DAILY BRIEFING
George W. Bush in
his own words
Texas Gov. George W. Bush sat down on July 22 for an interview with National Journal correspondent James A. Barnes. That morning in Indianapolis, Bush had delivered the first major policy address of his campaign-proposing to expand the role of faith-based charities and community groups in providing services to the needy. Here are edited excerpts from the interview:
Q: Your leadership style in Austin has frequently been marked by bipartisanship. What kinds of challenges, from both sides of the aisle, do you think you'd face in making that approach work in Washington?
A: There's no question that right now, the environment [in Washington] is basically zero-sum-or at least it appears that way. "Either I win or you lose. And neither of us shall win, and all of us shall lose." I believe I can help, and it's just not me. A group of dedicated people have agreed to come to implement what I was elected on. And so I'm optimistic, but I understand that it's a tough task.
I've had a record of doing that in Texas. The Governor was viewed as a weak office; I think it's now viewed as a strong office. I said in the course of the '94 campaign that it's only a weak office if there's a weak person who doesn't know how to use the advantages of the office. I think people were shocked by the fact that Bob Bullock-the old crusty lieutenant governor, a Democrat-people were amazed that he and I got along. They were even more amazed when I was sitting by his deathbed with him. I'm under no illusions, though. There's a lot of work to be done.
But let me tell you something. It depends on why someone serves in the first place. Depends on why somebody runs. For example, take the Social Security issue. I'm interested in modernizing Social Security. I want to strengthen Social Security for those that rely upon it, but I believe we need to make sure that it exists for those that are coming up, and therefore I'm for personal savings accounts. It's going to require a bipartisan approach. It's going to require a President expending capital to say: "This is important for the nation, come together, we'll share credit."
Or Medicare. It seems to me many of the issues in Washington-and I lay a lot of the blame at the feet of the Administration-they want to use issues for political gain. The good news is, most Americans are tired of that, including this one. So I think this is a good opportunity.
Q: Do you think you might have to compromise more to get things done than you did in Austin?
A: Not necessarily. I think this is what's important about the next President. The President has to know exactly what he or she intends to do, and I just mentioned an issue that's going to be a priority, which is modernizing Social Security. A President can't be all things to all people. A President's got only so much capital to spend.
We've got a President who tries to be all things to all people. His State of the Union addresses are just a litany-it sounds like a political treatise in many ways. It's a wish list. I'm not suggesting that my State of the Union shall be 13 seconds long, but I know how to use and accumulate and spend capital. I've been good at that in Texas, and I believe I can transfer that skill to Washington.
Now I understand interest groups are here, and there's a viciousness to the politics of Washington, and the stakes are much higher in Washington. I understand that. I'm under no illusions. I know it's a huge step going from Governor of Texas to President. I know that. I know it firsthand. But I've had pretty good training. And part of the training was how to set an agenda, and how to lead. And one thing a President can't do is get overextended and try to spend too much capital on too many projects.
Q: Through much of President Clinton's tenure in Washington, while the Congress would be considering legislation, he would take every opportunity in speeches or Rose Garden events to turn up the rhetorical heat. What do you think about using the bully pulpit that way?
A: It depends on the issue. It depends on the circumstances. It first and foremost depends on the motivation. If a leader decides, "I want to address a major problem and get it solved," it's amazing what can happen. But, you bet, there'll be times to use the bully pulpit. There'll be times to fight for an initiative. And there may be times to help shape public opinion. But the first thing that's important to ask is, "Is it in your mind to try to get problems solved?" Medicare is a good example, a really good example of a missed opportunity that's existed. I don't know this for certain, but I suspect some consultants and some pollsters and some people that are not involved with policy but politics would like to see the issue around.
Q: Talking to some members of the Texas Senate, they say, "You won't see George Bush talk to members of Congress through the press."
A: Probably true, initially.
Q: They say that you didn't campaign against incumbent Democrats.
A: I didn't in Texas. Let me rephrase that. I didn't campaign against Democrats who helped me. There's a difference.
Q: Do you remember campaigning against any incumbent Democrat?
A: I can't remember if I did or didn't, but the stated policy was, people who helped me.
Q: What if you were President?
