Voter's Voice Forum with Lamar Alexander 1/20/96 Transcribed by Alexandra Jewett and Analesa Shea of UNH Professor Jim Farrell: Well I want to welcome you all to the latest in the New Hampshire's voters voice citizens' forums, we are pleased this morning to entertain Governor Lamar Alexander, Republican candidate for President and uh I want to give each of our citizen panelist an opportunity very briefly to introduce themselves and also for uh Governor Alexander to say a few words before we uh entertain questions from our panelists. So we could start here, uh before we go on I should introduce myself, I'm Professor Jim Farrell from the University of New Hampshire, uh Department of Communication. I am also one of the moderators of the New Hampshire Primary internet uh project, so John. Panelists: John Moritz from Nashua, New Hampshire. I'm vice president of the Geto Global corporation. My name is Kathy Paterson, I'm from Nashua, New Hampshire. I'm a full time student at New Hampshire technical college. My name is Kyle Hussy, I'm from Brentwood, New Hampshire and I own a disposal business. My name is Terry Micklarky, I live in Hudson, New Hampshire across the river from Nashua on the good side. My name is Liz Perdy, I'm a senior at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. My name is Ellen Acropolly and I'm from Hudson, New Hampshire and I teach in the city of Nashua. Hi, I'm Martha Duframe, I'm from Hollis, New Hampshire and I'm a business manager at Digital Corporation. I'm Abigail Botler. I'm retired in one sense of the word, but not in others. I'm a former executive at General Motors and at General Electric. Farrell: And we could have Governor Alexander just say a few words. I'm sure everyone knows well who you are but (Alexander: well maybe not) you might just introduce yourself. Alexander: I'm Lamar Alexander uh I live in Nashville. I'm running for President, because I believe we can have an enormously bright future that our children and grandchildren have brighter one than even we have had, but that in order to do that we are going to have to change our way of thinking about some things. Uh I think we are going to have to begin to expect less of Washington and more of ourselves, which is inconvenient and a difficult message. I think that what Washington does is very important uh but I think we move think that the biggest problems that we have in America today are creating enough good new jobs and rebuilding our families, our neighborhoods, our churches, our synagogues and our schools. Therefore I think having a president from uh from the real world who knows Washington, but who knows the answers aren't in Washington for our most difficult problems is the right way to go into the next century. I think that the only issue in the presidential race is what kind of country will we have on the year 2000 and beyond. It is not about getting a bill out of the subcommittee. It is not even primarily about balancing the budget, uh I have balanced a lot of budgets. I may be the only one who has a chance to be elected president whose ever balanced one. But if all I'd ever done is balanced the budget as the Govenenor of Tennessee, we'd still be the third poorest state. As we go on through this discussion I hope you'll see that my background is a little different from the Senators who are running. I've been a governor, I've been the president of the University of Tennessee, um I've even given a commencement address at the University of New Hampshire. I've helped to start a business that has 1200 employees today. Um I've been a cabinet secretary. I've spent about half of my life in public life and uh about half outside. Primarily I'm a chief executive. I have not been a legislator, uh so I believe that what I offer to the Republican primary is new leadership and just to be specific about that um I have the greatest respect for Senator Dole, but I believe that uh we Republicans need to bring ourselves to say to him that we appreciate is long service in the Senate, but he is not the right man, uh to be the first president of the next century. I think that most Republicans are looking for an alternative to Senator Dole and I hope to be that person. Farrell: Thank you Governor Alexander. What we are trying to do today is engage in a discussion on a variety of issues that are of concern not just to our citizens penal, but to the people in New Hampshire and the people of the United States. And hopefully we will have the opportunity for each of our panelist to ask a question for you to give a response and if uh we can engage in some discussion about that issue and so I think we will begin right away so we have enough time to hear everybody and perhaps we'll start on the other side now with Abigail Boglat. Question: Well Governor and I have already started this discussion at Daniel Webster College Thursday night, the question is the question of regarding gun control and on Thursday night I believe you indicated that you thought this should be a function of the states and I would like to um to take issue with that because I believe that protecting the people of the United States is a function of the federal government. I know, because my brother is on the board of directors of the NRA, that it is their goal to have things done by on a state basis, because then they can Marshall their forces, on a state by state basis and bring pressure to bear to get their issue through which includes having assault weapons in any in anybody's hands who wants them. I don't feel safe on the streets knowing that somebody can pull out an assault weapon at any time. I don't feel safe when I have states like Texas and New Hampshire who are allowed concealed weapons. I feel that this is an issue that of the federal government , not for the state government and I feel that it is an issue that is very important for those of us who want to be able walk the streets at night. Answer: Well, I know your view and I respect it. I imagine you feel safer in New Hampshire than you do in Washington D.C., where they do have gun control. You see my major, my major concern about( that's a population issue) well Abigail: It's it's, Washington D.C. is a very crowded population. This is this is New Hampshire is a, is a very um sparsely populated and I don't think the comparison is valid. Alexander: Well I think your point is a good one though, it is a matter of behavior, not a matter of of law, uh and I think that rather than regulate or attempt to regulate, uh pass a law and say that you can't use a gun for all citizens. I think that the proper kind of gun control is to impose penalties on people who misuse weapons or who use them in the commission of crime. I would be very strong on that, but the example that I would use uh I used to as US Education secretary give awards to schools that were weapons free or drug free. Federal law has never caused that to happen the only thing that ever caused that to happen was when communities and individuals and parents, and sheriffs and other s worked together to make that happen. I think in order to control the use of weapons in a way that people won't hurt each other. That you have to first appeal to their behavior and second regulate their behavior, not their purchase of a weapon. I just don't think that federal laws restricting guns work. Much less the issue of the second amendment, which I believe is an important part of constitution and gives the people the right to uh bear arms. I am not a member of the NRA. I hunt sometimes, but not a lot, but I believe that's a part of the fabric of American life and what I would do as Governor is have, if I were still Governor, which is where most of the criminal laws are, 95%, is to impose a law that imposes the harshest penalty on people who use weapons in the commission of ah of ah of of crimes. Abigail: I would remind you that the second amendment starts out with a well regulated militia being necessary for a a free state. I don't believe that having people walking around with assault guns allows for a well regulated militia. I would like to ask you your position on the Brady Bill for example, which does have some restrictions on um assault weapons, and also requires some kind of registration, so that at least in the purchase of guns there is some uh regulation. Alexander: I thought the Brady Bill was an unfunded mandate and the federal government should not have passed it. Farrell: Governor if I could the specific concern that uh Miss botler raised about assault weapons uh would your position also entail the federal government has no business regulation assault weapons? Alexander: My answer is is yes to that, because that's the extreme example, it's the edge, but we have a first amendment that comes right before the second amendment. And because of it we permit a lot of free speech that we hate. Ah I think in terms of the second amendment in terms of the ineffectiveness of federal laws, banning weapons as a way in restricting their use in crime, I wouldn't support that, I think that it tricks us into thinking that we will be safer. I think that the only way to make ourselves safer is to make our communities safer, to make our families stronger and to go to work at home to do that. Farrell: Turn down to Martha Duframe Question: Thank you, um first of all, um I confess that I didn't know a whole a lot about your issues until the last couple of weeks and what your views were and I have read a whole lot of things over the last couple of weeks about your views on education and taxes, but I didn't read anything um about what your views are on a woman's right to choose. Ah so I have a two part question, the first part being what is your person view of this issue and secondly given that the right to choose has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. What would you do as president, to ensure that women can not can not only, continue to exercise this right, but to make access to abortion facilities safer than they are today? Answer: Well, number one, ah, my view is that abortion is wrong, and I am pro life which means that I believe states have the right to restrict abortion and that they should. I think the federal government should stay entirely out of it. It should neither encourage nor subsidize, nor prohibit abortion. Ah that's my view. Martha: Given that that the states for the most part have have allowed access to abortion clinics, how can we keep them safe for women to exercise this right? Alexander: Well I think that is the state's responsibility. I was in Pensacola, ah not long ago, ah where there was a murder of someone who was trying to go to an abortion clinic. Ah within a few months after that murder, the state had tried the accused person, convicted him and sentenced him to death(But it still doesn't ...) that's a lot more rapidly than the federal government would have