Words To Live By: The Press Conference

Today, many Americans question the intentions and power of media. Ever since Watergate and Vietnam, it seems the media’s line of questioning has become a “gotcha” game. Former Reagan Press Secretary Larry Speakes, wrote, “Instead of asking legitimate questions on matters of importance, most of the reporters who attend press conferences are there only to try to trap the president. They are trying to make the news, not report it.”

Historically, the number of press conferences is declining as presidents find them an increasingly less useful tool for getting their message out to the public. Eisenhower reportedly began one press conference by stating, “I will mount the usual weekly cross and let you drive the nails.” Jimmy Carter once told an interviewer that the only reason reporters came along was to be there in case he choked on a fish bone or said something ridiculous.

On that note, it’s interesting to learn that Hugh Sidey, Time magazine’s veteran president watcher, advocated the abolition of the televised presidential press conference as he believes it no longer serves a serious purpose because both sides have come to view it as a gladiator’s contest rather than a format for putting important information on the public record.

As for the 40th president, over the course of eight years as president, he held 46 press conferences and received criticism for not holding more. Yet, during that same time, he conducted 257 interviews, 168 informal exchanges, and engaged in 216 question and answer sessions following remarks. “If you ever get the question within earshot,” a reporter noted, “he’ll answer it, because he’s a decent guy.”

So in this podcast, we’ll start by going backwards, 40 years ago this July, when the President held his 26th press conference on Legislative Priorities. We’ll edit a bit because it is quite long and we begin by reading the president’s opening statement.

The President's News Conference

July 24, 1984?Legislative Priorities

The President. I have a brief statement here.

The Congress is back this week for a session that's lasting only until August 10th, but that's enough time for the House of Representatives to approve legislation that would benefit all Americans.

Among the many important issues now facing the Congress is legislation that will help reduce deficits, reward work and thrift, make our cities and neighborhoods safer, and increase personal liberties throughout our land. Legislation that could do these things is already before the Congress. It's been bottled up in the House for months, and in some instances, even years. But something can be done.

I have talked with the House Republican leadership. They have pledged to try again to bring six key measures to the floor for a vote.

First, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. And we must balance it, not by raising the tax rates of hardworking Americans, but by insisting that government spend no more than it takes in.

Second, a proposal granting spouses working in the home the same individual retirement rights, IRA's, as spouses working outside the home. Each spouse could save and deduct from taxation up to $2,000 a year. The House had a chance to enact this initiative in a bill I signed just days ago, but they dropped it.

Third, a proposal offering incentives for investment in 75 enterprise zones to create jobs, independence, and hope for people in inner cities and other economically distressed areas.

Fourth, a bill allowing tuition tax credits for low- and middle-income parents who pay to send their children to parochial or independent schools while also paying their full share of taxes to support public schools.

Fifth, a comprehensive anticrime package to crack down on criminals through restrictions on bail, tougher sentencing, and stricter enforcement of drug trafficking laws.

And sixth, an equal-access bill permitting religious student groups the same freedom to meet in public high schools during nonschool hours as right now other student groups are allowed to do.

These reforms are long overdue, and they would benefit all the people. It's time to test the new realism and to see if the Democratic leadership will move from words to action.

Now, Maureen [Maureen Santini, Associated Press].

Federal Tax Increase

Q. Mr. President, your advisers have publicly disagreed with Walter Mondale's assertion that a tax increase will be necessary next year in order to help cut the enormous Federal deficit. While your advisers say you don't want a tax increase next year, they have refused to flatly rule out the possibility. Will you now flatly rule out the possibility of seeking a tax increase next year if you're reelected?

The President. Yes. I have no plans for a tax increase. I believe it would be counterproductive with regard to the present recovery, or expansion. Indeed, I believe that the tax cut that we had is largely responsible for the recovery that we're having.

Maybe they left that for me to say. I know that for Mr. Mondale, he has repeatedly and over the years supported tax increases on any number of occasions. He was opposed to our indexing, which is a provision that would benefit the lower- and middle-income people almost exclusively, because they would be the ones that could -- without indexing -- could be moved up into higher tax brackets by inflation. Those who are already in the high tax brackets can't be moved up. They're already there.

