[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 4 (Monday, January 27, 1997)]
[Pages 80-86]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal in Chicago, Illinois

January 22, 1997

Part I

    Q. Mr. President, I want to thank you for being one of our first 
guests on S-Plus on our second day of broadcast.
    The President. Thank you.

Rate of Economic Growth

    Q. All right. Let me start off with a question about the economy. 
You oversaw a very good economy during your first administration, 
average growth of about 2\1/2\ percent a year, and yet there's still not 
enough money to do some of the things you want to do, and there's still 
income and wage disparities. Do you think it's reasonable in a second 
Clinton administration to look for slightly faster growth, say 3 to 4 
percent a year?
    The President. Well, of course, the conventional wisdom is that it 
should slow down, but I don't believe that. Let me say what I want to do 
is to keep a sustained period of growth going. If we could ratchet it up 
a little bit, it would be even better, but if we could average 4\1/2\--
let's say 2\1/2\ percent for 8 years in a row, that would have quite a 
compound effect, actually, in our economy.
    Keep in mind, when we started, we thought our plan would reduce the 
deficit by 50 percent; it did by 63 percent. And over the long run, we 
are opening up investment dollars to help educate people, to help move 
people from welfare to work, to help invest in science and technology, 
to help do the

[[Page 81]]

things we need to be doing here, and to make some of the tax changes 
that will reduce inequality, as well.
    Q. But you can do that at 2\1/2\ percent the next 4 years?
    The President. Well, you can do some of it. For example, in the last 
4 years when we had to really do a lot of the hardest work on the 
deficit reduction, we

were able to--because growth took care of part of our deficit problem, we 
were able to cut spending overall but still increase spending in education 
and in science and technology, primarily, and then deal with the problems 
of health care costs.

    I think if we can keep growth between 2\1/2\ and 3 percent, and if 
we can avert a huge increase in health care inflation--you know, there 
have been a lot of disturbing articles in the press in the last couple 
of days, well, health care inflation is coming back now. If we can avoid 
that--and we're going to try hard to do that--then I believe we'll have 
some money for the kinds of investments we need.
    I also would point out that in--we won't know until later this year, 
but in 1996 we saw that in 1995 inequality among working people began to 
go down for the first time in 20 years, for a number of reasons. Most of 
the new jobs are coming in high-wage areas, and the impact of the tax 
changes of '93 on workers with incomes of $30,000 a year or less was 
very positive. So I think we may be able to see declining inequality now 
for several years if we can continue with good new jobs and education.

Wages and Inflation

    Q. In that context, the other day Chairman Greenspan of the Federal 
Reserve worried that wages may be rising so fast that it could threaten 
a renewed inflation, which would cause higher interest rates. Do you 
share that concern?
    The President. Well, so far--I don't yet, but there are two reasons 
why I don't. Number one, so far, workers have gotten, finally, some real 
raises, and they should. But you haven't seen a lot of demands for wage 
increases all out of line with profitability growth in given 
enterprises. You haven't seen any kind of demands that people would say 
are outrageous, even in tight labor markets.
    And I think that workers are very sophisticated now, and they're 
very sensitive to--they want a fair deal, so if their business is doing 
very well they'd like to participate in that, but they also understand 
that they can't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. And I think 
there's a lot more sophistication among working people, both members of 
labor unions and people who are not members of labor unions but are 
working in enterprises where they have to make those judgments.
    Now, in addition to that, I think productivity increases are 
continuing to be brisk, and there's now, finally, a lot of scholarship 
coming out indicating that we may have underestimated productivity in 
the last several years, especially in the service industries. And I 
think if that happens, if we can keep the productivity going, and we can 
keep our markets open--we can keep competing, keep expanding our 
horizons in competition overseas in trade--that we can have some 
appropriate wage growth without having inflation. That's the goal, 
anyway.

Balanced Budget

    Q. You mentioned earlier the deficit reduction. What do you think of 
the odds right now that you can reach an agreement with Congress on a 
balanced budget by the year 2002?
    The President. I think they're quite high.
    Q. You do?
    The President. I do.
    Q. Better than 50 percent?
    The President. I do.

