[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
[July 6, 1999]
[Pages 1160-1166]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 1160]]

Interview With Ron Brownstein of the Los 
Angeles Times Aboard Air Force One
July 6, 1999

2000 Election

    Mr. Brownstein. I enjoyed being out there today after spending so 
much time in the last few weeks with the Vice President and the 
Governor. And we have so much 2000 going on already, it seems a little 
odd, you know, in some ways. I mean, you've got--you and the Congress 
both have 16, 17, 18 months left, and you know, it's almost like we're 
in a fall. It just seems somehow premature to me. I don't know.
    The President. It is, but I think part of it is the--that's--I think 
we're doing what we should do, which is to keep plugging at the policy 
stuff, because in fairness to all the candidates, the States, in their 
rush to maintain maximum influence, have continued to move these dates 
up. So I don't really see that they had any choice. And when they're out 
there doing it, you've got to cover them. But I think----
    Mr. Brownstein. Is it harder to get things done in Washington?
    The President. I wouldn't--that depends on how--the attitude of 
Congress, I think that--in both parties. Not necessarily. I think in 
some ways, it may play to the desire of every person in public life, 
including the Members of the House and the Senate in both parties, 
always to be relevant and to say, hey, I'm here, too. So in a funny way, 
it could increase our ability to act, both this year and next year. And 
as I tell the Republicans all the time--and the Democrats--if we solve 
everything, if we reached an agreement on Social Security, Medicare, if 
we committed to pay the debt off in 15 years, which is something that I 
think is a huge, still, sleeper opportunity for the American economy, 
think of all the things that would still be there for them to disagree 
about.

Working With Congress

    Mr. Brownstein. Do you think you can reach an agreement? What do the 
prospects feel like to you now--agreement on entitlement and taxes?
    The President. Prospects feel, to me, better than conventional 
wisdom would hold they are. What I have to be able to do is to convince 
both parties that doing the right thing is usually the best politics--
the people have hired us to work, and they expect us to work--and that 
there will still be this huge array of things over which they have 
genuine disagreements. We have big disagreements that are important on 
education, so that no matter what we do on education, a lot of the 
disagreements will remain, and a lot of the opportunities will remain, 
you know, for fertile debate.
    We have these massive disagreements, on guns, that are huge, where 
there seems to be no reasonable prospect that the divide can be bridged. 
But to go back to what I'm doing now, it would seem to me that this is, 
from my point of view, with the whole New Democrat philosophy I try to 
articulate, the embodiment of everything I believe. But it also is 
consistent with what entrepreneurial Republicans believe, because this 
is not a Government program in any conventional sense, and it is 
designed to spawn private sector growth.

New Markets Initiative

    Mr. Brownstein. What is the principal thing you're hoping to 
accomplish on this tour? Is it to push forward the legislation, or is it 
something else?
    The President. I think the principal thing I'm hoping to accomplish, 
which I think will help to push forward the legislation, is to convince 
the critical mass of the economic and political decisionmakers in this 
country that there is both an opportunity and an obligation in the 
underdeveloped parts of this.
    You'd be amazed. When I talk to businesspeople, I say, look, forget 
about the moral obligation and the people that deserve a chance in life, 
although surprisingly, a lot of these business executives feel that. 
They feel that they've benefited in their own personal holdings, their 
businesses have. The stock market more than triples; the economy's got 
the most peacetime expansion in history. If we get fortunate, it'll be 
the longest expansion in history, including wartime expansions, if we 
keep it going, you know, if we're lucky and prudent.