But I have one thing to say about a tax increase with regard to our problems. The only way that I could see is that -- government is taking a percentage of the gross national product that is higher than the revenues -- the percentage that is being taken in revenues now from that same gross national product. Now, if, after all of our best efforts, if we have gotten government costs down to the point at which we say they cannot go any lower and government still meet its responsibilities and provide the services that are required of it, and that is still then above the percentage taken by taxes, then you would have to look at the tax structure in order to bring that up, to meet that minimum level of government expenditures.

But I think we're a long way from that point with regard to bringing government down to where it could be brought down. We're looking right now -- and we have a task force working on 2,478 recommendations made by the Grace commission of ways in which government can be made more economical and more efficient by simply turning to modern business practices in all of these different ways instead of sticking with some oldtime government practices that are way behind the times.

And I believe that to raise taxes without waiting for what I had just said, I think that to do that would simply open the door to more spending. That's been the pattern of the past, and it is a pattern that -- as a matter of fact, Vice President Mondale has stated that his own belief in it. In '76 he publicly stated on a television show that he had voted time after time to raise taxes on his own constituents. So, he believes in tax increases, and I believe that our goal must be to, wherever possible, reduce the tax burden for our people.

We are -- let me just say, we are -- I've ordered, or asked the Treasury Department to come in before the end of the year with options on tax simplification and ways in which we can broaden the base and thus lead to the ability to further reduce the individuals' rates by broadening the base. And the fairness of all of this goes without saying. But, also, the simplification -- I think it's practically immoral, the complexity of the tax laws and what we impose on the people with regard to their tax obligation, and I think it can be simplified. And I believe that there will be some options brought to me in December, as I had requested.

Q. Sir, if I may follow up. Do you think that there's room in the Federal budget to cut spending so deeply that you can balance the budget that way? And, if you believe that, is it possible, do you think, to do that without going into entitlements and Social Security, and are you willing to go that deep?

The President. No, what we're looking forward to is the fact that as the recovery takes place, you are going to see some contributing factors to further reducing the deficit. A large part of the deficit, when it went up so far, was because of the depth of the recession. But today there are 7 million more people working than were working in 1980. Now, that's 7 million people that are not a burden on the Government or being taken care of; that's 7 million more people paying taxes.

And so far, we have found repeatedly, and still are finding, that we have overestimated the deficits, and much of the overestimation is our underestimating the revenues that we're going to get. So, I think that there is still a large area in which we can go.

Now, you mentioned Social Security, and that brings to mind something I want to get off my chest right now about Social Security. As you know, in the regulations of Social Security, if the inflation rate falls below 3 percent, there are no more COLA's -- cost-of-living adjustments, or additions -- for people getting Social Security. We, now, in the last 3 months, have been down around 3.2 or .3 with regard to inflation -- the inflation rate. If, when we come to the period, which is the third quarter of the year, and inflation is below 3 percent, we have asked the Social Security recipients to take a 6-month delay in getting their cost-of-living adjustment. And if it is below 3 percent, I am going to ask the Congress to permit the payment of a cost-of-living adjustment to the Social Security recipients.

Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International]?

Geraldine Ferraro

Q. Mr. President, Geraldine Ferraro says you're not a good Christian on grounds that your budget cuts have hurt the poor and the disadvantaged. Do you think you're a good Christian, and why? And I'd like to follow up.

The President. Well, Helen, the minute I heard she'd made that statement, I turned the other cheek. [Laughter]

As for her qualifiers, that our budget practices had victimized the poor and the needy, there is not one single fact or figure to substantiate that charge. I know that's been the talk. I know there's been a lot of demagoguery about that. But all of the programs for the needy that are means-tested programs, they were $47 billion in cost when we came here. They're now around $64 billion.

Everyone that, for food stamps, for example, that has an income or earnings of up to 150 percent of the poverty level is eligible for food stamps. Out at the State -- where the States administer them, programs like AFDC, there the requirement is based on what is the needs level in that particular State. And, therefore, they set the basic benefit according to 130 percent of that.

But we are aiding more people and spending more money on those programs than has ever been spent in history. So, there's no basis for this demagoguery that somehow we have punished and are picking on or trying to get our recovery on the backs of the needy.

