prosperity. You have to grow the revenues as well. And my reforms are part of growing the revenues get America moving. There's no way we're going to reform those finances unless as a nation we're moving ahead to our full capacity as a people. And that's one of my key messages. 96 is a lot that we can do. You know all of the fleecing of America that's happening. Yeah. The question is how do we ferret out all the fleecing of America. First of all the answer that I think that we have to remove a lot of the possible fleecing is from Washington. And that's and that's called downsizing because once you take that power away then the temptation to fleece goes away because the

money as they say isn't there anymore. And that's I think is part and parcel of it. Human nature being what it is they're always going to be people attempting to jigger the system. But I think that's why you have to get the power away from Washington. That means you have less need for lobbyists in Washington. The question is when I'm nominated who do I have in mind for a running mate. As some of you know some of you know everywhere that Senator Dole goes he says that the local governor or senator is on a short list for vice president so that it's probably enough to fill a stadium now. And so I'll say on my short list of course is Barbara. And. And then if

any of you others would like to be on my short list. We do have. We do have pads outside there you go. But seriously seriously I will be looking for individuals whether in politics or out of politics even if we might not agree on everything. Who do have a sense that I have where America can go who will not be prisoner of the in box if they have to occupy the Oval Office. Who recognize that. Yes life is not a straight line. It's not that simple but to have a sense of the mission and the possible of what we can do. So they won't be side tracked when all the noise arises. That's the kind of person I'm going to be looking for not only for vice president but in the cabinet as well. Mr. Forbes of course. I'm curious are you aware that when you're elected you'll be the first father of twins who was the president of the United States. I was not aware of that. The first first twins of America. Yes.

I was wondering what your plans were for the future of the American education system. The question is what about American education. I think that the closer we can get education decisions to the district the local level the better. There's no way that you can run education from a far away bureaucracy. And I saw that most dramatically with goals 2000 which I think certainly I'm going to try and scrap from the day I get into office all you have to do on goals 2000 is just look at the history standards they recommended for American history. It was almost as if they took everyone with a grudge or an enemy of America and asked them to write their version of American history. It wasn't a prostitute. Yes. One of our greatest expenses is interest and once the budget gets balanced you have any thoughts on how we can get rid of the debt. The question concerns what about the national debt. How can the time ever come when we might see a prospect of not only not growing it but perhaps it

might even be reducing it. The answer is yes. One of the reforms that I mentioned tonight was lower interest rates by making the dollar fix measure again that will save billions a year on financing the national debt that will go a long ways. But I think within seven or eight years we're going to have to face the question of with our surpluses do we reduce taxes further or do we pay off the principal of the national debt. That's the kind of debate that I want to have when and when I run for re-election. So I think that I think the answer is yes. An election year. The question is What about open trade. What about trade agreements like NAFTA. I think that we have to recognize in the world we live in today. America is now the most competitive nation in the world.

I wasn't true 10 years ago but it is now. When trade barriers are genuinely reduced I emphasize genuinely reduced. America comes out ahead. Whatever we lose we far more gain in terms of job creation growth and prosperity. The problem with NAFTA was that neither the Clinton administration nor the Mexican government have lived up to the spirit of NAFTA. The most blatant example the biggest one was the major devaluation of the peso a little over a year ago. That was done at the advice of the US government the U.S. Treasury Department Clinton Treasury Department and the devaluation. How does this express purpose to make it harder for our products to get into Mexico and easier for Mexican products to get into the U.S.. To me that was a violation and so in that sense when trade barriers are reduced. America does well and but the problem is

living up to the spirit of what we're trying to do. And that's not what happened with Mexico. I opposed the Mexican bailout. If you run dynamic in your New York Rising taking on New Hampshire what would make me believe that the presidency isn't for sale. The question concerns the question is is the American presidency for sale. The answer is the American people are not for sale all like. All I can do is take my message of growth and opportunity to you the voters. You will judge the message and the messenger. So far in this campaign I've spent less money than either Senator Dole or Senator Graham. But unlike them I took a message directly to the voters. You might call it the first information age presidential campaign going directly to the people and that's what I've done. And unlike my opponents I've not taken a penny of your tax money

to subsidize my campaign. It's it's it's not. No taxpayer money involved. Yes. Both you and retailers are the only ones not taking the taxpayers money. How can you both be. You're here you're on the short list. I don't know. If the question is more Taylor apparently says he's not taking matching funds. My belief my understanding was that Maury Taylor was taking matching funds. I will now go find out if he hasn't but it should tell you something that the two business people in the campaign if that is true are the ones who are not taking it. The political insiders are and I think that says a lot about what's happened to the culture of Washington. But I'll check that out. Thank you very much. Good. Would you like to have time to meet everybody.

