From The Los Angeles Times, January 21, 1982.

Question: Mr. President, you frequently have referred to the tremendous impact that Franklin D. Roosevelt had in reshaping the country, and in your first year you've made a tremendous impact in starting to reshape the country. How do you judge your impact in the first year and what legacy do you hope to leave?

Answer: Well, I believe that we have started government on a different course, different than anything we've done in the last half century and since Roosevelt began with the New Deal, and that is the recognition that there is a limit to government--must be a limit to government size and power--and that there has been a distortion of the relationships between the various echelons of government--federal, state, and local. . . . Now, this does not mean that we don't recognize government's basic responsibilities--the things that it is required to do. . . . That prime function has been one that has been sadly neglected in recent years.

But I think the very fact that we were successful in getting the biggest single package of budget reductions ever adopted, the single biggest package of tax reductions. . . that have ever been adopted, has set us on a course of trying to bring back the idea heralded by all our founding fathers, and reiterated so often by leaders in government. . . that government must stay within its means. . . .

Q: We took a poll and it showed that three times as many people would rather have a balanced budget as increased defense spending or even income tax cuts. You seem to be moving in a direction where your top priorities are a defense buildup and tax cuts, and the balance budget is not quite so high anymore on your priority list. Could you explain why that is?

A: . . . . I used to do Q and A an awful lot, and I remember when repeatedly the question would be asked, if the choice came down to restoring our military security or balancing the budget, which side I would come down on, and I said I would come down on the side of restoring our defenses, our national security. . . . I never gave that answer to an audience that I did not get an enthusiastic applause.

Q: So you feel that you have a mandate to do that?

A: We're spending a smaller percentage of the gross national product on national defense that we used to do years ago in what we considered normal times. But, we're playing catch-up. We are restoring something that was allowed to diminish and deteriorate. . . . The people have heard so much . . . that their troubles are due to the deficit. In part they are. It's harder to explain that reducing the tax rate can result in even the government getting more money, that the tax cuts aren't just simply to relieve an individual of a tax burden. They are to restore a balance in government and private spending that will increase productivity, broaden the base of the economy and help provide the jobs for those people who are unemployed, and when that all happens, as it did in the Kennedy years, the government itself ended up getting more money.

Q: Do you see any circumstances where you might want to delay or cancel the tax rate cuts to balance the budget?

A: No. As a matter of fact. . . I firmly believe--and I have the support of a number of economists in this--that had we not been forced to compromise . . . the actual tax cut for 1981 is only about 1 1/4% . . . not exactly the stimulant to the economy that we had in mind . . . had we not had to compromise, very possibly we wouldn't have had this recession and, if we had had it, it would not be as severe as it is. So, rather than push it (the tax-cut package) back or postpone, no, the thing that I would yield to if it could practically be done would be to move it forward. . . .

Q: When you ran against Carter. . . you asked people to judge his impact on their lives and you asked them to ask themselves, were they really any better off now then when he first became elected. Do you think it's now fair to ask people whether they're better off than when you became elected, and, if not, when will it be fair?

A: Yes, but I was asking at the end of four years. Now they're comparing me to one year ago, and with the recession, I think by actual figures I could prove that they are better off. First of all, the interest rates are over five points lower than they were when I took office; the inflation rate is down to a single digit, when it was almost 14 when I took office; their rate of taxation is now lower than it was when I took office.