Bill Clinton: “Well, I think they, of course, could include my tax cuts and loan guarantees along with what they want. The larger…”

“Well, I think they, of course, could include my tax cuts and loan guarantees along with what they want. The larger implications are that if you look at their tax cut, what it will do is, if you pay for their tax cut and their defense proposal, it would restore the deficit and dramatically cut our investments in these areas, in education, in health care and the environment, and in medical research and everything else. I think that's also important. I don't think we should stop investing in these areas. If you look at the program we just visited, one of the problems that's held a lot of these areas back is the enormous premium that goes to education in the world we're living in, with the economy that's emerging based on information technology. So here you've got all these inner-city kids-- that handsome young man that's going into the Army today, that is working that computer program to set up international trades from his Los Angeles--his Watts high school, was once a gang member. So I think it would be a terrible mistake to walk away from our education obligations. And it would be, I think, very dumb to restore the deficit if we can avoid it. You know, the Republicans have made a lot of money out of our economic policy. That's one reason they can afford to finance their campaign so generously; they've done well. And now they say, ``Okay, you've made us a lot of money; now we want to be in power again and change the economic policy.'' [Laughter] Think about this. If we kept on the path we're on now and we paid the deficit off--I mean, we paid the debt off and we essentially were debt-free in 15 years, that's a bigger boost of money in the pocket to the people who would benefit from their tax cut than their tax cut would be. Keep in mind, I'm for a tax cut, too; I just think it ought to be affordable, and I think it ought to be targeted to the people that need it most. But if you look at this--if we sent a signal this year to the markets we were going to be debt-free in 15 years, and yes, it might not--I know, I've read all these stories saying, ``Well, but you won't have 15 years of constant growth.'' That's true. But all these projections are based on an average rate of growth which allow for good years and bad years. So if we sent that signal to the markets, then--and, you know, we start materializing and playing down this debt, it keeps interest rates lower. That means ordinary people get money in their pockets: lower home mortgages, car payments, credit card payments, college loan payments. It means that business investment is less expensive, so there will be more of it, and incomes will be higher, and growth will be more; it means we will be less vulnerable to things like the turmoil that gripped Asia 2 years ago; and it means that since we won't be taking that money out of the world economy, when other countries who are our trading partners and who are poorer than we are get in trouble, they'll be able to get money more cheaply because we won't have to be taking it away from them to pay for our debt. So I think, to me, this is clear, that if you're imagining what the 21st century economy will be like 20 years from now, that the richer states will need to be as nearly debt-free as possible so that when they borrow money, they're borrowing it for something like dramatically improving their infrastructure or rebuilding all their schools and cooking on computers or something like that. But on a year-to-year basis, the richest countries ought to be debt-free so the countries that need to borrow money to elevate their standard of living and also be trading partners for the richer countries can do so at less cost and with less turmoil. And it will be better for the ordinary citizens in the United States for all the reasons I said. So that's my answer to the Republicans. Hillary Clinton's Possible Senate Candidacy Mr. Herbert. And final quick question--Mrs. Clinton's run for the Senate. Are you guys-- and welcome to New York--but, two, are you guys committed to living in New York if she loses this Senate race?”