Sunday Bonus Podcast-Ronald Reagan & Johnny Carson Talk Politics

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Michael Berry Show. We're talking with UH former Governor
Reagan and UH.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
During the break, we were discussing what I mentioned, UH
that I thought most people uh were not apathetic. I
think they're confused basically because you hear intelligent people from
uh both political parties or in the middle conservatives and liberals,
and they all seem to have different answers as to
what is going wrong in the country. Some people say, well,
let's let the government spend billions of dollars, and then

(00:25):
some other people say, no, no more federal spending. Uh,
let's give the tax rebase. Than the other intelligent people
say no, tax rebase. We've got to do this and
do that. So everybody is confused. Huh, how do you
see the thing? How are we gonna get out of this?

Speaker 3 (00:36):
Well, y seleinly, I think one of the things is
that people keep looking at government for the answer, and
government's the problem. Yeah. You a moment ago, you you asked,
you know about people and feeling not only confused, but
low and down in America. First of all, the American people,

(00:57):
if they would just take a little inventory and look around,
you triple our troubles and we're better off than any
other people on earth. And we've asked so much of government,
and we've gotten in the habit over the last forty
years of thinking that government.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
Has the answers.

Speaker 3 (01:11):
There's very little that government can do as efficiently and
as economically as the people can do themselves. And if
government would shut the doors and sneak away for about
three weeks, we'd never miss them.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Now, if the people were had in mind, particularly no
I said this while I was in government.

Speaker 3 (01:31):
Our biggest problem is that we have built a permanent
structure of government, federal, state, and local, the permanent employees,
and they've come to the place that they actually determined
policy in this country more than.

Speaker 1 (01:44):
Does the Congress of the United States.

Speaker 3 (01:47):
There are fourteen and a half million public employees in
the United States. That's quite a voting block. And the
bureaus and agencies not in Washington. I heard you talking
earlier about some of the research programs. Well, there was
a senator the other day and he took up some
pages of the Congressional record. He was doing the same
thing you were, listing all these crazy research programs and

(02:09):
how much they were costing, and wound up his speech
by introducing his own he wants to study and a
research of transcendental meditation. So you know, there's a state
senator in Michigan and he just found out the other
day they got a ninety three thousand dollars study on
whether Chitlin's are bad for you, And.

Speaker 1 (02:30):
He said that as a fourth.

Speaker 3 (02:31):
Generation Chitlan leader, he figured that he could tell you
how for ninety three cents you.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Could find out the answer to that. No, we laugh
at those things, but they do happen.

Speaker 3 (02:38):
I guess, oh, listen, there you had some beauties and
there's some others. What would you say if I told
you about one a study in which this was called the.

Speaker 1 (02:50):
Demography of Happiness.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
And in this study, the government found out that young
people are happier in old people.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
They found out that people that earn more or happier
than people that earn less. And they found out that
well people are happier than six people. That's goods was.

Speaker 3 (03:11):
Two hundred and forty nine thousand dollars to find out
it's better to be rich, young and healthy than old poorts.
So what do you say now that it's the government
may be the problem. So so what do people do?

(03:31):
They have to look to somebody, and you say, if
they look for themselves, that's it may be good advice.
How about somebody who's on a you know, a Social
Security pension or a pension that are trying to live
one hundred and fifty dollars a month.

Speaker 1 (03:42):
You know, they have to look to somebody.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
I guess yeah, they're saying, hey, we can't make it,
we can't afford to go to a doctor. Well, sixty
two percent of the people can't stay home in an
election and cure things as we did in the last election.
I just read this week on I heard this weekend
the radio. They dropped three hundred thousand voters from the
Los Angeles rule because they didn't take the time to
go to the polls in the last election, three hundred
thousand people, the.

Speaker 3 (04:03):
Lowest percentage in history. Only thirty eight percent of the
people voted in the national election. And this means that
people aren't paying any attention to what. Well here a
poll was taken recently that found out that only forty
six percent of the people in the poll could name
their United States congressman.