To prepare for a press conference, President Reagan would devote a total of four hours, broken into two, 2-hour sessions on consecutive days. He practiced in the family theater in the upstairs part of the White House, with a podium, lighting, microphone and 3 or 4 advisors acting as reporters, posing questions. That might seem like a lot of preparation but you have to remember that Richard Nixon would completely shut down for 48 hours in advance of a press conference to prepare.

It became an unwritten rule that each of the three networks, as well as three wire services (AP, UPI, and Reuters), would get to ask a question at a press conference. No questions were required to be submitted in advance, nor were any reporters given preferential treatment. Before President Reagan walked into the press room, he checked a television monitor to briefly review the audience set-up.

We’ll conclude with excerpts from his first press conference held on January 29, 1981. It was one of his most memorable due to his comments about the Soviets but first…he makes a statement.

The President's News Conference

January 29, 1981

The President. How do you do? I have a brief opening statement here before I take your questions.

The National Economy

Yesterday Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan sent to the Congress a request to raise the debt ceiling to $985 billion. This represents a dramatic jump of $50 billion over the previous debt ceiling. The administration took this action with great regret, because it's clear that the massive deficits our government runs is one of the root causes of our profound economic problems, and for too many years this process has come too easily for us. We've lived beyond our means and then financed our extravagance on the backs of the American people.

The clear message I received in the election campaign is that we must gain control of this inflationary monster.

Let me briefly review for the American people what we've already done. Within moments of taking the oath of office, I placed a freeze on the hiring of civilian employees in the Federal Government. Two days later I issued an order to cut down on government travel, reduce the number of consultants to the government, stopped the procurement of certain items, and called on my appointees to exercise restraint in their own offices. Yesterday I announced the elimination of remaining Federal controls on U.S. oil production and marketing.

Today I'm announcing two more actions to reduce the size of the Federal Government.

First, I'm taking major steps toward the elimination of the Council on Wage and Price Stability. This Council has been a failure. It has been totally ineffective in controlling inflation, and it's imposed unnecessary burdens on labor and business. Therefore, I am now ending the wage and price program of the Council. I am eliminating the staff that carries out its wage/pricing activities, and I'm asking Congress to rescind its budget, saving the taxpayers some $1\1/2\ million a year.

My second decision today is a directive ordering key Federal agencies to freeze pending regulations for 60 days. This action gives my administration time to start a new regulatory oversight process and also prevents certain last-minute regulatory decisions of the previous administration, the so-called midnight regulations, from taking effect without proper review and approval.

All of us should remember that the Federal Government is not some mysterious institution comprised of buildings, files, and paper. The people are the government. What we create we ought to be able to control. I do not intend to make wildly skyrocketing deficits and runaway government simple facts of life in this administration. As I've said, our ills have come upon us over several decades, and they will not go away in days or weeks or months. But I want the American people to know that we have begun.

Now I'll be happy to take your questions. Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

U.S. Relations with Iran

Q. Mr. President, will your policy toward Iran be one of revenge or reconciliation? And will the United States honor the recent commitments to Iran, especially since you approved of most of them during the campaign?

The President. Well, I'm certainly not thinking of revenge, and I don't know whether reconciliation would be possible with the present government, or absence of a government, in Iran.

I think that the United States will honor the obligations. As a matter of fact, the most important of those were already put into effect by the preceding administration in negotiating the release. We are, however, studying, because there were four major agreements and there were nine Executive orders, and we are studying thoroughly what is a pretty complex matter, we've discovered, with regard to whether they are in keeping with international and our own national laws. And so, I won't be able to really answer your questions on specifics until we've completed that study.

Reductions in Federal Spending

Q. Mr. President, the Treasury Secretary said Monday that your budget cuts will be of a much higher magnitude than most people thought they would be. You said they would be across the board. Now that you've had some time to study the budget, can you say where these cuts will be made, what program will feel the cuts the most?

The President. They'll be made every place. Maybe across the board was the wrong decision, although it describes it. What I meant was that no one is exempt from being looked at for areas in which we can make cuts in spending.

And yes, they probably are going to be bigger than anyone has ever attempted, because this administration did not come here to be a caretaker government and just hope we could go along the same way and maybe do it a little better. We think the time has come where there has to be a change of direction of this country, and it's going to begin with reducing government spending.