Capital Gains Taxes

    Q. In that context, I know that you favor a very specific targeted 
reduction in the capital gains tax rate, just for specific endeavors. 
But could you envision accepting what the Republicans are advocating, 
namely a broad-based unconditional reduction in capital gains taxes?
    The President. Well, let me say I can envision being more flexible 
on capital gains. I think it's a mistake to do a very expensive 
retroactivity provision. It's unnecessary. It doesn't contribute to 
economic growth. And

[[Page 82]]

it will cause a lot of, you know, problems in other decisions we have to 
make.
    But I've always made it clear that I'm flexible on capital gains. 
I've never been philosophically opposed, as some of my fellow Democrats 
are. But I think a lot of us are open to that. What I want to do is to 
make sure that whatever we do we pay for and that we take care of first 
things first. And I hope that my education proposals will receive a 
favorable ear, and I hope that the Congress will be flexible about that. 
And I've decided to keep all options open.
    Yesterday, when I offered Medicare savings that literally were 
halfway between where I was and where the Republicans were when we broke 
off negotiations in 1996, I met them halfway. I want to do that as much 
as I can in every way. So I think we've got very good odds.
    Q. Meet them halfway on taxes also?
    The President. Well, I want to meet them halfway insofar as I can. 
On the other hand, we have to ask, you know, how much of a tax cut do 
they want and how is it going to be paid for and what are we going to do 
without. So we just have to get to that.
    But I'm not in stone on any of these things. I have proposed what I 
think is best for the country. I want them to propose, and then we'll 
have to work it out.

Medicare and Social Security Reform

    Q. Your Medicare proposal the other day was quite well received by 
just about everyone on Capitol Hill. But let me ask you, why not go a 
little bit further, as even Bob Rubin at one point endorsed, and have 
wealthier senior citizens pay a little bit more for Medicare than middle 
income and poorer----
    The President. Well, as you know, I proposed that back in 1993 as 
part of our health care reform plan. And I'm not necessarily opposed to 
that. But I think that we ought to look at that in terms of a long-term 
fix for Medicare. But if we do it, people are entitled to know that it's 
not the Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum; that is, it's not a tax cut here and a 
premium rise there.
    And what I'd like to do--what I was trying to demonstrate, what I'm 
trying to demonstrate in my budget here is that through the right kind 
of disciplined management of Medicare we can achieve a 10-year life on 
the Trust Fund and a balanced budget. If we want to do more in that area 
to lengthen the life of the Medicare Trust Fund, then that's something 
Congress and I need to discuss in the context of Medicare and Social 
Security reform.
    But I also believe we have an excellent chance to make some 
decisions which will be helpful to the country over the long run with 
regard to what happens to the entitlements, not in the next 10 years but 
in the next 15 to 30 years, when the Baby Boomers like me all come into 
the system.
    Q. Do you think, then, there is a good chance for a major reform of 
Social Security in your second administration? Let me ask you just one 
specific on that. As you know, the Social Security advisory commission 
the other day--they were divided on a number of things, but one thing 
that they were unanimous on, on Social Security, was that the retirement 
eligibility age ought to be gradually increased. Do you support that?
    The President. Well, let me say--here's what I think they believe. 
Right now we're increasing the retirement eligibility age to 67. So when 
you say ``increase,'' there are two ways you can do it. You can bump it 
up to 68 or 69, but it's happening over a period of very many years. Or 
you can accelerate, you can move it up instead of 1 month a year, you 
can move it up 2 months a year or 3 months a year, something like that, 
and accelerate that coming on.
    I think what we need to do is get together in some sort of 
bipartisan fashion--either a bipartisan representation of Congress with 
the affected groups or a commission, but a commission that would have a 
very short time span. Because last year, you know, Senator Kerrey and 
Senator Danforth looked at a number of these things, explored a number 
of these options, so we have their work.
    Q. You're talking about an entitlement commission, not just a 
Medicare commission?
    The President. Yes, correct. And now we've got the work that the 
Social Security commission has done, although they couldn't agree, which 
shows you how difficult it is. And a lot of people even on Wall Street 
have reservations about whether this idea of put

