Carson Tonight Show

We're talking with former Governor Reagan, and during the break we were discussing. When I mentioned that I thought most people were apathetic, I think they're confused, basically. Because you hear intelligent people from both political parties, or in the middle, conservatives and liberals, and they all seem to have different answers as to what is going wrong in the country. Some people say, well, let's let the government spend billions of dollars. And then other people say, no, no more federal spending. Let's give the tax rebates. And the other intelligent people say, no tax rebates. We've got to do this and do that. So everybody is confused. How do you see the thing? How are we going to get out of this? Well, Johnny, I think one of the things is that people keep looking to government for the answer, and government's the problem. A moment ago you asked about people feeling not only confused, but low and down in America. First of all, the American people, if they would just take a little inventory and look around, you triple our troubles, and we're better off than any other people on earth. And we've asked so much of government, and we've gotten in the habit over the last 40 years of thinking that government has the answers. There's very little that government can do as efficiently and as economically as the people can do themselves. And if government would shut the doors and sneak away for about three weeks, we'd never miss them. Now, if the people want to be sure— Anybody you had in mind particularly? No, I said this while I was in government. Our biggest problem is that we have built a permanent structure of government, federal, state, and local, the permanent employees, and they've come to the place that they actually determine policy in this country more than does the Congress of the United States. There are 14.5 million public employees in the United States. That's quite a voting bloc. And the bureaus and agencies— Now, in Washington, I heard you talking earlier about some of the research programs. Well, there was a senator the other day, and he took up some pages of the congressional record. He was doing the same thing you were, listing all these crazy research programs and how much they were costing, and wound up his speech by introducing his own. He wants a study and a research of transcendental meditation. So, you know, there's a state senator in Michigan, and he just found out the other day they got a $93,000 study on whether chitlins are bad for you. And he said that as a fourth-generation chitlin eater, he figured that he could tell you how for 93 cents you could find out the answer to that. We laugh at those things, but they do happen, I guess. Oh, listen, you had some beauties, and there are some others. What would you say if I told you about one, a study in which this was called The Demography of Happiness. And in this study, the government found out that young people are happier than old people. They found out that people that earn more are happier than people that earn less. And they found out that well people are happier than sick people. That's good. Well, that's not bad at all, then. This was $249,000 to find out it's better to be rich, young, and healthy than old, poor, and sick. So when you say now that it's the government that may be the problem, so what do people do? They have to look to somebody, and you say if they look for themselves, that's... It may be good advice, but how about somebody who's on a social security pension or a pension trying to live on $150 a month. They have to look to somebody, I guess. They're saying, hey, we can't make it. We can't afford to go to a doctor. Well, 62% of the people can't stay home in an election and cure things as we did in the last election. I just read this week on the radio, they dropped 300,000 voters from the Los Angeles roll because they didn't take the time to go to the polls in the last election. 300,000 people? That's the lowest percentage in history. Only 38% of the people voted in the national election. And this means that people aren't paying any attention to what... Well, here, a poll was taken recently that found out that only 46% of the people in the poll could name their United States congressman. But what was worse, 86% of those who could name him couldn't tell you a single thing that he represented or stood for. They just knew that he represented the state... Yeah, he was a congressman, but what's he doing while he's up there? And the same is true at the local levels of government and all the rest. So you're saying people really have to take an active interest and you have to have citizen action groups locally and... And let them know. See, the special interest groups... Now, the special interest groups aren't, as everyone thought, big, powerful business interests or something that are going to persuade government to do things. As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone with less influence today in government than business. They're just a convenient whipping boy. But it's the groups that have got a particular ax to grind. You can't have a power plant because it might interfere with the seagulls. Now, I think I'm an environmentalist. And I do not agree with those people way over on the edge who'd pave the whole country over in the name of progress. But also, I