U.S. Response to Terrorist Acts

Q. Mr. President, in your welcoming address to the freed Americans, you sounded a warning of swift and effective retribution in future terrorist situations. What kind of action are you prepared to take to back up this hard rhetoric?

The President. Well, that's a question that I don't think you can or should answer as to specifics. This is a big and it's a powerful nation. It has a lot of options open to it, and to try and specify now just particularly what you should do I think is one of the things that's been wrong.

People have gone to bed in some of these countries that have done these things to us in the past confident that they can go to sleep, wake up in the morning, and the United States wouldn't have taken any action. What I meant by that phrase was that anyone who does these things, violates our rights in the future, is not going to be able to go to bed with that confidence.

Walt [Walter Rodgers, Associated Press Radio].

Strategic Arms Limitation

Q. Mr. President, you campaigned rather vociferously against the SALT II treaty, saying it was slightly toward the Soviet Union. Yet I noticed your Secretary of State, Mr. Haig, now seems to suggest that for the time being, at least, the United States will abide by the limits of the SALT II treaty and he hopes the Soviet Union will, too. How long do you intend that the United States should abide by the terms of a SALT agreement which you consider inequitable, and what do you consider its greatest inequities to be?

The President. Well, the SALT treaty, first of all, I think, permits a continued buildup on both sides of strategic nuclear weapons but, in the main thing, authorizes an immediate increase in large numbers of Soviet warheads. There is no verification as to the number of warheads on the missile, no method for us to do this.

I don't think that a treaty -- SALT means strategic arms limitation -- that actually permits a buildup, on both sides, of strategic nuclear weapons can properly be called that. And I have said that when we can -- and I am willing for our people to go in to negotiate or, let me say, discussions leading to negotiations -- that we should start negotiating on the basis of trying to effect an actual reduction in the numbers of nuclear weapons. That would then be real strategic arms limitation.

And I happen to believe, also, that you can't sit down at a table and just negotiate that unless you take into account, in consideration at that table all the other things that are going on. In other words, I believe in linkage.

Sam [Sam Donaldson, ABC News].

Goals of the Soviet Union

Q. Mr. President, what do you see as the long-range intentions of the Soviet Union? Do you think, for instance, the Kremlin is bent on world domination that might lead to a continuation of the cold war, or do you think that under other circumstances detente is possible?

The President. Well, so far detente's been a one-way street that the Soviet Union has used to pursue its own aims. I don't have to think of an answer as to what I think their intentions are; they have repeated it. I know of no leader of the Soviet Union since the revolution, and including the present leadership, that has not more than once repeated in the various Communist congresses they hold their determination that their goal must be the promotion of world revolution and a one-world Socialist or Communist state, whichever word you want to use.

Now, as long as they do that and as long as they, at the same time, have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that, and that is moral, not immoral, and we operate on a different set of standards, I think when you do business with them, even at a detente, you keep that in mind.

American Businesses and Iran

Q. Mr. President, what's your opinion of American companies that now want to resume business with Iran?

The President. My opinion of American companies that want to resume business with Iran? I hope they're going to do it by long distance. [Laughter] We wouldn't want to go back to having just a different cast of characters, but the same show going on. [Laughter]

I can understand that, particularly in the field of energy, their wanting to do that, but we are urging the people to think long and hard before they travel to Iran, because we don't think their safety can be guaranteed there.

American Prisoners in Vietnam

Q. Mr. President, three Americans are still incarcerated in Vietnam. Can you tell us the status of their cases and whether the administration is doing anything to get them back?

The President. I have told our people about those three. They knew about them, of course, but I've told them that, yes, we continue and we want to get them back, also.

Now, I know I've been staying down front here too much. I've got to prove I can look at the back rows there. You, sir.

Whether in the White House briefing room, or in Moscow, President Reagan believed firmly: give them only what they can use. And he knew how to give it to them. David Gergen, political strategist said, “Ronald Reagan always kept in mind that his real audience was on the other side of the camera. ?He spoke to them through reporters.”

For more information on the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, including information on how to become a member, information on upcoming exhibits at the Reagan Library, and more information on the legacy of President Reagan, please visit www.ReaganFoundation.org.