ever have acted. Martha: It's still no safer today, to have an abortion than it was two years ago when that Doctor Gun was killed and and it's even unsafe when you look at the Boston's murder last year, and in my view , the present has a moral obligation to uphold rulings of the Supreme Court, that give women this right to a safe and and accessible abortion. And I believe that the federal government does have a role in that and it is not totally up to the states. Alexander: I think individuals have a right to be safe, I absolutely agree with that, but but one of the most important things to me is to resist this temptation that we have gotten into in this country, that for every problem we have we look to the president in Washington to solve it. Ah I obviously no one should be gunned down going into an abortion clinic. But but ev in Pensacola, they they arrested the person, they convicted him in a few months and he's sentenced to death. A state can act to protect its citizens better than the federal government, 95% of our criminal laws are state laws, so I don't ah I don't want the federal government telling us what the fourth grade curriculum should be, what ah to do about teenage girls having babies, I don't want the federal government telling us ah what to do about guns. I don't want the federal government ah telling us what to do about abortion. ah Martha: The fact of the matter is that it is a constitutional issue and has been a constitutional issue since 1973. And I I don't believe that the state's are adequately equipped to make sure that women have this access. Alexander: The constitution does not just apply to Washington D.C., the constitution is a part of the whole United States of America and criminal laws are 95% state laws, most murder laws are, most rape laws are, all most all laws are state and local laws, and we if we ever got into the habit of expecting Washington D.C. to make us safe, we would never be safe. I mean the way to become safe is to make your own community safe. Ah I was in Charleston S.C. last summer visiting with the police chief there. He had to fight Washington to kick welfare mothers who sell crack out of the housing projects so welfare mothers who don't can live there safely with their kids. He arrests kids who are there on the street and takes them to school. He arrests them at midnight and takes them home. Since he has started doing that no teenager has shot anyone or been shot at in Charleston, S.C., that's a local decision and nothing from Washington could have made that different. Martha: Well then, if you really believe that what is your position on the latest bill running through Congress that will restrict late term abortions, do think that it is up to the Senate and the House of Representatives to decide that issue? Alexander: I believe late term abortion should be, but should be restricted by the states not Washington. Question: Could I just ask a quick follow up given your view, ah on abortion, we've seen in the past Supreme Court nominations being single topics such as abortion being used as a litmus test(President Clinton), do believe in that? Alexander: No I do not, President Clinton does that, ah I don't think that's correct. Ah I would in fact most presidents who tried to do that have been surprised, when ah President Roosevelt appointed Felix Frankfurter from Harvard Law school, whom he thought was going to be ah the most ah liberal justice that he ever appointed, and he turned out to be the most conservative, so what I what I would try do is to ah appoint a man or a woman who had strong intelligence, good character, who was conservative, and who had a strong belief in the limited role of the central government in our everyday lives other than that I think that it is up to them to make good judgments about what they do. Farrell: Governor, if I could on the issue of abortion, if ah you believe abortion is wrong, would you take ah role as president ah perhaps ah in the in the role of moral leadership in persuading the Nation about abortion. I mean is there a role for the president, on the the abortion issue then? Alexander: Yes, the answer is yes to that I I would and I think the president should use his moral authority to try and persuade the country not to have a large number of abortions, that's really the way our country works. I mean as a country we've in the early seventies, we've became a country more interested in the environment and we began recycling because we all came to a consensus about it. In the nineties it seems to be a consensus about fitness and fat. Ah I would like to see us ah have a consensus on this country that that we should have the fewest number of abortions possible and the way to do that I believe is not by Congress action, but by state restrictions and primarily by families, individuals and churches helping people come to the that conclusion for themselves and making adoption easier. Farrell: Eleanor Croptling Eleanor Croptling: Um I have concerns about the desolation of the Department of Education and I wondering your turning that back to the states so that role would be fulfilled by within state government and I wonder if you could expand that for me? Alexander: Yes, I believe that that there are some responsibilities that belong in the home and in the community and in the classroom in that case that are much more properly charged there than than at a great distance. Ah Washington ah now funds about 5% to 6% of elementary and secondary education. It provides many more rules and there are a lot of good ideas there. But every classroom teacher I know, ah is almost assaulted by good ideas, from a lot of other people and barely has time to do her or his job, because they have so many people telling them what to do. So I went to President Reagan in 1981 and said why don't you get the federal government out of elementary and secondary education. You take all of Medicaid for example, let us take all of education, lets take the money and the responsibility here. So I would do that, the one thing that I would do is great a GI bill for kids with thousand dollar scholarships, just as we do for college students, to try encourage, ah to try and make it easier for cities and states to give middle income and poor children choices of schools that wealthy people already have, that I would do, but I think back on my experience in Tennessee, when we tried to improve our schools. It was all up to us, in fact not just the state government, it was primarily up to the communities. When they put a value on education, it happened. When Murphysburg, Tenn. opened its schools from six to six everyday and all year long, at no extra cost to the tax payers. Washington would never have permitted that or Washington could not have made anybody do that. So I would move the responsibility out of Washington, GI bill for kids to make it easier for people to take back their schools. And then I would become the chief advocate for radical change in our schools, trying to create an environment for that to happen. Farrell: Would a the money for a program like that come from the federal government then? Alexander: From that the GI bill for kids the answer is yes. I would start out with a billion dollars a year. This is a program that President Bush and I recommended to Congress, but the Democratic Congress opposed it, because they did not want to give poor children more choices of good schools. Farrell: Would there be any kind of strings attached? We had some concerns in New Hampshire with the Goals 2000 program, where New Hampshire actually refused federal money for education, because of the perception that there were controls and strings attached. Alexander: Well it was more a than a perception I thought, I I think it was the correction decision. I know that there was an argument about that here in New Hampshire, but we had America 2000, I helped to create, when I was the US education secretary, and that helped move the community that the country community by community toward national education goals without federal restrictions. I thought President Clinton hijacked the program and moved moved the governors out and put the teacher's union in and created a National school board, and I thought there was a great risk with Goals 2000, that that rules made in Washington could end up controlling local school districts. Farrell: Um Liz Perdy, oh oh Eleanor has a follow up. Eleanor: I guess I have, oh one other comment, I have been teaching for ten years in a public school in a fairly large city, Nashua and one of the things, one of the big problems, I see is that I don't think that money is always the answer. I think it is people and using the resources within the community that we have rather than just throwing at problems and I think that one of the problems that I have seen is that money has been thrown at problems and problems are still not solved, so I I really agree that probably control that the control should be more local and with parents within the school. Alexander: And I think that we have to be honest enough to admit that when we do that some people do it better than others. You know in in Jersey City, they spend nine or ten thousand dollars, per student, they have some of the worst schools in the country. And it has to do with the family structure and the rigidity of the schools, ah but ah the only solution, I've I've tried it every different way, as Governor I used to try and pass laws to make people do things in education, as US education secretary, I was there encouraging and whooping. But the most progress that is ever made in education seems to me when you set clear goals and involve the whole community, then you free the classroom teacher to take the available resources to do what needs to be done. And you insist that the parent be involved. Now any sort of combination of that usually gets a pretty good result. Farrell: Liz Perdy Question: Governor, I am also concerned about education. I am a senior at the University of New Hampshire and I have been fortunate to have the support of a family that is financially stable, um however I still have when I graduate next year, I'll still have thousands of dollars of student loans that have accumulated. Hopefully I will be able to find a job, um that job probably won't most likely provide health care for me. I won't have health care once I once I'm graduate again, because I'm on my parent's right now, so I will be faced trying to find health care, trying to find a job that is going to support me and then still paying the burden of these loans, um but also I'm still in a better boat than some of my fellow students, who don't have the support of a family that can provide them financial stability and so those students are faced with working two or three jobs, letting their studies suffer, um sometimes having to take semesters off, coming