A: You mean having to go out and campaign against incumbent Democrats, sure I'd do that. But I think the important thing is, again, it's a matter of whether you put policy above politics. The question America has to answer about me and other candidates is: "Why do I want to be President?" Are you interested in being President so you can hold the office and stay focused on short-term history all the time, and worrying about a legacy, or are you there for a reason? I have reasons for running, and over the course of this campaign, you're going to hear the reasons loud and clear.
What they're basically saying, it seems to me, is that George Bush's style is to work with people. One reason why I didn't have to go out and campaign against people is I was satisfied with the product. Satisfied with the results.
I think if you were to look at my tax cut plan, '97 session, I took a lot of political capital, and I said, here's an opportunity for Texas to do a lot of things: reform the tax code with a flat tax, change the education funding structure, and cut the taxes. Three bold ideas. I campaigned in my state. I sent a group out ahead of me to take testimony, and I traveled the state trying to drum up support.
Q: Why didn't you succeed?
A: Because the status quo is a powerful, powerful force in the face of a noncrisis situation. We had no crisis, and oftentimes government is reactive as opposed to proactive. But wait a minute, it worked. I signed the largest tax cut in the state's history, $1 billion. It worked. I was happy to sign a billion-dollar tax cut.
Q: What are you proudest of?
A: I'm proud of a lot of the legislation. I'm proud of the tone I've set. I'm proud of the fact that people said, "We may not agree with George W., but we respect him as a leader." I'm proud of the people I've attracted to government-good, high-quality, honest people. I'm proud of a lot of legislation I signed. I'm proud of the reading initiative. I believe the education reforms I put in place will change Texas for the long term.
Q: If you had the chance to do something over, something differently, what would you do?
A: I've never really looked at it that way. I'm the kind of guy who feels you're dealt a hand in life and you play it as best you can, instead of worrying about how the deck was dealt. Just play the cards. So I'm not a very good second-guesser.
Q: Do you have any heroes?
A: Yeah, I do. George H.W. Bush is one. He's a hero because he's a great father. I mean great. He gave me the greatest gift of all, which is unconditional love. And much of what I am today, who I am today, is a result of how I was raised by my mother and dad. I'm a lucky guy.
Winston Churchill. I like him because he showed guts and had humor. I'm now realizing the value of humor in this business. It is really important. I like Ronald Reagan, a lot, because he seized the moment, changed the tone, for America. I ran for Congress in 1978. I was fearful, I watched the federal government basically nationalize the natural gas industry. I was worried that we were headed for a European-style economic planning era. And Ronald Reagan stepped in there and beat Jimmy Carter and changed the tone of politics.
Q: Your faith is obviously pretty important to you, but you don't really wear it on your sleeve.
A: I try to live it. If you're a faithful person, you wear it on your sleeve by living it.
Q: Has your faith influenced the way you've governed?
A: Yeah, it has. I'll tell you how. First, today, I spoke with certainty at the press conference about what I know faith can do, because it did it to me. So when I look you in the eye and say I am confident that a faith-based program, if properly implemented and properly encouraged, can change hearts and reduce prison recidivism, I mean it. I think my faith has taught me we're all sinners, and far be it for me to cast stones when I live in a glass house. Or have a speck in my eye. You know I don't get the speck out of your eye when I've got a log in my own. There are great lessons of humility and leadership that come with faith.
Q: How do you like to arrive at decisions? Do you like to have an aide brief you? Do you like debate among advisers? What works for you?
A: First, I'm a decisive person. That's one of the advantages of being a governor. Americans know if someone knows how to make decisions. I've made 'em. Secondly, I'm a good listener when it comes to the decision-making process. I'll read. I won't read treatises. I'll read summaries, and then I'll ask questions, get the summary writer and/or the disputants to state their case. I rely upon the judgment of people a lot.
Q: How much credit does President Clinton deserve for the current economic prosperity?
A: I can't think of anything he did on his own, or he proposed himself, that created an environment in which people are willing to risk capital. Now, here's my view of government: Government's role is to create an environment in which there is risk-taking. Reducing the tax on capital was not his idea. He lost the opportunity to continue to expand our opportunities in trade by not having fast-track [trade-negotiating authority]. I will give him credit for reappointing [Federal Reserve Chairman] Alan Greenspan, who has done a good job. Part of the economic recovery happens because of the lower cost of money, because the long-term forecasters have faith that our budgets are more balanced. I think the Congress gets credit for that. So, I give him credit for being there when it happened. It's hard for me to cite a lot of specific policy.