Speaker 1 (04:20):
But what was worse, eighty six percent of those who
could name him couldn't tell you a single thing that
he represented or stood for. They just knew that he
represented the faith.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
But he was a congressman. But what's he doing while
he's up there? And the same is true at at
the local levels of government and all the rest. So
you're saying people really have to take an active interest,
and you have to have citizen action groups locally and
let them know. It's certain special interest groups. Now, the
special interest groups are as everyone thought, big powerful business
interests are something that are going to persuade government to

(04:51):
do things. As a matter of fact, I don't know
anyone with less influence today in government than business. They're
just a convenient whipping boy. But it's the groups that
have got a particular acts to grind. You can't have
a power plant because it might interfere with the seagulls.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
Now.

Speaker 3 (05:04):
I think I'm an environmentalist and I do not agree
with those people way over in the edge who pave
the whole country over in the name of progress. But
also I don't like those on the other extreme that
won't let you build a house unless it looks like
a bird's nest. Someplace in the middle. We got to
allow people are ecology too, well, This kind of group
and they want their particular program. Hundreds of dollars have

(05:26):
been added to the cost of an automobile putting gadgets
on it to clear up the air. We're the only
country in the world that's set out to do it
that way. The automobile industry over and over again told government,
if they give them more time, the answer lay and
making the motor more efficient and making.

Speaker 1 (05:41):
It burn the fuel better.

Speaker 3 (05:44):
And when they were given the limited time, there was
only one thing they could turn to.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
That was the add ons that you had to go.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
And the verdict is really kind of still out on
those and whether they're going.

Speaker 1 (05:54):
To add more sulfuric acid to the air or not.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
Yeah, what do you think is going to happen? You've
been asked this question. I'm sure you knew that I was.
What might possibly bring it up tonight? Uh, there's no
election coming up. You're uh, you're out of politics now,
but you're you were speaking and as I say, you're
going around the country, do you envision the possibility of, say,
in seventy six, if the convention, say was dead luck.

(06:17):
I'm giving you all the theories and so forth, and
the Conservatives took over possibly and got control of the
uh of the electoral process, and they couldn't quite make
a decision. And they came to you and said, Governor Reagan, Uh,
we can't decide between mister uh Ford mister Rockefeller were divided.

Speaker 1 (06:40):
Would you like to uh would you like to go
to the White House? Uh? You remember that answer I
gave you about the CIA.

Speaker 2 (06:47):
Yeah, I'm gonna buy it.

Speaker 1 (06:52):
I can understand the CIA now.

Speaker 2 (06:54):
But uh No, I thought that was delicately phrased.

Speaker 1 (06:57):
I yes, m butlic yeah verbos. I No. I think
it's an unanswerable question.

Speaker 3 (07:05):
I don't think anyone in view with the things that
have gone on in the last few years, knows what's
going to happen in the.

Speaker 1 (07:10):
Next two years down the road.

Speaker 3 (07:12):
I think that everyone should hope and pray that people
are there will do the job so well there won't
be any question about it, because if they do, then
everything's all right with the rest of us.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
You think they're doing their job. Well, well, I agree
with some things and disagree with others.

Speaker 3 (07:27):
They when they give me a when they give me
a choice between a fifty three billion dollar deficit and
the budget and an eighty billion dollar deficit. When budget
deficits are what's causing inflation, I don't see that there's
any room to be on.

Speaker 1 (07:39):
Either side of that argument.

Speaker 3 (07:41):
I think the answer to curing inflation is a balanced budget.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
Now, how do you do that? I mean, that's not
how do you balance the budget?

Speaker 3 (07:50):
Well, balancing the budget is like protecting you don't spend
more than you take in. Right now, it's like protecting
your virtue. You have to learn to say no.

Speaker 1 (08:06):
There's got to be another way. What's the second option?

Speaker 3 (08:15):
Well, well, there's some ways that this could be brought about.
First of all that limitation, here's another one. Why shouldn't
we have, in addition to a simplified income text, why
shouldn't we also have a law that says that any
time a legislator or a congressman introduces a spending program,
he has to introduce with it a tax program to
pay for it. Then let the people find out there

(08:36):
was a woman that from a financial firm that was
back of the President's Economic Council, and her words weren't quoted.

Speaker 1 (08:42):
Everybody else's words got in the paper.

