he answers reporters questions about his campaign and the democratic party at a luncheon in washington, d.c., governor dukakis when the democratic nomination but was defeated george h.w. bush in the general election. >> i want to welcome you to our washington bureau and another in our series of newsmaker luncheon. our guest today is governor michael dukakis of massachusetts. a leading contender for his party's nomination for president. he is serving his third term on beacon hill. his first ended in defeat with massachusetts in deep trouble and known unflatteringly as taxachusetts.

he's widely regarded as a changed man. he was elected, reelected in 1986 and takes credit for what is widely heralded as an economic miracle in massachusetts. welcome, governor. mr. dukakis: good to be here. >> a recent gallup poll showed jesse jackson first among

democrats and you second with about 17% and showed none of the above with about 43%. why do you think none of the democratic contenders, yourself included has yet broken out of the pack and establish themselves? mr. let me sayakis: first to the poll takers and the publishers who pay them, they will all be absently after -- they will all be obsolete after iowa. people recognize certain people and don't recognize others. i'll think the situation is very different from what it has been in presidential election after presidential election. as a recently graduated law student going to the democratic national convention and hundreds of democrats were demonstrating to bring adelaide stevenson back for the third time he currently did not think john kennedy was presidential enough. i think what will happen, it was one of the nations leading pollsters that said this, this is a campaign in desperate need of voters. in about two months, the first real live of american citizens are going to go to caucuses in iowa and to the primaries in new

hampshire and we will get a sense of who is out there and once that happens, not only will the field change somewhat, but they will focus on the candidates. i am pleased at how our campaign has been going and we are well ahead of where i thought we would be in terms of organization and financing and relevant strength. but these are all things and until you are tested by voters, we won't know. i thought the nbc debate was not the easiest format in the world. i thought the democratic candidates generally did well. i think as time goes on, that will continue to be the case. sooner or later as voters make choices, 1, 2, 3 of us or so will begin to move ahead. >> that leads into a second question. gorbachev had the impression this week, huge impression, the question arises how does any future president present himself as the kind of man whose big

enough, tough enough and experienced enough to deal with this new star of the international horizon? mr. dukakis: i can't think of anyone better than a seasoned executive in nine years, going into his 10th, i think you have to prove yourself on the basis of your record and how you present yourself. i watched the full power of gorbachev, one of the few two hours of television i have watched and he strikes me as a

very tough and savvy guy who was under great pressure at home to deal with an economic situation that is turning around. it may well be that the evidence of this week helped him to do that and there's no question that's one of the reasons you hit the table and make the proposal he is making. secretary scholz this morning made the point that at least in his discussions and negotiations, there's an and or miss preoccupation with a serious domestic situation and i think somebody who recognizes that, who is tough and reasonably intelligent and savvy can go to work and take it vantage of what this week means and go beyond it. i think you have to prove yourself and that's what the campaign is all about. >> what is the biggest character building thing you have had to face? mr. dukakis: 1978. that was a personal rejection of mike dukakis by the people who

voted for me in the first place. people who i loved working with in a state that i loved. in circumstances where i thought we were making progress, that is unquestionably the toughest experience of my life. >> you chuckled when i said you came out a changed man. mr. dukakis: chastened as well as changed. >> what changed you? mr. dukakis: most of us in this business, if we have been reasonably successful, we are with people who haven't failed very often. that was the first time i had really failed. in something i loved doing and where i thought i had begun to make significant progress and real change.

what it meant was i had what i referred to as my involuntary sabbatical at the place across the river which was a wonderful place and where i worked hard. i rumored the faculty and taught a heavy load and did a lot of things. it was a great opportunity to not only get over the pain of the defeat the get a certain perspective on what i had been doing almost continuously for 18 years and to do so in an environment where as you teach, you are also reflecting on what you did. i had 110, 150 people in the class who wanted to know how you would have done it. i was reluctant to tell them and i would take five minutes at the end of the 90 and say this is what i would have done. it was a terrific opportunity to share experiences with people and public sector and work through some of the mistakes and failures and do so in a rare environment. >> you recommend a dose of failure as being a helpful thing?