Some. Thank you all very much. I'll be here for a few minutes longer. Count. On the clock. My understanding is that the flat tax would tax only earned income. So what about all the rich people who have income earned income that they get from all of these forces. How do you tax them. I tried to set up the source by just a heart attack. The taxes paid. You mean if you're getting two dollars a year. It's going to tax hikes there. It's like a company same company makes a hundred dollars an example say right now under a flat tax that pay the 70 percent. So you're saying the company is going to pay but not the individual. Well if you want you can get the ten ninety nine on your savings from your bank account and write the check yourself. I'd rather have a bank writing the check than you that's going to penalize business. Rather

than penalize the right people who have this tremendous income. Yes. But what you want what you want is to get closest to the source as possible because that way you get better compliance. And you also make sure you don't burden people with a lot of paperwork. Can I piggy back on that just because I think that I want the rich people to be burdened with a little paperwork. Well but I think. He she it seemed very simple and I understand it but I think that's a fairly sophisticated issue here and I have a hard time getting the American public to. We're going to assume passive income. People like yourself and others who are driving coupons will be non-cat. The concept of taking out running. Rather than wait till you get the money. And that is the conception of reading your own literature. You had to do your work on that because people are going to you just going to be able to understand that and they will vote against you on the basis that basis.

I think so too. But the problem is you're going to have less tax collection as I understand it and I agree with you you may have a situation where politically it's going to be very difficult to do. Good luck. Great. Thank you. No. One. Want abortions to vanish in America can only happen can only happen if you have a change of heart. Change of attitude change your conscience. No other way in a democracy to move the issue forward. We. Are. Approaching. Both. Mandatory government funding on a sensitive issue like that being the father of five daughters I would support the Haitian case of minors who. Does not. Have to. Make.

Sure that we. Have time to get out early. I'm trying to help please bear all right and in my work. I want to talk to this lady once. OK. My thanks to you. I'm trying to I'm trying to. Do. So. Can I. You're. Equating. Equating. Scuse me. This does not ask you what you thought was his answer. I was really curious to ask you what you thought. I'm curious to ask you what you thought of his answer as far as with my question people whether the rich folks are going to be paying their fair share of taxes. Well you see his point. I think oversimplifies it. But I think what he's saying is that if you. Create for tax purposes the

corporation or the business paying the 17 percent up front rather than me getting a return on investment and then having me to pay the 17 percent I see today there's a corporate tax which is which varies a good bit and there's a lot of loopholes that can prevent corporations from paying what he's saying and what I don't think he's explained very well is that you pay the 17 percent upfront so that the money I get is less 17 percent of what it otherwise would have been. Therefore I do pay the 7. So when a day gives you your dividends from your stock or from your investment it will give you the dividend with the tax already paid. It's minus 17 percent. Individuals are still going to be paid. They already will they will have to pay the bank. In that case or the business becomes my fiscal agent pays the tax. So for me there is a tax on savings. Sure. But he hasn't. But he hasn't he hasn't stated that he's what he should be saying is that by the time

the investor gets it that the taxes have been paid and I then see think he's not getting that message out. No I don't think he is because I don't think a lot of people understand. They just assume that investments that him traditionally come. And today I pay taxes based on my personal tax rate. But what he's saying is that 17 percent has already been paid on all income wherever it comes from. Therefore when whenever you get it it's like it's like savings from my bank account and shouldn't be taxed it doesn't get double tax rate. OK. OK thanks. Right. Can I ask what you thought of him in general. Well I think he's. He's an interesting guy that probably could. How should I say that with all of that. He's got the right idea. He has an optimistic view of the world. None of these other Republicans.