Speaker 3 (08:44):
All the Heller's and the gall breaths, and all the
so called economists. And I have a degree in economics,
so I can say this. I think an economist is
someone who has a Phi beta kapakey on one end
of his watchchain and no watch on the other. This
woman said that you go to the polls and you
ask the people do they want some social service, some
program the government can give? And the people in the

(09:06):
polls are apt to read and say that sounds good. Yeah,
But she says that isn't exactly accurate. She says, put
a one hundred dollars bill in each person's hand and
then show them the program and say, now, isn't that
a nice program?

Speaker 1 (09:19):
Do you want it? Give me the one hundred dollars.

Speaker 3 (09:21):
And she says, see what the poll says then, and
how many people hang on with one hundred dollars instead
of the program?

Speaker 2 (09:27):
In other word, that it's rather hidden than someone doesn't
know exactly where it's going to come.

Speaker 3 (09:30):
They all start all the government programs, start a dollar
down and we'll catch you later, and they multiply all
of those things that you were. The Office of Management
and Budget in Washington that's responsible for the budget putting
the budget together cannot even tell you how many boards commissions, agencies, bureaus,
and departments there are in the federal government, but all

(09:52):
of them can pass regulations, and those regulations have the
force of law. And the difference is when you break
the law, you're in a until proven guilty. When you
break a regulation, the fellow the charges you were breaking
the regulation, you're guilty. Right If you want to take
him to court and prove your innocent, that's up to you.
And all of these are things that that yes, we

(10:14):
can trim the budget. There's enough fat in the federal
government that if you rendered it, you could wash the world.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
You now, you took that.

Speaker 2 (10:25):
They took a poll of the American people the past week,
and I think seventy eight percent or around seventy five
percent were opposed to more military aid to Vietnam and
Cambodian Southeast Asia in general. And yet the administration was
trying to tell the American people that a couple of
hundred million or two hundred and twenty two million dollars
would make some kind of difference, or that the government

(10:47):
might make it. And how do you feel do you
think that that is a lost cause in a way,
I think people can see humanitarian you know, for children, hospitals,
et cetera, medical supplies and food. But it seems that
the public of it almost had it up with the
military involvement, where we feel we are not directly threatened, well,
we are fed up where war we were after a

(11:09):
long and badly fought war. On the other hand, and
this is one I'll probably lose a lot of people
because it isn't popular a political cloak to say this today.
When we withdrew our troops, we made a ceasefire, a
peace agreement, and it was based on supporting the non
communist forces Indo China on a basis of one for

(11:33):
one replacement every bullet they expanded a bullet to replace
it if the Communists violated the ceasefire. The Communists have
violated the ceasefire seventy two thousand times since it was instituted.
And we brought our men home.

Speaker 3 (11:47):
And I think for the United States to break its word,
we're in that agreement.

Speaker 1 (11:51):
We pledge something.

Speaker 3 (11:52):
And the Congress is now saying that the United States
reserves the right to just break its word and not
what are the rallies?

Speaker 1 (12:00):
Is every good at trust us?

Speaker 3 (12:02):
And I there's no question that backed by red China
and the Soviet Union. The communist forces in Vietnam and
Cambodia are on their way to take those over. They do,
of course, Llaos just automatically falls. Then they're on the
edge of Indonesia one hundred and forty million people, which
comes within fourteen miles that it's nearest point of the Philippines.

(12:23):
The Domino theory is in, and yes it is. And
I could see the United States one day being very,
very lonely. Now it's a very funny thing that the
same forces that want to cut our defense spending are
the same ones that want to increase all these social
services and the social tinkering and experimenting that hasn't worked,

(12:45):
And every time it doesn't work, they just impose a
more expensive program on top of it. I think the
American people, if they really look at all the facts, Yes,
we want fiscal responsibility, but I think we also want
a country that is strong enough at all times that
we can say, to any adventurous guys over there on
the other side of the water, you better look twice, brother,

(13:07):
before you start getting rough. We can take care of ourselves.

Speaker 2 (13:16):
Who said, as you said, even before you made the
statement that would probably get mixed for your reaction.