[[Page 83]]

ting more of the present Social Security savings into the stock market 
is a good one or not.
    Q. Let me just close this. You said there were two ways to go. Does 
either way seem effective to you now on increasing retirement age?
    The President. Well, I think--we discussed a couple of years ago 
whether it would be an appropriate thing to kind of, to accelerate the 
timetable from a month a year, 2 months a year, whatever, what would 
that look like.
    I would have to see more evidence on raising the years, simply 
because I don't know--you know, I could work until I'm 68. And one of 
the reasons I went to law school is so no one could ever force me to 
retire, so I'd be able to work until I drop because I'm a workaholic and 
I enjoy it and I think it is a good thing. But I don't know how many 
people out there work in jobs that are physically or emotionally so 
stressful that we would really be putting them under a lot of difficulty 
should we do that.
    And so I just need--that's why I've said over and over again, I'm 
prepared to make these decisions with the Congress, I'm prepared to take 
responsibility for them, but we need to agree upon a process that is 
bipartisan and fairly quick. I think that from beginning to end, 
whatever we do, we need to be finished by the middle of next year.

Senator Trent Lott

    Q. Mr. President, the chief Republican in any bipartisan 
negotiations this year, almost everyone on Capitol Hill says, will be 
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. What are your relations like with 
Senator Lott? How do you two southerners deal with one another?
    The President. Well, I think we understand each other. And I like

him. I like dealing with him. He has--as of this date he has always been 
very straightforward with me. If he couldn't do something, he would tell 
me, ``I can't do that.'' If he disagreed with me, he would say, ``I 
disagree.'' If he thought we could work something out, he would say, ``Let 
me see,'' and he'd always get back to me and say yes or no. And I have 
tried to treat him in the same way.

    I think we have some similarities in our upbringing and, obviously, 
in the culture in which we grew up. I feel very comfortable relating to 
him, and I do like him, personally. And I think that he's a man who--he 
has his strong political convictions, but I believe he loves our 
country, and I believe that it really--he measures himself in no small 
measure by what he achieves, and whether he actually gets something done 
for the country.
    So, if we can keep the kind of atmospherics that existed in the last 
month or 2 of the last Congress in this Congress, I think we're going to 
do just fine.
    Q. It sounds like different chemistry than you had in the beginning 
of the last Congress with Republican leaders. Is that fair?
    The President. Yes, although I developed--all I had to do to have a 
good chemistry with Senator Dole was just spend some more time with him. 
In the first 2 years of my Presidency before he became majority leader, 
when he was minority leader, I think he had an understandable reluctance 
to be at the White House very much and to spend a lot of time with me or 
with our people, because he knew he was going to run for President and 
because he thought it didn't matter so much because he was a minority 
leader.
    Once he became majority leader he understood that we had to meet and 
work together, and we fairly quickly established a pretty good rapport.

Part II

Chicago Bulls

    Q. Let me turn to a couple of sports questions. We are in Chicago 
right now.
    The President. Home of the Bulls.
    Q. Not only the home of the Bulls, but there's one Chicago Bull from 
a little town called Hamburg, Arkansas.
    The President. Hamburg, Arkansas. Scottie Pippen.
    Q. Tell us what you know about that Chicago Bull.
    The President. He's a remarkable man. I really admire him very much. 
And you know, we don't know each other well, but in Arkansas everybody 
knows everybody else. [Laughter] You know, it's a small State.