They're either throwing stones at someone else or sort of. Telling you how they're going to incrementally improve things instead of really getting the whole country going this is the only guy has got a positive vision of including the Democrats. Did you at all consider Senator Dole. I mean how do you compare the two. Oh I think there is a world of difference I think. I think Senator Dole is has been a politician so long even though he perhaps is convincing him more convinced himself that that he isn't held hostage by Washington he clearly is. And I certainly wouldn't vote for anybody over Clinton. But but I say that Bill would be way down on the list of people I would choose to vote for. OK. So it's not that Forbes appeals to all but he appeals more. I don't know yet what yes of the president

Republicans running this guy would get my vote. Yes. Super. OK. Just because you are one party you're with. I'm on the heart of New Hampshire Public Radio. Well you are. I talk to you later. Oh yeah. Turn that thing. I don't know. Are. You.

In that room right now. I want the money life goes to the. That's Or. Am I going to see this someplace. If you're going to pay for it you get Newsday from New York you might be OK. I don't want to see the local local. Can I get your name to it's up to you. I just wanted to get names attached upon it. And party will see it more and more. I'm an independent. Lauren we're lucky or four lucky. Oh I see. Elyse what. And. You're an

independent. From national. Debt. No. I'm. Pampered. Punker. OK. Thanks Laura. Laura I've enjoyed your lead or her lead to heart. You're talking about Laura Conaway as the talk show but I use words. Well. Oh really. That's where you get the rest. Lethals. So did you ask the question about asking a question and you just got here. Scott Walker Well we didn't ask questions I didn't ask any question you heard some of what he said. Earlier. What do you think. So do the candidates care what you know. The deal is closed in terms of oversight and we're still deciding. I did just ask you if you had also considered Senator Dole

here you are. I'm with public radio I'm bleeding heart and I'm just talking here of getting all sorts of that you can sit around but not know why is out with the team. I like Mr. Forbes. Is it. His positions his personality both bolt hole. If can you tell me more about that like just a lot of reasons I'm afraid. You came to my door and you go door to door. No no no I'm a reporter I don't go door to door. You're afraid that Mr. Clinton is have. Don't. You agree. Are you. Afraid. To go meet Mr. Clinton. Has had a lot of people who don't care for going. For God's sake or just wanting to be. And how does. It strike you as as different from Senator Dole in

that way. I don't want someone to like someone to be able to beat him. But I'm afraid you can't do it. Why do you consider dopey for his role in the past and what you were like sort of well I guess all format I guess is the best around. Yes but I don't know. Now you haven't made up your mind definitely. No I haven't. To be. Leaning towards. You can. Pretend I'm not not talking just different words. I think you should get out of that's why I'm here to Mr. Fox because I am leaning towards Buchanan and I just need to see what Mr. Forbes said. All right. Kate thank you very much. Thank you very much. Oh that's great. It's a me way to tell the truth. I'm very fortunate position here I think. You know we're

leaving that's why he's clearing out. This. Come this way. You. Know. Scuse me please excuse me please. Excuse me please. Thank you very much. For being here. Well. I guess. That. Is. Not what the media is. Going. To be. More excited about.

Well I think that's unfortunately or fortunately it's true when people start. Making it. All. Day. Thank. You so much. Thanks. Is Great. Thank you so much. Great. Thank. You very much. You're welcome. Oh. Great. You. Know.

First. Quarter. Like. The. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty I've also run a private business for 45 years and will pay for all of the needs of real customers. The last 25 years I've not only seen what's hoped people back in America will enable them to get ahead. I've seen it in over 50 countries around the world but probably more prime minister of finance minister presents me having my hands behind. My.

Radio. Hi I'm sorry yes it did reasonably well. I know this is a hard time to ask this but I'm here and you're here now. So I just wanted to ask you why as. I've been I returned to being an independent over a year ago OK and I've always been a very independent person. OK. However you at one point were a Democrat I served in office as a Democrat but most of my life I've been independent. We were a military family and most military families are very nonpolitical. As for the missing. And what's been so exciting is that the message just struck me weeks and weeks and weeks ago and my reaction it was I wanted to meet him. And the best way to meet somebody is if I come to your house. So I did. And as it unfolded you know I said everybody's welcome and they all came which is great. But the tempo What was interesting for me is when I approached my friends and neighbors and said I'm having a candidate over I do like to meet presidential candidates. Many people said. I'm.