don't like those on the other extreme that won't let you build a house unless it looks like a bird's nest. Someplace in the middle, we've got to allow people or ecology too. Well, this kind of group, and they want their particular program. Hundreds of dollars have been added to the cost of an automobile, putting gadgets on it to clear up the air. We're the only country in the world that's set out to do it that way. The automobile industry over and over again told government if they give them more time, the answer lay in making the motor more efficient and making it burn the fuel better. And when they were given the limited time, there was only one thing they could turn to. That was the add-ons. And the verdict is really kind of still out on those, whether they're going to add more sulfuric acid to the air or not. Yeah. What do you think is going to happen? Now, you've been asked this question. I'm sure you knew that I might possibly bring it up tonight. There's an election coming up. You're out of politics now, but you're speaking, and as I say, you're going around the country. Do you envision a possibility, say, in 76, if the convention, say, was deadlocked? I'm giving you all the theories and so forth. And the conservatives took over possibly and got control of the electoral process, and they couldn't quite make a decision, and they came to you and said, Governor Reagan, we can't decide between Mr. Ford and Mr. Rockefeller. We're divided. Would you like to go to the White House? You remember the answer I gave you about the CIA? Yeah. Oh, come on. I can understand the CIA now, but I thought that was delicately phrased. Verbose but delicate. Yeah, verbose but delicate. No, I think it's an unanswerable question. I don't think anyone in view of the things that have gone on in the last few years knows what's going to happen in the next two years down the road. I think that everyone should hope and pray that the people there will do the job so well that there won't be any question about it, because if they do, then everything's all right with the rest of us. Do you think they're doing their job well? Well, I agree with some things and disagree with others. When they give me a choice between a $53 billion deficit in the budget and an $80 billion deficit, when budget deficits are what's causing inflation, I don't see that there's any room to be on either side of that argument. I think the answer to curing inflation is a balanced budget. Now, how do you do that? I mean, how do you balance the budget? Well, balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue. You don't spend more than you take in, right? No, it's like protecting your virtue. You have to learn to say no. There's got to be another way. What's the second option? Well, there's some ways that this could be brought about. First of all, a limitation. Here's another one. Why shouldn't we have, in addition to a simplified income tax, why shouldn't we also have a law that says that any time a legislator or a congressman introduces a spending program, he has to introduce with it a tax program to pay for it? Then let the people find out. There was a woman from a financial firm that was back at the President's Economic Council, and her words weren't quoted. Everybody else's words got in the paper, all the tellers and the gall breaths and all the so-called economists. And I have a degree in economics, so I can say this. I think an economist is someone who has a Phi Beta Kappa key on one end of his watch chain and no watch on the other. This woman said that you go to the polls and you ask the people if they want some social service, some program the government can give, and the people in the polls are apt to read and say, that sounds good, yeah. But she says that isn't exactly accurate. She says put a $100 bill in each person's hand and then show them the program and say, now, isn't that a nice program? Do you want it? Give me the $100. And she says, see what the poll says then, how many people hang on to the $100 instead of the program. In other words, it's rather hidden, and someone doesn't know exactly where it's going to come from. All the government programs start a dollar down and we'll catch you later. And they multiply all of those things that you were... The Office of Management and Budget in Washington that's responsible for the budget, putting the budget together, cannot even tell you how many boards, commissions, agencies, bureaus and departments there are in the federal government. But all of them can pass regulations. And those regulations have the force of law. And the difference is, when you break the law, you're innocent until proven guilty. When you break a regulation, the fellow that charges you with breaking the regulation, you're guilty. If you want to take him to court and prove you're innocent, that's up to you. And all of these are things that, yes, we can trim the budget. There's enough fat in the federal government but it's not that if you rendered it, you could wash the world. They took a poll of the American people the past week and I think 78% or around 75% were opposed to more military aid to Vietnam and Cambodia and Southeast Asia in general. And yet the administration was trying to tell the American people that a couple hundred million or $222 million would make some kind of difference or that the