Speaker 3 (13:23):
Fun and I understand that people are and it's hard
to understand how maybe your interest is involved ten thousand
miles away, But Russia seems concerned that their interests extend
all the way to Cuba and to South America, to Chile,
into other countries of that kind. And they're the ones
that have said they're going to impose their way of

(13:43):
life and.

Speaker 1 (13:44):
The rest of the world. We haven't said we want
to do it to the rest of the world.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
Our Let me ask you one more question before you go.
Let us assume that there's a third party that neither
party seems to go.

Speaker 1 (13:56):
Yeah, you like this approach already.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
Huh, they're thrown into disarray, as they say, and a
third party is formed.

Speaker 1 (14:05):
You think that will ever happen in this country where a.

Speaker 2 (14:06):
Third party will be a major type of alternate to
what we have.

Speaker 3 (14:11):
Well, I'd still prefer to see a revitalization of the
two major parties we have because the two party system
has served us very well. Third parties have a notorious
way of not being successful. Now, the Republican Party, some
people say, well, that was a third party one hundred
years ago, when it started.

Speaker 1 (14:30):
It actually wasn't. It was a second party.

Speaker 3 (14:32):
The Whig Party had shrunk and shrunk, and then the
remainder of the Whig Party said to two other groups
that had formed parties, hey, want to get together with us.
They changed their name and call themselves the other party,
and so it was, in effect the Whigs just disappeared.

Speaker 1 (14:47):
It was this new second party. Maybe this is time.

Speaker 3 (14:51):
Maybe it's time for realignment between people who might be
find themselves in the wrong parties. Maybe there are some
people still voting a Democrat most of my life. I
became a Republican only not too many years ago, and
I had the pleasure of telling some of those people
that are saying the Republican Party ought to broaden its

(15:11):
base the other day that when I switched parties, I
didn't do it because the two parties were alike.

Speaker 1 (15:18):
I did it because they were different.

Speaker 3 (15:20):
And I think that the two parties ought to stand
up as to what they represent, what they stand for.
A third party, they have a way of electing the
wrong people. They because they simply divide themselves from the
other forces that feel the same way, and then the
other fella sneaks in and it could happen that neither

(15:42):
party would represent what the people want and finally the
people would take some action and do something about it.
But I'd rather devote our effort to see and if
we can't find out what the present two parties stand
for and which one we want.

Speaker 1 (15:55):
But you don't see yourself or do you see yourself
as maybe.

Speaker 2 (15:57):
As a part of that actively acting politically again, I
surely don't give up, do I?

Speaker 3 (16:02):
Yeah? You you, you sure sure don't. I wish I
could think of a good get off.

Speaker 1 (16:07):
I have Laurence Spivacs little questions.

Speaker 3 (16:08):
Yeah, Nancy, Nancy, you know, said to say hello tonight.
She thought it was great that we're both in town
at the same time.

Speaker 1 (16:16):
You too, I get that. Thanks for being with us.
Not really, it's a pleasure to see again.

Speaker 4 (16:29):
If you like the Michael Berry Show and podcast, please
tell one friend, and if you're so inclined, write a
nice review of our podcast. Comments, suggestions, questions, and interest
in being a corporate sponsor and partner can be communicated
directly to the show at our email address, Michael at

(16:50):
Michael Berryshow dot com, or simply by clicking on our
website Michael Berryshow dot com. The Michael Berry Show and
Podcast is by Ramon Roeblis, The King of Ding. Executive
producer is Chad Nakanishi. Jim Mudd is the creative director.

(17:14):
Voices Jingles, Tomfoolery and Shenanigans are provided by Chance McLean.
Director of Research is Sandy Peterson. Emily Bull is our
assistant listener and superfan. Contributions are appreciated and often incorporated
into our production. Where possible, we give credit, where not,

(17:37):
we take all the credit for ourselves. God bless the
memory of Rush Limbaugh. Long live Elvis, be a simple
man like Leonard Skinnard told you, and God bless America. Finally,
if you know a veteran suffering from PTSD, call Camp
Hope at eight seven seven seven one PTSD and a

(18:02):
combat veteran will answer the phone to provide free counseling.