[[Page 84]]

    But he came out of a small town. He went to a fairly small school in 
Arkansas.
    Q. The Razorbacks didn't even recruit him?
    The President. No, he went to a division II school, and he didn't 
make that team as a freshman. And then I watched him go from a 
sophomore, sort of making the team. And then by the time he was a senior 
he was the best player in his division in the United States. I mean, 
just--and then of course he was drafted in the pros. And then every year 
he just got better and better and better, you know, for 5 or 6 years he 
was just exploding in his capacity every year.
    So I think of all the people playing for basketball today you would 
have to say that he was a little bit of a late bloomer, but he exploded 
when he got going. I mean, for a man who--he literally started sort of 
from his sophomore year in college, and he just kept, whatever the ball 
was he always reached it and went over it. And he's still doing that.
    Q. Do you see him play in college?
    The President. One time. And he was good. He was really good. And, 
you know, now its not even the same. I mean, he's like on another planet 
now.
    Q. I know your favorite team is the Arkansas Razorbacks. But you and 
Patrick Ewing also share an alma mater together.
    The President. Yes, Georgetown.
    Q. Do you follow your former Georgetown Hoyas?
    The President. I do. I always root for the Razorbacks and the Hoyas. 
I keep up. Georgetown is having a little bit of a tough season this 
year, but over the long run it's hard to think of a program that's done 
more than John Thompson's has to produce both good basketball teams and 
college graduates. And I think that's--I wish more people would model 
the Georgetown program.
    Q. Let me ask you about that. You talked in your Inaugural speech 
about personal responsibility, you talked about the need for a more 
civil discourse and you mentioned role models. What effect do you think 
it has on kids when famous athletes like Dennis Rodman engage in those 
well publicized antics? Does it worry you?
    The President. It does. It worries me more now than it used to, than 
it would have 20 years ago, because, first of all, all of us know the 
pervasiveness of the media in our culture. It means that we all know 
everything like that when it happens, instantaneously.
    And secondly, there are an awful lot of young people out there, 
particularly young boys and young men, who don't have immediate, 
positive male role models who can contradict a lapse by an athlete. And 
I say this, I'm a big Dennis Rodman fan. I mean, I think he's an 
extraordinary athlete, and he's a very interesting man. And I don't mind 
at all some of the more unusual manifestations of his personality. But I 
think when he does a destructive thing like that, it's a bad thing. I'm

sure in his heart of hearts he really regrets it.

    You know, we all would hate to be judged on what we did in the 
darkest hour of the darkest day of our lives. And, unfortunately, when 
athletes are under all this pressure, they're also being watched all the 
time, when they're under the most stress and most likely to do or say 
something they wish they hadn't. And I'm sure in his heart of hearts he 
regrets doing that. But I would hope that at some point, in addition to 
paying this enormous fine and also trying to pay the gentleman that he 
kicked--which I think is a good thing--that he'll find a way to say, ``I 
shouldn't have done it, and I really regret it.''
    Because I think it will only make him bigger, it will only make his 
fans think more of him. And it will send who knows what signal to some 
young person out there who, like Dennis Rodman, has enormous abilities 
and a terrific imagination and is a little bit different from the run of 
the mill person and therefore really identifies with Dennis Rodman. 
There's lots of kids out there like that, real smart, real able, a 
little bit different. And they've got to be fascinated by him. So I hope 
he'll find a way to say that--and I say that as I'm a real admirer of 
his basketball talent, and I find him a fascinating man. But he might be 
able to help some young people if he just says, ``That's something I 
shouldn't have done and I'm not going to do that anymore.''
    Q. You are a genuine basketball aficionado. Who is the greatest 
basketball player you've ever seen?
    The President. Oh, Jordan.

[[Page 85]]

    Q. Is he?
    The President. Oh, yes.
    Q. In a league by himself?
    The President. I wouldn't say that. I've seen some great players. I 
saw Michael Jordan play when he was a senior in college and North 
Carolina came to play Arkansas, and they were ranked first and were, I 
don't know, fifth or sixth or something. And we beat them by one point. 
But it was a fascinating game. And he just is--you know, he's a 
wonderful player. But basketball, I suppose next to golf, is my favorite 
sport, although you can tell by the way I'm built and move around I have 
to be a spectator more than a player. [Laughter]
    I have never been much of a player, but I love it. And the thing 
that I find

exciting about pro ball is that it's played at such a high level that it 
seems to me that year-in, year-out on the whole, the group of players is 
getting better. I believe that is accurate. And so I think some day, you 
know, Michael may have the kinds of things that we--you know, he scored 51 
points last night. His team has a bad night, and it happens to be on the 
night he's having a good night--you know, he can do something like that. 
Someday we may take it for granted that level of achievement. Some day 
there may be 20, 30 players in this league who can do that, just because of 
the level of competition they're bringing out of one another--you know, the 
way they're growing and going. But----