Not really I said oh OK well I'm just having I'm having Steve's over Steve Forbes over and they said we'll come out for him. And so I have felt just in the reaction with people that I've been telling that we were going to have an event for him that you know I was not alone by any means and people that feel he has a message. What is as an independent you're a good person and as a former Democrat in the Senate it's the state Senate at least. Why is he better than Clinton or Dole. Well I think his point of Independence is very valid. He is not an insider. He is he is beholden to no one. He is his own person. And so he doesn't owe any favors to anybody. He can make decisions free and clear and unencumbered with all of the history of favors and that's very important the decisions are tough and I think he can do it.

So you really think he can clean up the larger process because he's got sort of bigger guns than the lower middle class average person. Oh no. I mean I'm not. The question confuses me. I think if he were in a position of leadership you think it would be good to see you. Yeah know it's a bit less personal but it's wonderful and I'm pleased that you're here. And so you're saying he's beholden to no one meaning that everybody else who gets there by the normal means he might be just because way the process is can he clean up the process. I think he can make a difference. I really do. And if you listen to his message it's very consistent and it's it's sort of return government to the people. There's not a single person that I know that has not some way some time encountered a totally unreasonable government regulation. And I mean you can point out to the people that's illogical that's unreasonable. It's outrageous. And they go right ahead and do it. And people are looking for someone with common sense. And he seems to have that. And I don't think he should be ruled out because he happens to be wealthy.

I mean I don't think people should be eliminated. I mean he may be able to pay for his message but his message you know it's the content of what he is saying that that is I think appealing to people. OK. I know you're busy so I will let you go. I want you to know I have furniture all second floor Thank goodness you didn't have it down here for the last few days. Anyone going upstairs have to carry something. Well you did really well I think it went ok and I hope. Yes. Well you treated all right. I was going to go through changes. Yeah. That was important to me. I had those all I'd said relatively speaking this was fine. But it was like waiting behind a police tape line on the side for five hours. Well it was here. Things like that. All right. Yeah go for it.

Here's your first. Kyser could I talk to you from public radio my name's Leaphart and I'm Hi I'm fine. Had you decided on forms before you came tonight. So I was rather impressed with what he had to say but I think he fortified. My big problem was with NAFTA and gat. And I think he and I and I think he was right on the money with the Mexican bailout and the fact that after what we're going to be if it was done in a fair and orderly manner. That was one of the hold ups that I had with the thing the other part I've heard on the TV some of the other stuff and I just kind of worry about d'Orleans I worry whether he's going to be alive to make it to the election. You know he's 72. It's kind of a hold of me running for president. So I know I'm not enthused with Dole and I'm just looking for another candidate. I've listened to oun Specter and I've gone to Phil Gramm and so forth but I think I'm pretty much convinced for Steve Forbes if Forbes had not been in the race or if he hadn't

risen in the polls would you have sort of said well I guess I'll vote for dole but you know what. We don't know I probably wouldn't vote for a dog. I just think anybody who has been in Washington of a 46 years isn't really. Someone that I want run on the run in the country. A flat tax thing. There have been some. Reports that say that middle class people would do worse under his 17 percent flat tax because you wouldn't get all those deductions that you get. Are you concerned about that. Do you take him at his word that you do better. Yeah I do take him in work. I work at MIT and Lincoln Lab and I've compared it a lot of people in work and don't know what their rate would be under the flat tax system and what they would what they normally pay now and there wasn't very many people that are going to be better off and they're not low income people and at MIT they're high income because they're not low income and all do. Nobody likes to think themselves high income but they are they probably earn more money than the average work. You know that master's in tutoring

technology. What about lower income people could lower income people be worse off. Will they be worth having to pay any taxes. You know somewhere in between where you pay some you don't get the entire exemption but it is the only ones that I can see might get hurt or something is a single person. If you have children and we've always given benefits for children then they get that $5000 and if you have two children with four children the fellow I sit next to he's got four children. Him and his wife. That's that puts him at a $46000 before he's not paying taxes 36 now 46. All right. Two children. Yes. Yes. Thirty six. Yes. Yes. And that's quite a chunk of money. He's he stays at home and his wife stays at home because they feel very strongly that he wants his wife to to raise the children and are very dedicated. But he really struggles. He really has to you know he can enjoy anything. But certainly he's going to pay a lot less taxes he can have more money in his pocket and new than he currently will than under this system.