back in a few years or having to go to a school that is less expensive, um in some cases less credible, um just to be to to pay for some sort of education and I would like to know if, I would like to hear more on your thoughts of how to make funding for education more accessible. Alexander: Well I think that it is very important, I remember when I spoke at the University of New Hampshire commencement a few years ago, I talked about the phenomena, in fact I picked out a young women, ah young mother in the audience and said that at the commencements, the most frequent cry these days is way to go mom, as a as people a little older go back to school, get the skills to go to the next job, and I think that we need a president in the new century, who understands how many people are changing jobs, and a great many people go back to community college, technical institutes, to universities, to get the training in order to do that, and I am a very strong supporter of the college grant and loan program as a way to do that. Now New Hampshire has made a decision to ah have lower taxes and higher fees at the University, that other states have not made and that's your right to make that decision, but at the University of Tennessee, where I was president at, the tuition was two thousand dollars a year. We had a system of community colleges that was a few hundred dollars per quarter. And so I would encourage a lot of young people to spend their first two years at community college and then their last two years at the University of Tennessee. Ah about half of those students had a college grant or loan from the federal government, which seemed to me to be pretty generous and it still was not easy for them to do what they needed to do , but it made it possible for them to get a good education. Ah even the Republican plans for the grant and loan programs would increase the amount of federal dollars we spend only by 50% over the next six years. So it is never easy to go to college, but I would focus on the grant and loan programs. I would I would encourage students to look at community colleges, especially because the training and education for at least the first two years or if your moving from one job to the next, ah is equal to what I think you get at a lot of the Universities, Liz Perdy: You did mention UNH specifically and the fact that um some of the decisions New Hampshire has made in funding, specifically the University and I'd kind of would like you to talk a little bit about the fact that um you are encouraging this right for states, but um when you look at New Hampshire as an example, when you look at the University of New Hampshire, we have been suffering tremendously over the past few years, because of the fact that we don't have the support from New Hampshire. Um were I believe that we are fiftieth in the nation as far as state funding for education. I'm an out of state student and I am paying an just astronomical amount of money to go to the University of New Hampshire. Alexander: Where are you from? Liz: I'm from Massachusetts. Alexander: Why didn't you go in Massachusetts? Liz: Because I wanted to go to the University of New Hampshire, it was it was the school that I choose because of the field that I was studying. And Alexander: Well I might like to have a Cadillac, instead of a Ford too, but that's my choice, Massachusetts does have a system of community colleges, and technical institutes and it costs less and they're good or you could come to Tennessee, we we don't charge those kinds of fees. We have very good, we we charge more for out of state students, the beauty of our higher education system is that there are lots of choices. I think that The University of New Hampshire is a very good very good University, but when you choice to go out of state for school, you pay higher price for that, that's true in every state. Liz: Exactly, but when I when I do do that when I engage in that relationship with the University and I am paying them this amount of money, and that is my choice and it is obviously my choice to stay there. Um however the University then has the obligation to give me the services and education that they have guaranteed me. And I entered entered in as a freshman, I was getting those services provided, however in the past couple of years, now that I am already engaged in this relationship with the University in the past couple of years as a junior and a senior we have gone through budget cuts which have caused programs and services to be cut left and right, so I'm not, I'm not getting that that part of the bargain held up and how am I how I am suppose to be guaranteed that that's going to happen? Alexander: You're not going to be guaranteed that by the president or the federal government, if if you buy Chevrolet, after you buy it it starts wearing out in the first year, I wouldn't buy another Chevrolet, I'd buy a Ford ah and and you have you feel like you have made a bargain with the University of New Hampshire that they are not holding up, I'd talk to them about it, I think the federal government should have a generous system of college grants and loans. And ah should increase it as much as it could, because it not only effects younger students, but it effects people changing jobs which is very important to me. But ah the beauty of our higher education system is you can shop around and there are a lot of very good relatively inexpensive ah ah higher education opportunities available. New Hampshire is a good University, but its ah expensive state university. Liz: So then you would focus more on the funding of the funding of grant and loans rather than the quality of the education, is that what I am understanding, that I shouldn't be concerned with the quality of the education that I'm receiving in America. Alexander: You should, you should first be concerned with the quality of education that your receiving. What I'm saying to you that you live in a country that not only has some of the best colleges and Universities in the world, it has almost all of them. And a dissapportionate number of them are in your home state, where you could go for less money. Liz: What if what if I'm exactly, but not everyone can be from Massachusetts... Alexander: But you are and you're the one that we are talking about... Liz: Yeah but right, but you're not you're not trying to be the president of me and Massachusetts, you're running for president of America, don't you think that it should be a concern and a national goal, that we preserve the quality of education in America for our next generations? Alexander: Actually I believe Liz: For everyone, not just Massachusetts' residents? Alexander: You're right and and the most important way you... let me tell you a story about that, the best system of public higher education is in California. And I asked David Gardener, President of the University of California, how did it get to be so good? he said autonomy. It's because when we created the state of California we had four branches of government. We had the legislative, the executive, the judicial and the University. Washington had nothing to do with the quality of the University of California as it grew to its excellence. And what's special about America is that we get to be good because we recognize diversity and excellence and give people choices. And so if the University of New Hampshire gets too expensive, for the quality that it offers, students aren't going to go there and go somewhere else and that is going to force it to get better. The only other model for that is the old Soviet Union way where you have a commisar of higher education at a central level, who orders everybody to be good and it all gets bad. Ah so the way that you have good universities and the way that you have good schools, the way you have better roads and the way that you lower the infant mortality rate, the way America works, is by giving people choices and and and letting the market place do that. I I think in the case in the case of higher education, the two things the federal government should continue to do as generously as it can, is support university research, because that that keeps us on the cutting edge of technology and that means jobs, and we ought to also try to to give college grants and loans to as many students as possible. But you'll have to make the decision whether two thousand dollars a a semester ah at the University of Tenn, ah whether the University of New Hampshire, what is it eight thousand dollars? Liz: For me it's it's eighteen thousand. Alexander: But but what's tuition, you have your living costs whether you were in university or not? Unknown: I think it's ten thousand. Alexander: Maybe ten well Liz: It's around that for tuition Alexander: Well we're two, so it's up for you to decide, whether well your out of state... Liz: Right, right Alexander: And in Massachusetts you just have to shop around and make a decision whether the difference in quality between two thousand dollars a term and ten thousand dollars a term is worth it, if it is, go on to New new Hampshire, if it's not, I'd stay home. Farrell: Eleanor Eleanor: I just have one more general comment about, um I see the government of the United States as being a government of the people. Alexander: Um hum. Eleanor: And kids like Liz and kids I have twenty-three year old twins, who dropped out of school, because of a financial problem, a lay off in the family down sizing and I see that the greatest resource that we have our our kids Alexander; Right Eleanor: And I think that the government needs to be more responsive to the kids and the rest of the electorate, not to business, not to pac donators or whatever, and I'm I'm very, I think I'm really angry, that I constantly hear that I um ah that the education might be difficult to come by, and it's going to be expensive and we are going to do this at home. Then you have all these young people that are so disillusioned with democracy that we have. And I think that we really as a nation, have to look at the kids, you go through the cities and you look at the young twenties, look at how the kids are dressed, the angry music that they are listening to, their attitude about the general their general life expectancy, in terms in what they're going to be able to attain. And I'm not sure that we are doing the right thing. Alexander: Well well lets pursue that a minute, I mean I have three twenty year olds in our in our family, surely one of the things that is not to be angry about America is a lack of higher education. I mean we literally not only have the best system , we have almost all of the good college and universities in the world. And in in my state the community colleges, it cost a few hundred dollars a quarter to go and live at home and they're accessible to everybody, and two thirds of the students in the community colleges