government might make it. How do you feel? Do you think that that is a lost cause in a way? I think people can see humanitarian, you know, for children, hospitals, et cetera, medical supplies and food. But it seems that the public has just almost had it up with military involvement where we feel we are not directly threatened. Well, we are fed up. We're war-weary after a long and badly fought war. On the other hand, and this is one where I'll probably lose a lot of people because it isn't popular for the public to say this today, when we withdrew our troops, we made a cease-fire peace agreement and it was based on supporting the non-communist forces in Indochina on a basis of one-for-one replacement. Every bullet they expended a bullet to replace it if the communists violated the cease-fire. The communists have violated the cease-fire 72,000 times since it was instituted and we brought our men home. And I think for the United States to break its word, we're in that agreement, we pledged something, and the Congress is now saying that the United States reserves the right to just break its word and not... What other ally is ever going to trust us? And I... there's no question that, backed by Red China and the Soviet Union, the communist forces in Vietnam and Cambodia are on their way to take those over. They do, of course, Laos just automatically falls. Then they're on the edge of Indonesia, 140 million people, which comes within 14 miles of its nearest point of the Philippines. The domino theory is... Is that still a viable theory? Yes, it is, and I could see the United States one day being very, very lonely. Now, it's a very funny thing that the same forces that want to cut our defense spending are the same ones that want to increase all these social services and this social tinkering and experimenting that hasn't worked. And every time it doesn't work, they just impose a more expensive program on top of it. I think the American people, if they really look at all the facts, yes, we want fiscal responsibility. But I think we also want a country that is strong enough at all times that we can say to any adventurous guys over there on the other side of the water, you better look twice, brother, before you start getting rough, that we can take care of ourselves. As you said, even before you made the statement, that would probably get mixed for your reaction. And I can understand that. People are, and it's hard to understand how maybe your interest is involved 10,000 miles away. But Russia seems concerned that their interests extend all the way to Cuba and to South America, to Chile and to other countries of that kind. They're the ones that have said they're going to impose their way of life on the rest of the world. We haven't said we want to do it to the rest of the world, our way. Let me ask you one more question before you go. Let us assume that there's a third party, that neither party seems to go. Yeah. You like this approach already, huh? And they're thrown into disarray, as they say. And a third party is formed. Do you think that'll ever happen in this country, where a third party will be a major type of alternate to what we have? Well, I'd still prefer to see a revitalization of the two major parties we have, because the two-party system has served us very well. Third parties have a notorious way of not being successful. Now, the Republican Party, some people say, well, that was a third party 100 years ago when it started. It actually wasn't. It was a second party. The Whig Party had shrunk and shrunk, and then the remainder of the Whig Party said to two other groups that had formed parties, hey, want to get together with us? They changed their name and called themselves the other party. And so it was, in effect, the Whigs just disappeared. It was this new second party. Maybe this is time. Maybe it's time for realignment between people who might be finding themselves in the wrong parties. Maybe there are some people still voting. I was a Democrat most of my life. I became a Republican only not too many years ago. And I had the pleasure of telling some of those people that are saying the Republican Party ought to broaden its base the other day that when I switch parties, I didn't do it because the two parties were alike. I did it because they were different. And I think that the two parties ought to stand up as to what they represent, what they stand for. A third party, they have a way of electing the wrong people because they simply divide themselves from the other forces that feel the same way, and then the other fellow sneaks in. It could happen that neither party would represent what the people want, and finally the people would take some action and do something about it. But I'd rather devote our effort to seeing if we can't find out what the present two parties stand for and which one we want. But you don't see yourself, or do you see yourself as maybe as a part of that, active politically again? I certainly don't give up, do I? Yeah, you sure don't. Sure don't. I wish I could think of a good get-off line. I have Lawrence Pivack's old question channel for that. Nancy, you know, said to say hello tonight. She thought it was great that we were both in town at the same time. You too, huh? I get that. Thanks for being with us tonight, really. It was a pleasure to see you again.