[[Page 1161]]

So I've been very touched that a lot of them feel the moral pull of 
this.
    But what I say to them is that when I started thinking about this 
economy, seriously, probably 12 years ago now, and thinking about what 
it would take to make America work again, and then I tried to put the 
ideas together a decade ago, in 1989 and '90 and then in '91, I gave 
those speeches at Georgetown. Most conventional economists believe, even 
my own economists--Laura Tyson, who did 
a fabulous job for me--I remember sitting around the table at Little 
Rock in December of '92 and having her say, ``Mr. President, most 
economists, including most Democrats, believe that if you get the 
unemployment rate much below 6 percent for very long''--do you remember 
that, Gene? We were at the Governor's 
mansion----
    National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling. I remember Bob and I brought in Laura and Larry so that 
we could all tell you at once, and this was when we were in the----
    The President. If you create more than 8 million jobs in your first 
term, and we get this unemployment rate much below 6 percent, we'll have 
inflation. The Fed will have to really raise interest rates; it'll break 
the back of the recovery. And I argued to the contrary because of two 
things. I thought if we had open markets and maximized the impact of 
technology, that it would tend to dramatically increase productivity and 
hold down prices, and of course, you know, that's what's happened.
    And all over the country today, if you look at the most 
sophisticated labor unions, you don't see a bunch of strikes here, 
because we're having good times. People are saying, we remember the bad 
times; we know we're in the global economy; we want wage increases; but 
we want them to be consistent with the profitability and the 
productivity of the firm we're in. It's very interesting.
    There's a whole--and I think part of this is reinforced by the fact 
that all the worker pension funds are in the market, and you know, there 
are a lot of reasons for all this. But I think that what's happened is 
we're now down to unemployment below 4.5 percent, with no substantial 
inflation. We've had some oil spikes and other spikes, but basically 
things are rocking along here.
    But now we've reached a point where people are saying, ``Well, at 
this level of labor force participation, is there a way to continue to 
grow the economy without sending inflation up so much that the Fed will 
have to raise interest rates, and we'll break it?'' So as a pure 
economic perspective--and I have argued repeatedly that there are only 
three options here--you either have to find new markets abroad, which I 
strongly favor, and I'm still working on trying to get our party 
together on a trade position; that's option one.
    Option two is to take discrete but dispersed populations that are 
out of the labor force and bring them in. That's still people on 
welfare, but the welfare rolls have been cut in half, so the ones left 
are the hardest to place and the disabled. And we're going to do that; 
presumably, we are going to have a big bipartisan agreement on that, to 
let them keep their Medicaid health insurance when they come in.
    I don't think you went to New Hampshire with me when I did the forum 
on this, but there's this former Olympic skier in New Hampshire who is 
now confined to a wheelchair, and I think he's quadriplegic. Anyway--but 
he's seriously injured. He's got $40,000 in Medicaid bills. But he's got 
a job and makes $30,000 a year. You and I as taxpayers, we're going to 
pay the Medicaid bills regardless, so we're better off with him making 
$30,000, and it's a better society with people like that working. So you 
can do that.
    Mr. Brownstein. That's the second way?
    The President. Yes, that's the second way. But the third way is, by 
far, the biggest way, and that is to go into these areas where the whole 
economic base eroded sometime over the last 30 years--principally, the 
inner-city areas and the rural areas and the Native American 
reservations where we're going now, where arguably, there never was any 
really indigenous independent economic base--and try to actually do what 
is necessary to put in place a private sector. It cannot be done with 
Government spending alone, because there are a lot of things that 
governments can do, you know, the Head Start, the health care, the 
education, all that stuff, the infrastructure. But you have to get some 
free enterprise in there. There are not enough Government jobs to do 
that.
    On the other hand, with Government neglect, it'll never happen. So 
we started this back in '93 with the economic plan, with the empowerment 
zones, doubling the earned-income tax credit, doing those things within 
the enterprise communities, both giving people tax incentives

[[Page 1162]]