have a grant or a loan paid for by somebody who is working, to help that student go to college and that's an enormous opportunity, and the state university, which is one the major research universities has a has a tuition of two thousand dollars per semester, which I think is a pretty good bargain when you again consider that taxpayers are paying for college grants and loans for more than half of the students there, so that that should be increasing optimism, I would think. And half of the students in the graduate programs in those universities are people who come from all over the world, they don't want to go to Japanese universities, they don't want to go to South African universities, they don't want to go to German universities, they want to go to ours, because they are so good. Eleanor: I think you are missing my point, um even if Liz graduates from college and she's well prepared to ah, to seek out ah the job that she wants, ah she may not be ably to find a job, my my boys, have all kinds of friends who graduated, did very well in school and our waiting on tables, tending bar, unable to find work. Alexander: Well that's that's a very, we ought to talk about that, because we're going through that in our family right now, my son ah made forty-five calls before he got his first job, ah he felt, he didn't fell much better, when I told him, I did too thirty years ago. Ah a lot of the students that are tending bar and waiting table as my son and my daughter are doing or have done recently, so did I, that doesn't make them feel any better. But that's the way I got started as well, the other thing that's different, is I think for for younger people today for is it Les Leslie or or.... Liz: Liz Alexander: For Liz and your classmates, I think you are going to have a different world of work, in which to live and I think what I think you are going to have to be expecting to do is change jobs much more rapidly, I think you are going to be creating your own jobs much more often, I think you're likely to be working home at home much more with members of your own family, I think you're going to be living in as world of computer age shop keepers, which is a lot more like the century in which your great grandfathers and mothers lived than the century that we are just finishing. And that's a very different world, although, I think that it could be a lot better world. It won't be a world in which, everybody sort of lines up and goes to work in big corporations. It's likely;y to be a world in which there are many many more business owners, than union members as as example. Farrell: You could turn now to Terry Mclarkin. Terry: Hi, Governor, and thanks for coming down to New Hampshire. Ah Alexander: Thank you Terry: I came in with a couple of prepared questions and and so far haven't come around, it shifted my thinking ah and I guess the bottom line question Governor, is I've heard my hearing of what you've said has ah made the federal government is not the cure all answer for everything. That's that's what I kind of heard you and and that kind of leads me to be, what would you have, the federal government or the president responsible for? I would think the the ah defense of the country as a whole. Alexander: Yes sir Terry: Not um what was it, you gave a couple of examples of of where you thought the federal government ought ought to be involved. Alexander: Yes Terry: Question, what what to do you see the federal, the proper role for the federal government and yourself. Alexander: Well those are very thoughtful questions and two different questions, the president and the federal government , because I think that the president, is the president of the entire United States of America. We are not electing a president of the federal government, or a president of Washington, we are electing a president of the whole country. And and and and just as and just as a good teacher if she were teaching algebra. The easiest way for every kid to make a hundred would be for the teacher to take the test, what's harder is for the teacher to create an environment in her classroom where all her students, move towards a hundred, that's a really good teacher. That's more like what a president does. So a president's first job is as commander and chief and the country's first job is to defend itself. That Washington is suppose to do. The government in Washington is suppose to make sure that we have a sound dollar. Ah it ought to make sure of the money it takes in, it doesn't spend more each year than it takes in, which is having a very hard time figuring out. I think we need national environmental laws, I mean I like clean air, I Iike clean water. Unknown: Can you repeat that please Governor Alexander: I think that we need national environmental laws, I believe in clean air, I believe in clean water. Ah um I think that we need national parks and interstate highways. There there's a great, I think we need federal support for research at universities, and I like college grant and aid program. There a number of things that the federal government should be doing. The only things that I am trying to take out of Washington are relatively small things, that I think our best down by ourselves, and they primarily have to do with education for you for younger children, elementary and secondary education, for safety on our streets, for the job of helping people who need help, poor people, what we call welfare, ah most job training I think could be better down by the decisions made closer to the person changing jobs. Ah I think the Medicaid decision making can be, I know it can best be down by people closer to people who have needs and that's about it. Ah to use a specific example on the environment, I think we need clean air, clean water, but I think the and we need high strict standards, because water flows across borders and air flows across borders as well. But environmental protection association should give to, cities and states and businesses an opportunity to come up with their own way of meeting the standards. In Berlin, there is a limber company that that EPA has given a specific technology in order to reach the high standard. The company thinks it could reach the same high standard with a cheaper technology, which would mean more jobs and lower taxes for the people in that area. I think that's a sensible division of responsibility. Ah I won't I won't go on and on, but just to use another example in the area of wel of what we call welfare, I would like to end Washington D.C.'s participation in the major welfare programs. But I would like to take the same amount of money and put it in local non-profit agencies and let them go to work helping people who need help. Ah I don't want to abandon them, I think that we're rich and good enough to help every single person who needs help, but you can't do that from a distance. We have too much business, mean I think the reason we ah, well I went into the largest women's hospital in a Michigan, three thousand of the babies born there are exposed to cocaine already, when they're born, because their mothers are. The answer to that is not in Washington, see I think that it's not just a matter of state's rights. I'm really looking for more personal responsibility, and I think that a president can help remind us of some responsibilities that we have, that only we can discharge. Farrell: One of the things that I did not hear you mention in your menu of federal tasks, was the role of the federal government in ensuring an economically stable retirement for people. Could you talk a little bit about what you understand the federal role and keeping ah social security secure. Alexander: Well the best way to keep an economically stable environment for the retirement of the largest number of people, is for the federal government to have ah ah and environment that creates the largest number of good new jobs. Ah so people can provide for their own retirement. Ah that would mean lower taxes, less regulation, a good system of education and and a good environment for a market oriented export driven ah economy, so people would have good incomes, ah second we need a good, the social security system is very important. Farrell: A healthy retirement for for people in the country. Governor you had begun to answer, but perhaps you could go back over it. Alexander: And I'll try to give brief answers, so that you'll have more time to ask questions. Number one is to create to create an environment, a market oriented export driven environment that can create the largest number of good new jobs, that way ah the best way for someone to have a good retirement is to make enough money during their lifetime to to support it and um the second is to have a a fair social security system and it's obvious to me that and I think of growing ah it's obvious to a growing number of people the next president should sometime during his first term, lead the country through a full review of the social security system. I don't think that there is any other way to do that unless you clear everything else off the table and concentrate the country's entire attention on it. That's something only the president can do and there should be two objectives with that, one is to make sure that those already in the system get what they believe their entitled to, and the second is to explore ways to allow younger people to begin to use the money that they might of put into social security in other ways, because they may be able to provide for a better retirement that way. Ah this is a subject that touches every single American. And I've talked about it enough in the past to know that when you when you start talking about it you should blow the whistle, and ask everyone to be quiet, because if they miss one sentence, they jump out of their seat and get worried. So the president will have to do that, but I believe we can do that, those two objectives. There is growing support for the idea for allowing younger Americans to have more options with the money that they would otherwise contribute to social security, but we can not start doing that until we see what the consequences are going to be on those people already in it. Farrell: We can turn now to Carl Husett. Carl Carl: Yes, ah I think my biggest concern is that I don't think that we really need Washington. I mean yeah we need them for defense and things like that, but everything else we do seems to be ineffectual, ah inefficient and very expensive. Ah a case in point, you talked about the environment, while super fund was ah tens of billions of dollars and ah when the GAO did the audit of that department they found that ten cents of the dollar went for cleaning up the environment, ninety cents went for administration and lawyers. I think that ah perhaps we could do a better job at the local level at cleaning up these things and you know I mean