mr. dukakis: i have a dear friend who is a former attorney general of massachusetts who lost more elections than i did before he was finally elected attorney general. he would say of losing builds character, he had all the character he needed. it's not something i recommend. it made me i think a better person, a more sensitive person, and a much more able public servant. there's no question in my mind i'm a much better governor today than i was when i started out. if i'm elected, i will be a better governor for having gone through the experience. i just don't want to do it again. >> you and bruce babbitt and other democrats seeking the nomination have made much of the

fact that you balanced state government budgets and administered a state in a way that is acclaimed. i had lunch with senator paul simon and he seemed to ridicule that notion. he said, kind of derisively, that the combined state budget of arizona and massachusetts would keep the pentagon running for three days. the point he was making is a much bigger arena and budget things are so much larger than that. mr. dukakis: but the principle is

the same. do you provide the kind of leadership that you provide in these circumstances? i have been putting my tent executive budget together. there may be fewer zeros at the end of the number but i have to confront the fact that my top budget guy came to me and said "sorry, as a result of the uncertainty in the economy, we have to revise our estimate down $280 million." proportionally, i don't know what that would work out too, but i have had to go back to the drawing board and say no to a lot of people and a lot of constituencies and priorities that i believe in very strongly because the reality is those revenue estimates have me down $200 million. fundamentally, you have to make some very tough choices and confront meeting unmet needs and a certain finite amount of resources. the problem in this town as people have had a difficult time doing it. i do not fault the congress because the legislative body has a role to play, but i have been a legislator and chief executive enemies issues of spending and taxing, if the chief executive does not leave, the result is chaos. that is what we have had here. that is what chief executives do. in my judgment, coming to the presidency in that area, there are other areas that can provide you with experience and so on. experiences having to step up to the plate and submit an executive budget that is a responsible document is an important strength that one has that one does not get from being a legislator. you are on the receiving end and i have been there as a legislator and its different. >> one thing the polls have shown is that the american people by and large believe republicans are better at economic issues and prosperity that democrats. as a democrat, you have shifted your message around a theme of the economy. how do you get around what appears to be a fairly part of

some obstacle? mr. dukakis: i'm not sure it runs very deep. if you look at the state and local level, you see democrats win year after year as governors, senators, local officials -- the democratic party is the majority party at the state of local level and has been for a long time. we have had a substantial congressional majority during the reagan years and now back in a majority position in the senate. i think it is because of the state and local level, there's a strong perception that democrats by and large are very good and effective on the issues of jobs and the economy. have to submit a budget that is an important document and that is an important strength of that one has. somebodyno reason why coming out doesn't have that kind of experience, it is different. >> there is one thing that the polls have shown over and over again and it is that the american people, i and large, republicans,for who believe more and prosperity than democrats.

as a democrat, you have attempted to shape the message around a theme regarding the economy. had you get around this obstacle? mr. dukakis: well, i am not sure it runs very deep. if you look at the state and local level, you see democrats win year after year as governors, senators, local officials -- the democratic party is the majority party at the state and local level and has been for a long time. we have had a substantial congressional majority during the reagan years and now back in a majority position in the senate. i think it is because of the state and local level, there's a strong perception that democrats

by and large are very good and effective on the issues of jobs and the economy. no question we have been having difficulty and the presidential elections are making that same message but if there's one strength i bring to this campaign, it is certainly some credibility and a track record of most issues. i think that is an important strength. it better be somebody who can go with real issues, fiscal issues, and that somebody where someone with balanced budgets who has made those tough choices really can present a strong face for the democratic party. i was not kidding at the nbc debate when i said i would love to get one of those republicans on the platform to talk about spending and the fiscal policies we have had. somebody who comes to that platform with a track record with a strength on fiscal and economic issues brings something