to go into those areas and then tax credits to hire people. And then we 
had the community development banks, which have had, like all such 
things, mixed records of success, but on balance have done well.
    Then we began to vigorously push the Community Reinvestment Act, 
which has probably had the biggest aggregate impact but that tends to be 
more widely dispersed. So how we got to this new markets proposal and--
--
    Mr. Brownstein. Can I ask right there, how does this--I mean, I was 
going to ask you about, building on that record, the things that you 
have already done, what do you see this adding to what you have already 
done? What is the specific increment you're trying to bring here?
    The President. I think it does two things. Number one, it is 
available nationwide and not just where the empowerment zones or the 
community development banks are or where there has to be a particularly 
committed community banker who loves the community investment act. It's 
nationwide available. That's the first thing. That's a big deal. If you 
look at the one in New York we've got, it goes into Harlem, in the 
Bronx. There are probably a million people in New York City alone living 
in neighborhoods with unemployment rates above 10 percent, untouched by 
the empowerment zone. I don't know, maybe there's more. But at least a 
million.
    Mr. Brownstein. It broadens your reach.
    The President. Nationwide; and we don't have to keep going back to 
Congress over and over and over again saying, ``Give us 10 more 
empowerment zones''; and then everybody's got different spending 
priorities, or Republicans say, ``We like tax cuts; we don't like the 
spending you do, and you don't have to do any of that.'' You put it out 
there, and you say, ``Here it is, nationwide.''
    Secondly, what it is, is particularly a heavy emphasis on venture 
capital, because you get up to a 25 percent tax cut for investing in 
vehicles that make direct investments to put up the venture capital. And 
then you also lower the relative risk of bank loans by saying that for 
every dollar you put up in venture capital, you're eligible for $2 in 
borrowing, Government guaranteed, which cuts the interest rate way down.
    And keep in mind, all this stuff would be available within the 
empowerment zones, too, so everywhere, you're lowering the relative risk 
of investment enough to make it more appealing. But the reason I said 
that, the most important thing, was to impact the economic and political 
links to the opportunity here is. I mean, that's why we've taken a lot 
of these businesspeople, and we're having all these announcements about 
what we're doing with the--you know, right now--is that it is very 
important that people see these opportunities as they are and also see 
the problems. But at least see that there really is opportunity.
    Now, if you believe, as I do, that there are a lot of people in 
business and in politics who think as well as we're doing now, we have a 
moral obligation to try to finally get some sustaining free enterprise 
into these areas, and you show that it's good business, and then you 
lower the relative risks, you've really done something. But the first 
thing you have to do is to make sure that there is enough accurate 
knowledge and communication out there to make the market work.
    Any economist will tell you that all markets work based on--still 
work through human beings based on adequate knowledge. And I would argue 
that there is far less than perfect knowledge within the American 
investor community about the opportunities in these developing areas.
    Mr. Brownstein. It sounds like what you're trying to do this week is 
almost a trade mission within your own country.
    The President. I'm taking a trade mission to America this week. 
Which is why, you see, my one sure-fire applause line in all these 
speeches is we're going to give American business investors the same 
incentive to invest here they have in developing economies overseas. 
It's like a trade mission.

Community Reinvestment Act

    Mr. Brownstein. You mentioned community investment act having the 
broadest impact--financial services bill going to conference. You have 
threatened to veto over the CRA provisions.
    The President. Don't we have good CRA provisions now----
    Mr. Brownstein. In the House.
    The President.----in the House?
    Mr. Brownstein. The Senate provisions you said you would veto?
    The President. We're going to work hard for those House provisions. 
I don't see how--look, I know sort of ideologically where Phil 
Gramm

[[Page 1163]]

is, but you cannot look at the fact that we have the strongest economy 
in a generation, maybe ever. During the same period of time, when--this 
was a 22-year-old law, and over 95 percent of all the money loaned under 
it has been loaned in the time that we've been here with this 
administration.
    You cannot make a factual argument that the CRA is so burdensome to 
bankers that it's somehow bad for America. It's been good for America, 
and it's been good for banks. So I feel very strongly about it.
    Mr. Brownstein. I feel ground approaching, so I'm going to try to 
talk about a couple of other issues with you.
    The President. So we're trying to get three things done. Number one, 
we want to highlight what we've been doing the last 6\1/2\ years and 
what the positive impacts are. Number two, we want to promote the new 
markets initiative because it's nationwide, and it's a heavier emphasis 
on venture capital and on direct investment, equity investment. And 
number three, we want to increase the awareness of the opportunities 
there in these areas because I think we have to build a different 
economic infrastructure in these areas. If we do that, the next time 
there is a recession, they won't be totally wiped out; they'll go down 
like the rest of the country, and then when we get out of the recession 
the next time, they'll come up like the rest of the country. But if they 
have no resources, they get hurt terribly in the recessions, because 
they have a lot of marginal employees, and then when we come out, they 
don't come out.
    Basically, I think people have not thought through here that the 
economic infrastructure in most of these places literally disappeared 
somewhere over the last 30 years and hasn't been replaced for anything.
    Now, it turns out to be in the self-interest of the investor in the 
corporate community to replace it. And these people are out there dying 
to work. Yes, there are all kinds of obstacles, special obstacles in 
every one of these places: transportation in Appalachia, the level of 
education, the skills, you've got to do more on-the-job training. There 
are all kinds of problems. But the opportunity there is significant, and 
if we have sufficient tax incentives and if the Government does our part 
in spending for education and training, too, we will, I think, at least 
make the relative risk of investment equal to what it would be in most 
other places.