just about everything that the federal government does, they do very poorly and very expensive and I think the closer we get it to home, the better off we are going to be, because I think that my selectmen do a better job at handling thousands of dollars than my congressman and my president does at handling hundreds of billions of dollars. How do feel about this? Alexander: Well you got to the super fund fund bit before I did, I totally agree with you about the super fund point. Ah ah the Washington has spent a lot more on lawyers and a lot less on cleaning up wastes in the states. The states which have had a limited super fund role have a much better record on spending more money on cleaning up toxic waste and a a the states have spent more money on waste, and less money on lawyers. A and I believe that the Republican party has done a pretty miserable job this year on environmental issues. I think that what we should do just to take that area, is that we should be the party of the great American outdoors. There are hunters and fisherman, and there are people who like open spaces and who want clean air and clean water. That's a very broad constituency. We should be for clean water grants, we should be for building up the National park system, and then we could take on what I believe is environmental extremism. We could say to the EPA, ah you set the standard, but let us find a way to come up with it. Ah we could say to Washington, if you want super fund clean up, give it back to the states, we spend less money on lawyers, and we clean more up. Ah only the government would require every car to drive and to be tested for its emissions when only ten of fifteen of the cars out of a hundred are a problem. The private sector or anyone with any kind of creativity would figure a way to catch the ten or fifteen. Instead of inconvience the entire hundred. I'll give you one other example, ah a great many people worry that that when somehow when you take it out of Washington, you are taking it out of caring hands and sending it back to uncaring hands in the state. Ah which I think is a really odd way to look at the world, since most of us live in states and cities. Ah in in Medicaid is one of those examples, what about the social safety net if we were to take, the Medicaid spending that the federal government does, and turn the decision making over to the people outside Washington. We have one example, last year the federal government gave to Tennessee, the first big waiver, so that a state could take the same amount of money that the federal government was taking and spend it as it saw fit. My successor, a Democrat, for governor, in one year added four or five hundred thousands of Tennesseans to the Medicaid roles for the same amount of money. As a result 94% of the people in our state have health care insurance, which makes us the number one state in America with health care. So what's really happened is that Washington is hurting the poor. It is not spending the Medicaid money in a way that extends health care to poor people. It has created a welfare system that destroys the American family. It's spending toxic waste money on lawyers. And we all know better than that and we should be confidant enough in our in our country I think to to encourage a ah bringing those powers closer to home and then get busy our self cleaning up the water, improving our schools and doing the things that need to be done. Terry: I understand what you're saying, but my point exactly is that the federal government recently California somebody proposed splitting California into three separate states.. Alexander: It's usually Northern California that suggests that laughter Terry: And the reason for that that the, they said that California is too large to govern, now if that's true in California, where do stand with the United States, because it seems like ah we have bureaucracy that ah seems to do what they want, you know we passed a law in congress that is probably one or two pages when it gets started and when it comes out of there it is fifteen thousand pages, and instead of addressing the specific item that the legislation was proposed to, we find out that when it comes out it covers everything from new born babies to the elderly. And you know we I think that that ah to a large degree we have the federal government sticking their nose into everybody's business, and not really doing anything that's making our lives any better. Alexander: To, to, to pick up an example on that and try and illustrate what I mean when I say, less from Washington, more from ourselves. The difference between me and the Republican senators that are running is is the case of welfare. Senator Dole and Senator Gramm have enacted eight hundred page welfare bill that tells New Hampshire what to do about teenage girls having babies, tells you how long ah welfare benefits can be offered, it defines what a family is, and if there are eight hundred pages of law, you know that there are going to be hundreds of pages of regulations. My view is that New Hampshire and Tennessee, we we are wise enough and caring enough to make that decision for ourselves. I would rather end Washington's participation in those programs and take the same amount of money and spend it community by community. And help people who need help, I believe that we could have an explosion of, I believe that we could help every single person who needs help for that amount of money. And I believe that we could do it much better, even the Republicans when they go to Washington forget that that there are some things that we can decide for ourselves. Farrell: Turn now to Kathy Patterson, I know you had some concerns a long the same lines... Kathy: Right, right Farrell: Perhaps, you could... Kathy: Um I guess I'm taking issue with um depicting AFDC recipients as crack addicted, unresponsible, almost immoral, um watching the ad campaigns that are happening with ah Gramm, Dole, Buchanan, especially, they depict all of the AFDC recipients as being from ah I hate to say but like Boston projects, where there's guns and crack and all that, that's not the true reality, granted there are a lot of people in those situations. However, I am an AFDC recipient and I fell on my face a couple of years ago, because I was laid off, from and S&L crash. Um and I I guess I really take it to heart when they depict AFDC recipients as being all of the above. Um my question to you would is, with all of the welfare reform um taking place, and and with my understanding and my personal experience, is that welfare is kind of a catch twenty-two, they say yes come we'll help you. However when it comes to you then leaving the system, they kind of throw you off a bridge and either you sink or swim and that's it. They're not thinking then about the children that you have, um the situations that you find yourself in. And a lot of times for no fault of your own, because that's the way the system works,um unfortunately. My question to you then would be, what do you see as true welfare reform? So that people like me who are trying, who do the best that they can do, um who are back in school to try to make their lives better. However I still you know, personally I still have all of these responsibilities, that I like you say I have to take personal responsibility. I have to take care of my children, I have to see that they have a better life, than the one I find myself in, so I want to know then what what do you see as true welfare reform. Alexander: Yes, I would like, what what town do you live in if I might ask? Kathy: Nashua Alexander: Okay, I was walking through Nashua on my little hundred mile walk across... Kathy: Yeah, however you never went by my neighborhood and that kind of bothers me too. Laughter Alexander: I did my best! Kathy: Tipper Gore was there on Wednesday, she was right across the street from my house. Alexander: Well.. Kathy: I wonder why, why I never even in all the polls that are taken, nobody ever calls me. Alexander: They don't Kathy: I have a phone, nobody ever calls me Alexander: Well here I am with you this morning, so I get a chance to sit across from you. At least no one else has walked a hundred miles across New Hampshire, than I have. But but I'm glad, I appreciate the way that you asked that. A young couple came up to me at the end of the day at Library Hill, right there in the middle of town and they had been down to the Human Services office in Portsmouth. That's what they said, they said a in fact ah ah the the they had a a eleven month old child with them the the, their baby. Now he has job, the young man who was there and she does not, because she was a young mother. And they went down there, because they needed some help. I thought well we need some help, we are not on out feet entirely, we this must be the place we go get it. Ah they came to see ah to see me, because they felt that what they had been told was that they should separate in order to get higher benefits. And ah that's not what they wanted. So what do we do to in a country that has twenty-five percent, of all the money in the world for four percent of the people. How do we get ourselves in a situation, where they have that experience in or you might have a humiliating experience. When we really ought to be rich and good enough to help them get back on their feet. There are lots of people that way. I believe that the only way to do that, is to end Washington's participation in those kinds of programs, the AFDC program. And take the same amount of money, I don't mean to just stop our effort of help, I mean take the same amount of money that Nashua sends to Washington and leave it in Nashua for the same purpose. So that that young couple could have gone to the local minister or the non-profit agency or the emergency shelter, people who work everyday in Nashua helping people who need help and they would have had this money and they could sit down with them and say look, tell us what your objectives are, tell us about your problem, tell us what you want to do. They could come up with their own way to help them get back on their feet, without worrying about a lot of rules from the United States Senate or Washington a a a about how to do it. I do not believe the citizens of Nashua would have encouraged them not to work and not to marry in order to get some help. I've tried to put some figures to this and my hometown in Nashville, I figure we send about eighty to hundred million dollars a year to Washington for the AFDC food stamp and the Women, infants and children program. I know a lot of the people who work with people who need help and and and in in my past I've tried to help too. I believe believe that if we had that much money to spend every year and we really worked at it, that we could help anyone in our community, who needed some help getting back up on their