that is important, but there's no question the democratic party stock and trade historically since the new deal has been strength on the issues of jobs and the economy. when we lose that issue, we lose a lot and i hope we can get it back. >> the iran-contra affair has brought in the notion of the management style of president reagan and he has been accused of having a management file -- what is your credo? mr. dukakis: i have a reputation for being a strong manager and i delegate more than i used to. maybe the natural evolution of a management style that most of us have. when you are the new governor and anxious to put your imprint on the government right away, you tend to get deeply involved in lots of detail and as you

learn on the job, most of us learn on the job, if you are growing and evolving, you make progress and i do that a lot better these days. i'm a better listener than i used to be. i also know in nine years of experience that the caliber of the people you pick is extremely important. your ability to build a good relationship with your legislative body is a good part of what you do and i think we do these things a lot better. i think i do a better job finding the balance between the two.

>> would you schedule time on the white house tennis court? that was a famous jimmy carter -- >> jimmy carter is on one and of the spectrum and ronald reagan is on the other. mr. dukakis: there's not much doubt of who is in charge in the government. i spent or my time these days working with my legislature and building coalitions, doing those kinds of things, thinking more about what i'm saying and how i am saying it. my first year or two were two very difficult years. we had the highest unemployment rate in the country and there's a fair amount of learning when you are suddenly thrown into that. if i were to be president, it's something halfway between -- >> when president reagan was elected, a lot of people were surprised that his cabinet selections.

people say that he seemed like a nice guy, but this guy watts or fill in the blank, forget it. can you give us some idea of the types of people you would have in the white house in your administration? mr. dukakis: i can't name names because i haven't thought about it and i wouldn't anyway. this is not the time or the place -- >> doesn't that put voters in the place of being -- mr. dukakis: one of the things you get as an executive for nine years is you can take a look at the people i have selected to be of my cabinet, you will see a strong and able group of people. there, my thinking has evolved as well. i would be very unlikely to pick something for a top position in my staff or cabinet that did not have some public sector experience.

i want people who are skilled at working in the public sector. i have discovered every once in a while you don't find somebody who has no experience or who can be successful, but there's a special skill and ability to being effective in government and in a political environment. usually you have to learn it in a political environment. if i'm elected, you will see people picked who have had some substantial experience in the public sector, in politics, who can deal with the congress, deal with consistencies as well as having the brains and intellect to do the job. >> can i explore your mind a bit on nuclear strategy? it looks quite possible that an opportunity is coming up to

reduce offensive weapon things, perhaps not in reagan's term. what is your idea as to what would be a safe and appropriate measure to mix weapons where you don't increase vulnerability and increase the security and stability? mr. dukakis: i'm not sure i could spell it out in detail. the word of the day is some of those have now been reached and from what i have seen, i think they are quite reasonably appropriate. a 30% cut is an achievable cut for a major step in the right direction if they were successful and if the varick -- if the verification was working. i would start with the imf agreement and the 50% cut and pursue the cuts aggressively. the senate and the congress are going to insist on it and i think it's a real opportunity to do it. if gorbachev is serious about

much deeper cuts, i think that is an opportunity to pursue. i think the combination is a significant achievement since i don't think star wars is in our national interest. >> [indiscernible] mr. dukakis: we have an interesting situation where the democrats are going to be the president's allies. i'm proud of the fact all of the democratic candidate -- none of the democratic candidate's are supporting it and only one of the republicans is. the democratic majority in the

senate i think needs to be commended but shortly after the debate, i said that radical right has had a stranglehold on the republican party and it's one of the reasons only one of the six republicans support them. in any event, it is for the national interest. you have the responsibility to step up to the plate and support the president on the issue of this kind where he has done the right hand and i have no problem doing that.

that's the best policy and probably the best politics. >> you are perceived as a liberal and the south is a generally conservative region. why should the conservative south vote for a liberal governor from all places, massachusetts? mr. dukakis: the same reason they did in 1960. i think they saw in john kennedy someone who had a vision of the future and had the kind of strength and energy and leadership ability that they wanted in the white house. in states like georgia and john kennedy -- in states like georgia, he got a larger percent of the popular vote. the self is not a foreign

country. as i campaign across the south, i don't hear anything much different that i hear in other parts of the country. they are concerned about jobs, the quality of schools, the quality of the environment, decent health care at an affordable cost. they want a strong national defense but would like to see us work hard to build a more stable and peaceful world. one of the reasons i'm doing surprisingly well in the south these days are that these are issues that concern them and concern me.