Budget Agenda

    Mr. Brownstein. Let me not jump around, but I would like to try to 
touch on a couple of other things and then come back to one other thing 
on the investment side. You mentioned before, you were a little more 
optimistic than conventional wisdom about the prospect, and there does 
seem to be a little change in the wind as the surplus numbers have 
gotten better.
    Let me ask you first, do you think a broad-based deal would have to 
include a broad-based tax reduction beyond what you've proposed, and are 
there some that are more acceptable to you than others?
    The President. I think what's most important to me, because I think 
this will clarify the choices to the Republicans as well as to our 
people, what's most important to me is to try to do the first things 
first. That is, I would like to lock in a commitment which would assure 
that even if we couldn't reach agreement on the next steps, we'd run 
Social Security out to 2053 and pay the debt off, the publicly held debt 
off in 15 years.
    Then I would like to move to Medicare, where I really do believe we 
can make an agreement now. We know that. They will have to admit, those 
that don't agree with my prescription drug proposal, that I've done it 
in a fiscally responsible way that will not explode in the out-years. 
Then we can look at what we've got. I don't think they--if you look at 
what they say they are going to do, they say they're willing to go to 
basically a kind of a lockbox like I have, a real savings on Social 
Security, not something you can go back and raid.
    If you do that and if you take the tax proposal they've got on the 
books now and then just fund my defense numbers--not theirs, my defense 
increases--we're already in the hole again running a deficit with a 30 
percent cut in discretionary spending. That is, I don't think that all 
these numbers have been added up, and I think that if we really sit down 
and don't get--you know, I haven't attacked the money. I haven't gone 
out on a budget tirade or anything like that.
    What I want to do is to really show them what I think the choices 
are and then discuss it with them and debate with them. But I think 
there can be an omnibus agreement, and I've already said I think there 
ought to be a tax cut. We can afford to give some of this money

[[Page 1164]]

back to the American people. My own view is, the most responsible way to 
give it back is in the USA accounts, because it gives hundreds of 
dollars a year from now on to working families in ways that will enable 
them to save for their own retirement.

Tax Cuts

    Mr. Brownstein. Do you like the idea of raising the 15 percent 
bracket as a possible tax cut?
    The President. You mean lowering the 15 percent?
    Mr. Brownstein. Lowering the 15 percent--raising the income level 
that is taxed at 15 percent.
    The President. We've got to look at all--the important thing to me 
is, if you do that, then you have to give up the retirement savings. And 
so I'll say again, let's do first things first. Let's figure it out. The 
way to do this is, before you decide what kind of tax cuts you want, is 
to figure out how much money have you really got for it, and then you 
can talk about what the best way to do it is.