feet and we could do it in a much better way than a Washington based system could. So that's why I say when I think about education, I'm not interested in abolishing the education department, to hurt education. I just think that freeing the teachers and encouraging them to make better decisions, with parents to support them, we'll get a better result. An I'm not interested in getting rid of AFDC, ah just to hurt anyone that needs help, I think spending the same amount of money through the homeless shelter or the emergency shelter or the Salvation Army or whatever the local agency will will create a stronger social safety net. I believe in neighborhood charity, instead of Washington welfare. That's a big change of thinking. I'd like to try it for five years that way and see if we didn't have an explosion of a of good will and generosity and and better results and if we don't, then we can go back to some other some other system. That be the system, I'd like to add to that one thing, which would be a tax credit of up to five hundred dollars. So that an individual in Nashua could give up to five hundred dollars to the local emergency shelter. I just one sixty second story, I spent the night on the floor, of a homeless shelter in Dallas, the summer of 94. Father Gerry Hill runs that shelter, three hundred men there every night. He won't even take a federal grant anymore, because he doesn't want to fill out all the forms for dealing with it. He thinks that the grant process corrupts him. Ah, so he raises all of the money. Ah if Dallas kept the money, that it now sends to Washington, they could give Father Hill some of that money or individuals could give it instead of giving it to the tax collector. He could help six hundred men a night instead of three hundred. I think that's I mean our, I think we got get over the idea of welfare, I think we ought to get back to the idea old communities and religious based institutions. Ah generously helping people who need help without seeking to humiliate them. Kathy: So my understanding of what you just said then would be to instead of having the federal government involved in the welfare system, that you would take those, so so so sort of a break in taxes instead of sending it to Washington. Then it would be um maintained here in the state of New Hampshire or whatever state you are from. Alexander: One thing would be that, it would be ah when you pay your tax, when I pay my tax, I could give up to five hundred dollars to the local center for battered women or emergency shelter or homeless shelter. Kathy: I would never be there. Alexander: Yeah, but lots of people who are Kathy: I'm trying to get from where I am to stability or some sort of stable foot hold. Alexander: The second thing , the second thing that I would do, instead of spending the fifty-five billion we now spend, on food stamps, AFDC, the Women infants and childern's program, Washington agency by Washington agency, we would spend it community by community. So the people you would go to see would be people in your own community and they'd have the sole discretion to decide how to spend it. And they could suit each spending decision to the needs of the person , that they are trying to help. Instead of having a a Dole bill, a Gramm bill or a Clinton bill, defining what a teenage mother is, defining what an AFDC mother is, and all that. Kathy: Um I I tend to think that, that, the AFDC as it is spends possibly definitely more on administration costs, than it does helping people. Alexander: I imagine so. Kathy: So then do you Alexander: That was Carl's point Kathy: Exactly, exactly, exactly so then I would ask if it were not possible or it looks like it's starting to become possible to have the states in control in all that, that scares me too on other issues. However if it doesn't happen, then the federal government is involved, and wouldn't it be better to lower the administration costs?Could you, would that be something you've thought about? Alexander: That would be best, it would be best to do that, but the question is how do get that done and in my experience, I mean I've had I've had an unusual set of opportunities in my lifetime, and I've gotten to drive across my country, I've walked across my state, I've been to every state and a lot of the schools. I've been a governor, I've worked in Washington, I've started a business. And my my experience tells me that if you send the money to Washington, you don't get it back in any reasonable shape. And there a lot of, there are a lot well intentioned people. I was well intentioned when I was there, I had all these good ideas, but by the time it came down to her classroom, she might already had seventeen things to do and she didn't want three more going... Lamar Alexander Voter's Voice Part II Transcribed by Analesa Shea Alexander: ..........she might have already had seventeen things to do and she didn't want three more good ideas. That's what administrative overload is and so what I'm trying to say in simplest form, let's take the city of Nashville. Instead of us sending eighty or a hundred million dollars a year to Washington, to help people get back on their feet why don't we keep it and spend it, and spend it through our local agencies. Through the..., every community has them, every community has them. They don't usually have enough money. They have plenty of people who need help and think they can make the decisions and can make some decisions better than others, but I believe the social safety net that will come up out of community by community spending will be much stronger and much more humane and if someone has a problem, and come in and say: Look, I've got a problem....I said I was going to be here by six months and I can't make it" Well, you help them. Jim: Governor, one of the ways the money gets to Washington, of course, is by federal taxes and I know John had a concern about that, so we can turn to John Louretteson and his questions. John: Actually I know we're butting up against time so I wanted to address two things real quick. Alexander: Well, that's my fault John: That's alright..two things real quick. 1988 George Bush, read my lips no new taxes. Bill Clinton last year, I not only raised taxes, I raised them too much. (Alexander saying yup, yup) We're hearing everybody today, national sales tax, tax reform, flat tax, no more IRS. Is it a fad and how would you build the trust that Americans inherently don't have in politicians where taxes are concerned? And then I wanted to ask a question on a separate topic, real quick. Alexander: Sure, I think that's an important topic. I think.....I think we need a Republican candidate for President and I intend to be that person, who has the courage to issue a big red flag about the Forbes tax plan and some of the flat taxes that are being proposed. Some of the Republicans look like Buffaloes headed toward the cliff to me and I think President Clinton is back their just urging them on, hoping.... I mean if we go into the general election with a Forbes tax plan, as our chief agenda, we'll have about as many members in the Republican party as the flat earth society does by the time we get to November. The Forbes tax plan is a truly nutty idea and if it were such a good idea, Jerry Brown would be President of the United States today. Because he already campaigned on it in 1992 and just to be specific about it would eliminate the whole mortgage interest deduction and would eliminate local property tax deduction and would cause a real-estate recession in New Hampshire that would make the one in the 1980s look like just a Sunday school picnic. It would eliminate the charitable deduction at a time when I believe we need more encouragement for charitable contributions. It would sink efforts to balance the budget because it doesn't raise enough money to pay the level of government expenditures. Those are some of things it will do . Now what should we do. I think we need a new tax system that is much simpler and that is easier to fill out, and that has a much smaller IRS. The way to do that was outlined pretty well , I think, by the commission earlier this week. It suggested that we do these things. Number one, we eliminate most deductions, we'll probably end up, I guess, with six to twelve including some of the ones I just mentioned. We would take the savings from that, and repeal the 1993 tax increase and repeal the 1990 tax increase. That would mean lower rates on individual income and would also mean lower rates on inheritance, and mean a lower capital gains rate to create good new jobs. I believe that is a common sense, conservative approach to cutting tax rates that could form the basis for a new Republican administration. And I think most Americans would go along with it because it would have much smaller IRS and a much simpler tax code. But if we persist in this nutty idea of wiping out home owners and eliminating charitable deductions and not taxing people on interest and dividends, we're going to sink the whole idea of a new tax system and nobody's going to put up with the responsible cause for one. John: And just real quick, in New Hampshire there's a little bit of pride now. This is a completely different subject. New Hampshire unit was the first to cross into Bosnia, but I look at Korea forty years, Bosnia forty days. We've got a number of peace keeping missions, indefinite time frame, really undefined scope and benefit that we're funding and wer're talking about tax reform, too high taxes. Do you support such peace keeping missions and how long is long enough for Americans to be funding such actions? Alexander: Let me pick up on, I'm glad you mentioned Korea and Bosnia in the same paragraph there because step one would be to define what our role is in the post-Cold War world, otherwise we don't have any basis for making decisions when these issues come up. Our role is we're the only superpower and our responsibilities are, number one to defend ourselves, number two to meet our treaty obligations and then to consider our responsibilities for these other instances that sear (?)our conscience which Bosnia did, and does. The way I would approach that would be to organize ourselves with our allies and to say this: we know that we'll be called on to take more than our share of the major engagements. If anything happens in Korea, we know who's going to do most of the heavy lifting there. It will be us. We would like for you, our allies, to take more than your share of the border patrols, the pacification and the peace keeping. The United States of America might help pay for it. We might use our diplomacy. We want to be involved. We might even use our air force, but we're not going to send our ground troops to do the border patrolling, pacification, and peace keeping. We're the super power. We're the resolution of issue of balance of