Q: Dan Quayle wants a 30 percent tax cut, Steve Forbes wants a flat tax. Setting aside your tax cuts to encourage faith-based delivery of social services, what would be your priorities?
A: Death tax, marriage penalty, Earned Income Tax Credit changed, reducing marginal rates.
Q: A couple of your advisers have told me you are interested in reducing marginal rates at the lower end of earners.
A: Not the rates-the effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit phasing out. You bet. I think it is wrong in America that you have a single woman with children who's moving from near-poverty to the middle class, who will pay, as she earns more money, a higher effective rate. That is wrong. The whole purpose of Republican thought ought to be to remove the barriers, make it easier for people to go from near-poverty to the middle class. And the tax code doesn't do that, right now.
Q: How do you address the problem of the uninsured? Do you favor tax credits for uninsured people to buy health insurance on their own?
A: The country's done a fairly good job of helping poor people access health insurance. The issue ... is the working poor. I support the idea of allowing people to deduct their own health insurance costs, like small-business people, farmers. That will help some. You asked me the question about tax credits. We're costing that out right now. I'm inclined, but I need to know the costs. It is one of the solutions.
Q: Many strategists say health care is a Democratic issue.
A: No.
Q: And Republicans should focus on other priorities.
A: I disagree. I think health care is a very important issue for all of us. It's not a party issue. It is an issue that needs to be addressed, and the thing that is important about health care is to understand that there are different needs for different folks. I don't view health care in the context of a universal plan. Take the elderly. Medicare needs to be fixed. And Medicare can be by introducing more competition, more private-sector alternatives, and by premium enhancement for poorer systems. That's how you get drugs into the people's hands. That's how you end up having more options, more choice, and more cost control. It's the principles involved in the Breaux-Thomas plan that I think were very interesting. I'm frankly surprised the President decided not to do something with it.
Q: Maybe he wanted the issue?
A: Could be. And then, obviously, HMOs. Should HMO health reform be enacted? You bet. We've done a lot of that in Texas. You've got a complaint with your HMO, and your HMO says you're wrong, well, we've set up an independent review organization where you can take your complaint. And if the IRO makes a ruling that the HMO ignores, then that becomes the cause of action. That's vastly different when you've got a complaint and you don't like it and you can sue the HMOs. There's an arbitration dispute mechanism in place.
Q: Thinking about your speech on faith-based delivery of social services: If you compare that to your father's Thousand Points of Light program, do you think that says anything about the different approach or emphasis that you'd place on domestic issues?
A: I think what it says is that we're at a critical period in America, that the nature of prosperity has changed so dramatically, even over the last decade, that the real danger is, will prosperity have a purpose? Will people be able to access the [American] dream. It's a challenge. Like I say in my speech, it's a challenge to America's good heart, and that's why I think it's important to take the notion of charity and faith-based institutions beyond the traditional approach of volunteerism for the government, to take an active, pro-active role. If faith can change hearts, we ought to welcome it, but we're not going to fund the church.
I'm going to give you my stump speech because it speaks to my heart. I'm running for President. I worry that people will be left behind. I also know the transforming power of faith. I believe we can change America for the better. So much of the domestic issue that I think we need to focus on is people on the outskirts of poverty, people whose lives can be changed, not by government, in whole false promises of the past, but by government encouraging agents of change to perform commonplace miracles of renewal.
Q: Have you come to any conclusion that our economy is in a new era of low unemployment that can be sustained without inflation?
A: I think it's dangerous to assume anything in the economy. I remember the economic gurus in 1981 saying the price of oil is going to a hunnert (a hundred dollars a barrel)-"It's going to a hunnert." So everybody and their brother came down [to Texas] to try to invest. In 1986, I remember when it went to nine. I listen to people like Larry Lindsey and [John] Cogan and [John] Taylor and [Martin] Anderson and [Michael] Boskin and people like that, who are the economic forecasters. I've asked the question: "Has the economy changed to the point where recessions are shorter?" And they don't know. And they're honest enough to say they don't know. It's hard to tell, right now. Basically you're asking, "Is it possible for America to avoid a recession?" That's got to be hard to believe.
Q: What lessons have you learned from Kosovo?