Budget Caps

    Mr. Brownstein. And how much have you really got--Bob Greenstein's 
group put out a study last week, which the Post immediately picked up an 
editorial, arguing that this big surplus number is premised on 
maintaining the caps on discretionary spending, which----
    The President. Which are too tight.
    Mr. Brownstein.----which are too tight. Do you think the caps should 
be lifted, and are we assuming, or are we spending the surplus that is 
exaggerated?
    The President. If you look at what I did, if you look at my 
proposal, coming after the midsession review, we propose lifting the 
cap--I don't like the term ``lifting the caps,'' because that implies 
that we would again--that's like a tax investment. To me, lifting the 
caps is like doing a tax increase. That's like taking something that's 
doing a good thing that may have a bad result unless it is part of an 
overall plan.
    Mr. Brownstein. As part of an overall plan, it might make sense.
    The President. And in fact, what I proposed--look what I proposed in 
the midsession review. I said, ``Okay, let's have a hard Social Security 
lockbox, take Social Security off budget, get rid of that, do it in a 
way that pays the debt off in 2015, and takes all the interest savings 
from the declining debt and puts it into Social Security. Two, here's my 
Medicare fix, and it will pay for taking Medicare out to 2027, plus 
almost all the prescription drug benefits, and you need a little bit of 
a surplus to pay for 2027 prescription drug benefits, plus reform. 
Here's my defense number. Here's what my tax cut costs. And here's what 
you have left to pay for education and children, because you don't want 
the budget to get too far out of balance between the old and the young 
for education, for children, for medical research, for the environment, 
and other essential Government services.''
    So I've proposed, in effect, and things that the Republicans like, 
transportation, all that kind of stuff. I've proposed some increased 
spending over a decade, a substantial tax cut, and a fix for Social 
Security and Medicare. If they want a larger tax cut within that, and 
they are still committed, then they're committed to a legitimate Social 
Security fix, that is not something where you can wind up, raid it again 
to pay for your tax cut.
    Then I think that we ought to be able to sit down and say, let's put 
all these pieces out here and move them. But you can move the pieces 
around, but the final puzzle has to look more or less the same. In other 
words, I don't think a lot of them--this is ironic, you know; it's 
almost like the parties have switched places on this--I'm not sure a lot 
of them believe it's as important as I do to try to make the country 
debt-free by 2015.
    See, I think, to me, that's a bigger tax cut than we could ever 
give. It's a bigger tax cut; if you're talking about disposable income 
in the hands of the taxpayers, it would be worth more then even their 
tax cut. See, if we adopt their tax--let's just say we adopted their tax 
cut. I am convinced, as a practical matter, you would wind up with 
substantial deficits, higher interest rates, less savings, and higher 
out-of-pocket costs for everything from business loans to home mortgages 
to college loans to consumer loans to car payments.
    And if that's true--and I think that experience, by the way--I 
think, you know, I've got some experience on our side, on my side of the 
argument now. I mean, look how much the average middle class person has 
saved since 1993. What tax debts do we get? Well, if you're under 
$30,000 a year and you've got a family, you've got some benefit from the 
earned-income

[[Page 1165]]

tax credit. If you have someone in college or you're going to college, 
you've got a big tax cut there. If you have a child, you've got the $500 
tax cut there
    But 100 percent of the people that have any indebtedness--and keep 
in mind, we've got two-thirds of the folks now who own homes now, and 
almost all of them have mortgages----
    Mr. Brownstein. The interest----
    The President. A hundred percent of them have got--they've got 
mortgage savings, credit card savings, car payment savings, and anybody 
that's got any kind of debt has saved money because we have chosen to 
get down to balancing the budget and then moving into the surpluses. 
Now, if our country were debt free, consider the potential advantages 
for the average citizen or even the low income worker.
    Assuming we still had sufficient funds to pay our obligations to the 
poor and to fulfill the basic Government functions, you would have 
higher business investment, less inflation, more money for real wage 
increases, and lower credit costs for all consumer items. Furthermore, 
if there were another global financial crisis, and we tried to change 
the rules to minimize this happening again and what would happen in 
Asia,. But no one can be absolutely sure because there's still a lot of 
leveraged money out there in the global economy.
    The next time that happened, the United States would not be 
competing for money in a very difficult environment. That would mean 
that our trading partners could get funds more readily at lower interest 
rates and it would cushion the shock of any downturn. That would also be 
good for our export-dependent industries. We've had--gosh, our 
agricultural sector and our airplane, our commercial airplane sector 
have really been hit hard by this financial crisis in Asia. So it would 
be better for us in that way, and it would be better for our trading 
partners.
    I believe that in a global economy, an economy that's as globalized 
as this one, the richest countries--the richest countries are better off 
almost imagining themselves as States do now in the American system, and 
the more they can be debt free, the better off they're going to be.