power. We'll take more than our responsibility for the big ones and you take more than your share for the responsibility of the small ones. And that environment, I would not have put ground troops in Bosnia. I do not think we should become involved in anyone else's civil war unless we're prepared to pick one side and commit ourselves to win that war and we're not prepared to do that in Bosnia. Jim: Governor very quickly, Eleanor ..... Eleanor: Just one question. What's the most pressing problem that you see in the United States today? Alexander: The breakdown of the family. Question: Not the budget? Alexander: No, no, not the budget. Let me say something about the budget. I think I said earlier, I believe I'm the only Republican running, who has a chance to be elected, that ever balanced a government budget. I think they're making.., Washington right now reminds me of two teams showing up to play in the Superbowl and getting their uniforms on and staying in the locker room, and asking the crowd to give them a cheer. I think what the crowd would say: if all you're going to do is put your uniforms on, that's what you're suppose to do, now come out and do something. Run the ball up and down the field and we might applaud. It's like a kid coming home and saying: I told the truth, now give me a merit badge. I think what I'd say to my son: you're suppose to tell the truth now go learn to cook or take a hike or do something useful and I'll give you a merit badge. Now, the Congress is suppose to balance the budget. We have grown men and women in Washington and if all they can do is balance a budget, which is absolutely essential for them to do. They really can't do much. I think what that's leading us to is, is two things. One is a Presidential campaign , where we need to move beyond the budget, outside Washington, and start talking about creating jobs, rebuilding families and making schools better and grappling with the things we're talking about this morning. And because of this budget impasse, I have a feeling that what's going to happen in this election, as we elect the first President of the next century, is the people of the country are going to say, we're fed up with this partisanship, and this bickering, and this inaction and spending all this money on Congressman and Presidents who can't even agree on balancing the budget, for heaven's sakes. So we're going to either give it the Republicans or we're going to give it to Clinton for awhile. That way we'll end the partisanship, so I think we need a nominee who can paint a picture of the future based on Republican principles better than President Clinton can. I think this is going to be a watershed election. I think it's going to go the Clinton way or the Republican way. And if all Republicans can talk about is Washington, and Congress, and budgets. If we have no more vision then that, I think Clinton is in and so is the Democratic Congress and we're out. Jim: Martha had one more quick question. Martha: It's eluded to your answer about the family, the breakdown of the family..., I've been married 22 years, have two young children, very stable home life, jobs etc..etc... Consider myself a typical American family, but yet I feel totally excluded from the Republican party. I feel like they don't address my needs as a woman, my needs as a wife, my needs as a job holder...and I guess I would like you to address the issue where a lot of people feel excluded from the Republican party with the notion....for me it's actually this Christian conservative ..agenda that I don't feel a part of. But yet I do feel that my family is stable, and Christian, and loving, but I do not feel a part of the Republican party because of the Christian conservatives. Alexander: Well, I don't believe any group has a monopoly on the family concern. In 1994 when I took my little drive across the country, I spent the night, almost every night with a different family. And I would stay up with them and with their friends talking 'till about 11 or 12 o'clock and by the end of discussion almost all of them said: if they went through the things that worried them the most of their everyday lives, what was happening on the streets, the drugs, the crack, the education. It came down to the strength of the family, so I think we make a big mistake when we let any group say: we're the only people interested in the family. I think we all are.... I appreciate the energy the Christian conservatives give to our party. I mean, if all of us spent enough time on family issues as they do..then why we'd have stronger families. So I think the thing not do is be put off by that, but to jump into it with your own set of views and say: look we all care about straightening families. I hope my agenda would speak to you, I mean, what I've always tried to do as governor and as a University President is value education. My agenda was better schools, clean water, healthy children, creating the largest number of good new jobs. I found that by working on those issues and strengthening our communities and families. Our state went from being an embarrassed state and the third poorest state to being on the cover of National Geographic's rising, shining Tennessee. And I don't want women or men feel left out of our....of our party. So I think some of it , I hope you feel like, some of the issues that are important to me are the issues that may be of most important to..to you. And our nominee will set our agenda. That's what we haven't had...a Presidential nominee for a few years...so the character and values of our nominee will be the picture of our party to the country. Martha: I'd like to believe that..(Laugh) Question: I have a comment on that. I think one of the problems is that most of us here are middle-class. Most of us are white Americans. We are talking about family values that are those that have promulgated through our society, through this particular white, middle-class society. There's a large society, in the inner cities, which does not have that kind of value. They do not have a value on the typical American home of a mother, father, and child. The value there seems to more on.... a single-mother household.....and the problem of population explosion in that particular segment of society means it's an increasing society, in which a family, as we define it, is not their norm. How would you address that problem? And I now it's a state problem because their all in cities that are in states, but it's a national problem because it's a national crime problem, and it's a national welfare problem and a national ......moral problem. Alexander: Well, I think the way to address it is, briefly, to number one, realize that..most Americans understand the importance of a strong family. I wrote a book about that drive around the country and the first chapter is about Fred Montgomery, who was Alex Haley's boyhood friend. Alex Haley was the author of Roots, and was a close friend of mine before he died. He used to go every year to something called a black family reunion. Their hundreds of thousands of African American families get together and celebrate the idea of family. I spent the night with Fred Montgomery, who's now the mayor of Henning, the little town in Tennessee, where Alex Haley and he both grew up. And his growing up was almost exactly like mine., only thing different about it was they were a black family and we we were a white family and at that time the world was segregated. But their values, their habits, ..the respect they paid to their parents..everything about that family was a lot like mine. So I think the first thing we need to do is to recognize that the norm for most American families has been a strong family and not just presumed that people don't want to recognize that. Second, we have to stop the government from breaking down families. Anytime a young couple in Nashua walks up to the welfare office and is encouraged to separate in order get higher benefits and we spend 55 billions dollars a year in a system that does that even half the time. We are destroying families daily. Third, we ought to make it easier for poorer families. Every time you close schools at three o'clock in the morning in a world that has single mothers working in a ...., I mean three o'clock in the afternoon, in a world that has single-mothers or even families with two parents...both of whom work, you're making it really hard for a family. That's why I think schools, for example, ought to be open all day, every day, all year. For families to choose amongst so we make it easier for those families. And finally, I think we ought to try some different things. That's the reason why I suggest the GI Bill for kids, which is the government trying to help. I went into the Urban Day School in Milwaukee, where their in their sixth year of helping...giving state money to the poor kids in the big city, so their parents can choose a private school or public school, if they think it best suites their kids need - thirty-six thousand vouchers so to speak. And in this Urban Day School filled with inner city kids whose parents are probably having a hard time making it through everyday. They find the parents if they don't come to parent meetings.. Here you have families who we presume can't show responsibility, who are choosing to show it. I mean... Jim: Well, I'm sure that there are other questions, but unfortunately I understand the Governor has a plane to catch and we're just about out of time and I want to thank our citizen panel for exercising their civic responsibility this morning, and for all the rest of you who have come and I want to especially thank our guest, Governor Lamar Alexander, Republican candidate for President. I want to invite you if you have anything else to say on an issue perhaps that wasn't raised that is particular concern of your governor Is there a last word you want to get in before we sit around ourselves after you leave and talk about your performance (laughter) Alexander: Asking a politician if he wants to say a last word is really a dangerous thing to ... no first I'd like to thank you, I've enjoyed this, I like having this kind of conversation, I'm impressed you'd get up on a Saturday morning and devote this much time to it, and it's one reason why I believe the New Hampshire primary is unique I think it introduces a little bit of sanity and reality and what would otherwise be money and media and press people swooping in and airplanes swooping out and everybody in blue suits and not much conversation, so I congratulate you for your time in New Hampshire for this primary. Second, I would appreciate your support. I mean I'm not here on a ....to have a debating society or throw a thank you party or anything, I'm running for President and it's not a one person operation. I think I have a reasonably good chance to win ...in New Hampshire fifty