i don't understand what the definition of liberal and conservative is in this country anymore. i've cut taxes five times and if i know one things -- if i know one thing it is you cannot believe strong economic future on fiscal sand. we have a lot of self-styled conservatives who could not balance a budget of life depended on it. whose liberal and whose conservative? i'm tough on violent crime. my state has had the biggest drop on violent crime except for one state. i'm also a big believer in the bill of rights. whose liberal and whose conservative? the rules of law is the most conservative principle in the history of mankind.

and a principle i believe in strongly. i don't see much evidence that this administration takes the rule of law very seriously. i don't know what these labels mean anymore. i think people in the south are concerned about some very basic issues that face this country. i'm going to do everything i can to campaign hard and successfully on those issues. >> [indiscernible] what would you have done as opposed to ronald reagan? how would you have handled it? mr. dukakis: i don't think it would have happened for one thing. these fiscal policies we have been implementing -- i don't want to say implementing -- it's just mind-boggling. this is not voodoo economics, it is wack oh economics. tire member the mid winter meeting in february of 1983. it was my first meeting of the governors when, with great effort, 49 of the 50 governors produced a rather detailed deficit reduction and it was rather detailed. we work hard and felt good about it and then as we normally do, we went to the white house to present our puzzles to the president. reagan was treasury secretary. with considerable pride, they presented this deficit reduction

resolution. after an hour and half, we came out scratching our heads. we could not believe it. this massive deficit ballooning up all over the place. here we were, 15 men and women sweating bullets to deal with severe fiscal problems and these folks in the white house just did not seem to have a clue as to why this was a fiscal policy -- >> [indiscernible] what bruce babbitt keeps trying to goad you into saying. mr. dukakis: i like bruce a lot but i also believe that we and i mean the american people camera -- the american people cannot let themselves get trapped. what david stockman told us they would do, which was to create such a fiscal mess that we would have to attack important method 40's. i won't let myself be put in that box. i don't think the american people ought to be put in that box. i will not balance the back of this on people who are on $9,000 or $10,000 social security. the social security trust fund ought to be taken out of the budget. this is a phony budget balancing exercise. the trust fund can only be used for social security. there's 20 of money in the trust fund or cost-of-living increases. trying to show a lower deficit by showing a cost of living is phony and bad policy.

i have said repeatedly and i will say it repeatedly in the campaign and afterwards, no serious candidate can rule out taxes. i have also said emphatically and will continue to say when there's $110 billion in uncollected taxes, the first and you ought to do is go collect everything you can of that 110 billion dollars. if you need additional taxes, you ask for additional taxes.

i think that's very straightforward and direct. i think it is unfair and unnecessary to be talking about eliminating or sharply reducing modest cost-of-living increases in an effort to in a phony way felons -- balance the budget. i won't spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a space plane that will make it possible for investment anchors to travel from new york to tokyo in hours. i think we can save billions by passing the welfare reform bill by having hundreds of thousands of families get off welfare. i think we can reduce farm subsidies over time, especially by developing new markets.

it is the domestic side of the budget that has taken a hit and i think most of the cutting will have to take place on the defense side. >> new trade figures are out today showing a record-setting trade deficit. what would you do to reduce the trade deficit? mr. dukakis: i would begin by getting the country's fiscal house in order. the reason we have a massive trade deficit is because the president was able to persuade congress you could raise defense spending and cut taxes and balance the budget. it was a fairy than and it's a fairytale now. it put a 40% penalty on what we produced and it gave every day we were producing outside of this country a discount.