Recovery of the Nation and Gore Candidacy

    Mr. Brownstein. Can I ask--I'll be thrown out of the ``Society of 
Political Reporters'' if I don't ask your sense of--great economy, Dow 
up, crime down, welfare down; yet, right track, sense of satisfaction 
with the direction the country is following. The Vice President, even 
though it's the year before, is trailing substantially. What do you 
think's going on? Is there a desire for change at the end of your two 
terms, tail end?
    The President. I think there's a constant desire for change. But I 
think what you'll see by next year is that the Vice President will be the candidate of change. People will have 
to decide whether they want the change going on. The rhetoric of 
compassionate conservatism--half those speeches sound like I gave them 
in '92.
    So I think we have to--when we get down to the specifics and people 
get to focus on the nature of the change, I think that the Vice 
President will do fine. So I feel good 
about that. And by the way, I think the right track numbers are coming 
back up.
    I think--I don't want to get into polling and political commentary, 
but the combination of the conflict in Kosovo and the extraordinary 
shock to the country's psyche that Littleton proposed were the main 
things that changed the right track/wrong track----
    Mr. Brownstein. Are you comfortable with the position the Vice 
President is in at this point?
    The President. Yes. I think--and in historical terms, if you look at 
parallel elections, you go back and check, where was Nixon, where was 
Bush, where were these people, I think as long as he's out there articulating the vision and saying what he'll 
do if he gets elected and as long as he feels good about it, I think 
he's doing fine. I think it's good.

``Compassionate Conservatism''

    Mr. Brownstein. I don't suppose I can talk with you in the limo? Can 
I ask you one last question? The other thing that's been going on, in 
addition to--I'm interested in your thought about what ``compassionate 
conservatism'' means to you. As you say, some of those speeches sound 
like--they talked about opportunity, community, responsibility at 
various points. Is it an homage to what you're doing, or do you see it 
as something that is fundamentally different than the New Democrat 
agenda?
    The President. Both. Yes, that is, I think that based on what I've 
seen, it captures the rhetoric, and it's very flattering in a way, you 
know? Because it replicates the rhetoric. But I think--and it, on some 
issues, seems to have discarded

[[Page 1166]]

some of the harsher aspects of the Republican revolution of the last 5 
years, immigration, for example.
    But on other issues, it's either blurring, like, where are they, 
really, on affirmative action and choice--not really clear--and on some 
places, you know, downright hostile to the position that I believe is 
sort of the Third Way position, including on civil liberties, like the 
hate crimes legislation or on consumer protections like the Patients' 
Bill of Rights or, most profoundly, on these gun issues.
    So the question is, are the architects of the revolution in 1995, 
the contract on America, the heirs of Newt Gingrich who are still 
basically in control of the Congress, all of whom were early--almost all 
of whom, almost 100 percent--early endorsers of Mr. Bush, is this an umbrella under which they can be protected from 
the rainstorm of public opinion until they get to where they can do what 
they want, or is it something different? I think the record is decidedly 
mixed on that.

Childhood Poverty

    Mr. Brownstein. I was going to ask you about Bradley criticizing you 
on child poverty, not doing enough to reduce childhood poverty. That was 
the----
    The President. I don't think anybody's done enough to reduce 
childhood poverty. You have to keep going. But if you look at the 
minimum wage, doubling the earned-income tax credit, and what we've 
done--we've immunized 90 percent of the kids for the first time in 
history, and we've got the lowest minority unemployment rate ever 
recorded and the lowest Hispanic unemployment rate ever recorded--I 
think we've made more headway than anyone imagined we could when we 
started.
    But it's a very difficult problem.

Note: The interview began at approximately 8 p.m. en route from East St. 
Louis, IL, to Rapid City, SD. In his remarks, the President referred to 
Gov. George W. Bush of Texas. The transcript was released by the Office 
of the Press Secretary on July 8. A tape was not available for 
verification of the content of this interview.