A: Couple of lessons. One is that our military might and technology is such that I think we can plan farther down the road than anticipated when it comes to reforming the military.
Secondly, that we must be mindful that we don't exist alone in the world, and that we must have a strong alliance in NATO because the real threat to stability in Europe, which is a primary strategic interest of ours, could be the Russians. So it's important to have a strong and confident NATO.
Third, I think a lesson that we're going to have to be aware of is that the conflicts at the end of the Cold War have created an environment that is much more uncertain than the past. It's uncertain where there will be conflict. It's uncertain where our strategic interests may be challenged. There are vacuums now in the world that can be filled by ethnic tensions.
I think the other thing the Kosovo situation showed is that there is still within the heart of America a raging debate as to whether or not we should be protectionist and isolationist, or whether or not we should be active in the world. I take the side of active in the world. I think we've got to open markets, fight for free trade, and I believe America must work hard to promote the peace.
Q: One of your Republican opponents, Gary Bauer, says if you want to get tough with China, you've got to talk about no most-favored-nation status, no World Trade Organization, for China. He says Bush, Gore-no real difference between them.
A: There's a huge difference. The Clinton-Gore Administration has formed a strategic alliance with China, a strategic partnership. It's a competitive partnership, as far as I'm concerned, with China. I think it's a mistake to not open up Chinese markets to U.S. producers. I think it's important not only for farmers and ranchers and entrepreneurs, but it's important for those of us who would like to see China a more free country, because entrepreneurship equals freedom. If the Internet was ever to take hold in China, imagine how much more free the Chinese people would be.
Q: When you've been asked if you've ever used drugs, you've declined to respond specifically, saying you don't want to send signals to America's youth.
A: I've also said what I did 25 or 30 years ago, America doesn't care about that. What they want to know is did I learn from mistakes made. What they want to know is when I put my hand on the Bible. will I swear to uphold the integrity and the honor of the office to which I have been elected. The answer is, you bet. I did so in Texas, and I will do so as President. That's what America wants to hear.
Q: When Al Gore and Bruce Babbitt and Newt Gingrich all said, "I smoked marijuana-"
A: That's their choice to do so.
Q: -did they send a bad signal?
A: I think so. I think the signal ought to be, "Don't use drugs." I think it's wrong for adults, and it's their choice to do so, but I think the signal ought to be, "I don't want any kid using me or any other public official as an excuse for doing something that shouldn't be done."
Q: Last time you were in Washington, the Democrats tried to sort of marry you to the Republican congressional leadership, a few of whom are Texans. What did you think of that tactic?
A: I think the Democrats are so panicked that I may become the nominee and the President that not only are their party leaders taking kind of small swipes, but so's the President. The President is spending a lot of time talking about me. I'm amazed and I'm flattered that I've showed up on his radar screen to the point where in three or four public discussions, he talks about me. I haven't earned my party's nomination yet. So, what I figure is, I'm doing something right.
Q: How much contact do you have with senior congressional Republicans from Texas?
A: From Texas? Oh, not much. They've got a job to do. Here's my attitude on the Congress: One, I intend to work with them. I intend to set an agenda that I hope they will follow. My job is to lead. And I will lead. And I know how to do so. Many of them are good personal friends of mine. I'm confident that we'll be able to get along pretty well.
Take President Reagan: He knew what to do. If the President is there to solve problems, to set an agenda and to work to get things done, and is willing to spend capital to do so and willing to share credit when credit is due, it's amazing what can happen. If a President is there to kind of hold the office and create political opportunity, nothing gets done. Some things have gotten done, but it's been an incredibly acrimonious environment. And I believe that can be changed. I believe that.
Q: You think you can take your style in Austin up to Washington?
A: It's not just me. That's the point I'm trying to explain to you. It's an Administration.
Q: Tom Daschle is not going to be like Bob Bullock.
A: Probably won't be.
Q: Dick Gephardt is not going to be like [Texas House Speaker] Pete Laney.
A: They probably won't be.
Q: Does that give you some pause?
A: No, I believe that when the people speak, others will listen. I've got great faith in the people. And I've got great faith in the democratic process. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think I could get some things done. I'm not interested in going through what I have to go through in order just to say, "Hey, I held the office." I have an agenda, and by the time this election takes place, you'll know it, I hope, by heart.