    Q. I'll never have time for anything else if that happens, Mr. 
President. I'm just going to go to those games.
    The President. No, it's just fascinating to watch. But I think, for 
me, he's the--because he has both offensive and defensive skills and a 
level of physical mobility and control, the combination of those things 
that I've never seen it before.

Super Bowl

    Q. Let me ask you one final question. You will never run again for 
national office. You're going to retire undefeated from that. So you 
don't have to worry about Wisconsin's 11 electoral votes or 
Massachusetts' 12. Who's going to win the Super Bowl on Sunday, Packers 
or Patriots?
    The President. [Laughter] I still have feelings for those places. 
[Laughter] I'll give you an analysis. I won't call it.
    Q. All right.
    The President. I think, first of all, there's an enormous 
psychological energy coming out of Green Bay. They've waited a long time 
to get back to the Super Bowl. They had this proud heritage. And it 
really is a home team. They don't have the kind of--they never worry 
about the team moving. They don't have to worry about the franchise 
leaving if you don't build a new stadium. They don't have to worry about 
building a sky box for wealthy people--you know, keep the money coming 
in. And it's always going to be sold out, because it belongs to the 
community and the leaders of the community.
    And I think that, plus the fact that they played a very tough NFC 
schedule and ranked first in offense and third in defense and they've 
got great wide-outs and great tight-ends and a good running program. You 
know, that's a very rare thing to see that. I think that gives them a 
lot going.
    Now, the flip side is the New England team has come alive 
defensively in the last five games in a way that's highly unusual. You 
rarely--if something funny--something fundamentally different has 
happened to them. And it's the one thing that makes me believe that--you 
know, the last several Super Bowls, the NFC team has won fairly handily. 
But if you look at the fact that the Patriots have a very skilled 
quarterback, a fabulous coach who is very savvy in circumstances like 
this----
    Q. And has been there before.
    The President.----and been there before. And something happened, it 
was almost like a transformation of their defense in the last half dozen 
games of this year. I think you have to say that this could be the most 
interesting Super Bowl we've had in a long time.
    Q. You're not going to predict the winner. Will you predict a close 
game?
    The President. Yes, I will. I think that this is likely to be a--I 
think it is likely to be a closer game than the last four or five we've 
seen. The problem has been, you know, that the NFC basically has been 
beefier. So when a team--when the Cowboys or the 49er's

[[Page 86]]

come out of it as they have tended to come out the last several years, 
not only do they have this great reservoir of talent, but this great 
reservoir of talent was tested in a steady way during the year. So that 
when the best team came out of the AFC, they even--not only have they 
had--very often they weren't as strong pound for pound, particularly in 
physical strength. That was the thing that the Cowboys had, you know, on 
both sides of the line. In the end they would win at the end on their 
just brute strength as much as anything else. But the AFC teams hadn't 
been subject to that level of competition on a sustained basis.
    I think this may be a little different. And as I said, you've got to 
ask yourself what happened to this team that turned it into a, 
literally, a brilliant defensive team in the last third of this year. 
There's something there. And I think it's--we've got a chance to see an 
exciting game.
    Q. We'll watch on Sunday. And on that note, Mr. President, I want to 
thank you very much again for being one of our first guests on S-Plus.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. Thank you, sir.

Note: The interview began at 5:06 p.m. at the Chicago Cultural Center. 
Mr. Hunt conducted the interview for television channel WBIS in New 
York, NY. This interview was released by the Office of the Press 
Secretary in two parts: part I was released on January 22; part II was 
released on January 24. In his remarks, the President referred to 
Chicago Bulls basketball player Dennis Rodman. A tape was not available 
for verification of the content of these remarks.