So I I'm not afraid of it I think that's kind of like a smokescreen I think the other candidates are trying to scare people. Don't forget they're going to lose their ability to sell these loopholes and then tell you you know what. How can you get out of cash in your game. You can't sell loophole the Gallo Wines they gave Dole $380000 in turn they got $200 billion in tax deductions for. The tax money that wasn't taxed. So you think firms can clean up the system. You've got to try somebody. I mean obviously if Dole isn't going to do it and I don't Clinton I think Clinton really had the right idea. They had already had a was sincere about the whole thing he tried to do that Medicare thing I know the Republicans a death on Medicare but what do you say. I think he had he was well-meaning on what he was trying to do when he got destroyed. So it's tough. And do you think Forbes won't get destroyed or bought off by Washington when they can't buy him off because he got too much money or destroyed like Clinton would be. He could he could get destroyed he

could get the thing. In the media or the people that are going to benefit. You know someone like Robert Murdoch. That. He has a vested interest in satisfying the people in Washington because he's a foreigner that's controls the media as more television stations and he's allowed to in certain areas he's saturated more than he should. And they're in there. They can anytime enforce the rules on him and say get rid of those TV stations get rid of these newspapers and so forth and he would be stuck. So he you can't write anything impartial he has to right to support the system. And he in turn might be writing things that would destroy Forbes because he has to protect himself. Interesting. Are you or are independent. I'm the Republican nominee but I'm still you know I'm not. Crazy Republican you know I don't think you know I don't put people in the pause I don't want the Medicare play and now they want to take people. They want to make children responsible for their parents going to a nursing home. They want to cut back. You know this is

people in Derry that are and three and four hundred dollars a month on Social Security. Because they worked in the shoe factories all in by women. They were. You know their boss their husbands. So here's a woman say that's earned three or four hundred dollars a month trying to get by on Social Security. He may get food stamps for me. You know the thing they're trying to cut her to try to do. But yet we get fortunate we can get overseas. We can give to two after Daniel's middle and all the big subsidies out there we can we can get all these people to corporate welfare. I want to clean up welfare clean up corporate welfare you know pick on this poor old lady in dairy that's spent her life working in a shoe shop. Is a conservative compassion. Yeah. Can I just get your name away from get Mackey from OK to heart New Hampshire Public Radio and I guess we're happy man. Good to see you Jack. Thanks. OK. Thank you. OK.

Boy. Oh boy. I just want to know if you heard anything you may actually hear a lot of money on this. I have no word for. It.

I like what I heard. I didn't feel he was being evasive. I thought he answered the questions didn't dance around what people were asking. For. I have to listen to what the other candidates say but at this point some of the news that I've been hearing on television. I don't like what I'm hearing about some of the other candidates saying one thing and they haven't actually done what they've said they did. You know in terms of what they voted for didn't vote for. What. It's like. For like today you know but you're not definite yet you're still considering your postal service I'll still consider it and wait till I make sure I understand what a flat flat tax would actually do. And when I'm clear on that in

the program's history you know that we need to keep the nation strong can still be funded. Then you know I know you've been considering Senator Dole is supposed to be here. Yeah I suppose that first you know I had I'm probably leaning more toward Forbes Now. I just feel he's been honest. I definitely think we need term limits. I don't like the fact that you know people get kind of into the slot and it becomes cushy and they want to remain there. And I think it's time that the government is cut back like the rest of us are having to do. And isn't this guy

in Washington that he could do it more than some of Washington insiders. Well I'm not sure. You know he was you know when he talked about all the people said that he had many business dealings he had. You know I was concerned about how much experience he'd had in terms of bad. But you know it sounds like he's been around the block a few times and I just want him to die. I'm tired of what I perceive is going on in Washington with all the spending and it's time to take that back. I think we need less government because the more government we have for every one problem might create three others. He's the guy who can do this. Perhaps he perhaps is on the scene. I think so.

Also it's great to talk to me on here. Can I go. Where are you from B.J. Callahan. I'm from Nashville and Cleveland is really just too much. It's