legislators are supporting me, which is about the same number that are supporting Senator Dole and I think, in the end, people are looking for new Republican leadership that is grounded well outside Washington, DC. So, I didn't want to leave without asking for your support. And the third thing I'd like just to say, is that,..end with a question. I found myself on this drive that I took in 1994, ..which was a fascinating thing to do. I went from Tennessee to Los Angeles, then I spent the night at that homeless shelter in Dallas, and with a great aunt I hadn't seen in thirty years in Missouri, and with the Buddant King down in,...what is it, the Cajun capitalist in Louisiana, and with a five hundred pound minister in Savannah, Georgia, who'd taken back an inner city street; and with Fred Montgomery, Alex Haley's buddy, and saw the crazy horse monument in South Dakota; and I saw, again, Henry Raong Keo, who is the principal of the largest Hispanic high school in Los Angeles, and I stayed with him. And I would ask people at the end of the evening of discussion, just like we would do here, they would invite their friends over and I would get a lot of listening. Do you believe your children and your grandchildren will have more opportunity growing up in this country than you have had? And I found most people were afraid to say 'yes' to that, in the privacy of that discussion. And the issues that they had, were that they felt remote from the decisions that were being made for them in Washington. They felt a great deal of anxiety about job loss and they felt most anxiety about the breakdown of the other institutions we'd always depended on to help us with change, which are the family, the neighborhood, the church, the synagogue, and the school. Now, the reason that I am running for President is because, I believe that my answer is yes to that. I think we can have a brighter opportunity in the next century, but I just think it will be a lot different then this century. And I think it will help us to have a President who understands the world outside Washington. Who has a capacity to persuade at least half the people that we should go in a particular direction. Who will focus on job growth, on more freedom from Washington, and ..and is willing to say that there are some responsibilities that we can best do for and ourselves and can help remind us of that. I mean who can say the classroom teacher really can in the end...she might not know everything, but we're going to have to at some point step back and leave her free to operate that school or there'll be some communities that do better at helping people who need help, but in the end that is more...or going to create a better social safety net than whatever Washington does for all of us. Or even with the environment, that after we set the national standards that we're going to have to meet them community by community. And that if we celebrate our strengths, and remember that America works community by community; that a President who suggests that we expect less of Washington and more of ourselves will be the right kind of President for the new century. I'd like to be that person. I'm very optimistic about our future. I have no embarrassment in saying, having looked at it from the floor of a homeless shelter or from outside of America, that we live, not in a country without problems, but in a country that has more capacity to deal with its problems than any other country in the world. I'm glad all of this starts in New Hampshire. Thank you. Jim: Thank you, Governor. (Clapping and Private discussions) Jim:.....and your impression of the candidate and the way the candidate responded to your concerns. So, if any of you have any thoughts about that then we would just like to discuss it a little bit from your point of view....how the form went. Male Panel: Jim, is it Jim or John? Jim: Jim, yea... Question: Jim, I don't understand the first part of your question when you say the process of this type. Jim: Well, how do you think the form generally went, I mean did you feel you had the opportunity to raise the concerns that you had, the questions that were on your mind, do you think generally this is a good exercise for citizens to be involved in? Question: (agreeing to all question and overall sounds of 'yes') One word answer to that question would be yes. um...we came around, everybody had a shot at it, very fair...now the way it was handled, absolutely fine. Jim: What about the value for ..the process of the election itself. What value do you find in sitting down with a candidate like this and talking about issues face to face? Question: It makes us less of a crap shooter. I actually think I have some sense of the fellar...... versus his thirty second song bytes, or whatever those things are. So the value of actually getting to see him and have a chat with him...and even if I wasn't here, if I knew someone else that was on the panel ..because I say we panelists are very much alike. So, yea, there is value to that, in my opinion. Jim: Yea, Mar..... Martha ?: Yea, I think there was also value in it for me, personally, because I didn't really know a lot about him as a candidate and I sort of viewed all the Republicans in this sort of rabid crew. And he seems to be a lot less dogmatic about his views, a lot more reasonable for a Republican. (Loud laughter) Jim: Well, that might lead us into other impressions of the candidate, or Eleanor whatever you had to say. Eleanor: One of the things that I liked to was that I believe that the government is the people and right now I don't think the people have a lot of voice. And I think that in talking with Mr. Alexander, I felt I was talking to another person who also thinks that people are important. It's the first one I've heard say that the family is important and as a teacher I see the family really disintegrating rapidly. Jim: Is that mostly from things in what he said or in the way that he engaged you on your questions, or other people? Eleanor: What he said. Jim: More on what he said..yea..yea... Question: Well, I think the fact he didn't avoid much of the questions or the answers either.. (agreeing in the back ground) He answered them. And I'll tell you I sat down with Dick Lugar a couple months ago when the campaign really started and I couldn't get a straight answer. And Lamar sat here and there was only a couple times you had to redirect him to get to the answer we were lolling for...but he seemed to be straight forward and I know, coming into this I talked to a number of my colleagues and a number of my friends and that everybody had question that wanted to be asked. And I was taking noted feverishly because now I'll go back and I'll report to them and I'm sure they'll say hey I'm one step removed from Lamar Alexander and I know have this answer and Dick Lugar or Steve Forbes or whoever we get to meet in all that. So, it's an amazing opportunity and if they can sit here and not get off track, which I think since we stayed right to the time table I think we were..r... Jim: Will the rest of you do that as well, will you talk about your experience here and the answers you got with your friends and neighbors and colleagues at work? Question: I was pleasantly surprised by the whole thing. I mean I really did. I agree with you, I think his answers were straight forward, not necessarily I agreed with them all, but he really felt sincere about him answers and um..as I said, it was a pleasant surprise . Jim: Any other thoughts on the candidate or the forum today? Question: Well, I'm really glad I've had the opportunity to participate in this because I don't think I'd have any other opportunity...and in terms of Mr.Alexander, he seems like a very compassionate person. I'm just kind of leery about the true way he's going to, if voted in, going to handle the situations, especially the ones I was talking about. And, well I guess that's it. I'm glad to be a part of this... Jim: Carl, did you have a ........ Carl: I thought that he answered pretty well, and I think that he's leaning a little bit more to.. he kept referring back to personal responsibility and he, you know, felt that the community was the better place to handle a lot of these things, and I couldn't agree more. You know, he mentioned in the case of welfare, that the salvation army could do a good job and I felt that way for years. Just give half your money to them and they'll double your benefits..o.k. That's the way I look at it and I felt that his idea is to get a lot more out of Washington and I think it should be. Jim: Most of you seem to like Lamar Alexander as a person, ..seem to respond to him favorably, whether you agree with all his positions or not. And I'm wondering, given that why you might think he's not doing better in the state? Question: Repeat the question please? Jim: Why do you think Lamar Alexander is, not perhaps, not doing better in the state? Why isn't he higher in the polls? Why isn't he..... Panel: Money and press. Panel: I can tell you one reason I think...um I was ice skating last night. I have a skating partner who is about my age, he happens to live in Massachusetts. I said to him at one point..I'm going to be having, slight exaggeration, having breakfast with Lamar Alexander tomorrow morning. And he looked at me and he said: who's he? And then he said, well, I said he's one of the candidates for Republican nomination for President. And he said: oh is he that rich guy who's trying to buy votes, and I think there's' a lot of ..there are just too many candidates and there's a lot of confusion...granted he doesn't live in New Hampshire, but I get...he's getting exposed to the same radio stations that I get exposed to because I listen to ..Massachusetts radio stations. Most of my life is involved in Massachusetts and those of us who are living from Manchester on south are almost in a suburb of Massachusetts, and I think there's a recognition factor. Jim: It's also the case that he's has been running TV. stations on the Boston station, as well as the New Hampshire stations, so that's a little bit..um...yea Question: But, not nearly as much as Dole or Forbes. It comes down to money and marketing. I mean, the one thing that he did that and I can appreciate, ...I was in sales for ten years. The one thing he did, when he took the opportunity, he closed the sale. And to date, with all the appearances that Dole and Forbes..., I have not yet heard one of them ask for the vote. They've run a lot of campaigns and a lot of ads and they've got themselves in front of the voters, but they have not conducted themselves in the way I saw here. Even Dick Lugar, I was amazed when I'm talking to him, I said to him I didn't even realize you were running for President, and rather than taking up and closing the sale there, he says you're...........................................................