it destroyed the industry and took over markets and they are not going to give up those markets. over time, there will be some reduction in that trade balance if only because american goods now relatively are a good deal cheaper on the international market than they used to be. in dollar terms, it's going to take a long time to do that. it has to begin with a clear

demonstration that we are prepared to get our fiscal house in order and get serious about economic policies that make us competitive again. this problem is not going to go away. >> this program coupled with tougher tax collection, the internal revenue service doesn't think of that on a federal level. what they argue is the state programs that have been modestly successful have picked up tax payers -- something like 97%. what is your response to that? mr. dukakis: my responses the irs says tax compliance is at 81%.

obviously, there's no way the state is going to pick up people who decide they are going to pay their state taxes but not at all taxes. we have a ceiling which the irs says we currently have at the national level, but if the irs says one in five taxpayers is not paying the taxes that he, she, or it does, that seems an enormous point of opportunity. their analysis was confirmed by a study which was almost exactly on target on the 20% noncompliance. that is a very, very big amount of money.

incidentally, there's a tremendous advantage to doing this for the state. for every five dollars in additional revenue, the states will get one, given the sharing and tax and ministration we do these days. with that increase in federal enforcement, we can give the states back what they lost on revenue share. i think we can do more than that, but the dorgan task force estimated $105 billion. >>'s figures were be well challenged. mr. dukakis: no amnesty, by the way. the figures we have on that, and they are about 10 billion, there was an analysis done by a couple

of caltech economists that argued simply by getting audit coverage you could raise close to $50 billion. that gives you a range. we will never know until the president comes to office and is serious about this. the irs is beginning to take revenue enforcement seriously, but this is a uniquely executive function. every once in a while, one of my running mates were rivals says if there was so much money, why wouldn't congress put it in the budget question mark because congress doesn't collect revenue. you can hardly blame congress for not putting it in its estimates, the first thing you do is go and collect your receivables. >> if you were president and the russians reneged on the inf agreement, what would you do?

mr. dukakis: you have to rethink your options and decide whether or not you want to reintroduce medium and short range missiles in europe or if there's something else you want to do. i think the russians are operating on good faith. every evidences they are and i think one of the reasons, maybe principal reason they are doing what a are doing is the soviet union is a society with very serious, far-reaching economic problems. all you evidence we have to date in the soviet union is that while gorbachev's initiatives internationally are well regarded, life for the average russian citizen hasn't changed

at all. that is why i said i thought he was a guy under very heavy domestic pressure to produce and one of the reasons i think they are likely to comply. if they don't, all bets are off. >> you seem to be advocating you were [indiscernible] mr. dukakis: one of the most popular things i have done my governorship is revenue enforcement. vast majority of americans pay their taxes, pay them on time. it's usually taken out of our paycheck and they don't like the notion someone is getting away with murder. it's in the 90's in my polls in my state.

it's a very popular effort and -- this is an issue of basic fairness. why should the overwhelming majority of americans pay their taxes why -- while some people get away with murder? based on my experience, it's one of the most popular things i have done. the other side of this, and it is an important part of revenue enforcement, is treating honest taxpayers is valued customers, providing good taxpayer service. in my state, you get your refund nine days after you send your refund. no joke, nine days. i get letters from people for

the first time in my political career saying thank you for my refund. that is the way you encourage it. you answer the phone and try to provide taxpayer assistance. we have forms you can read and we have worked hard to develop those. >> do you think the irs will answer telephones? [laughter] mr. dukakis: you want to collect revenue and encourage voluntary compliance and make people feel good as you can help them to feel, where do we continue with a situation where the computers write-down and you can't read the forms? -- the computers breakdown and you can read the forms.

this is creating a system where you treat the taxpayers well and encourage voluntary compliance and actually increase compliance. you have to do with lots of his ability. i'm not kidding when i tell you this has been one of the most popular things i have done. if you ask mario cuomo -- not only that, you get a lot of people walking around unconscious for a long time. you give them an opportunity to finally fess up and get into the computer permanently. >> let's come back to nuclear strategy for a moment. there is a school of thought that one of the reasons that imf treaty was signed weekend in washington and we appear to be making the progress we appear to be making on long-range weapons is because president reagan has hung so tough on star wars. i heard you give away the store from the reagan point of view. you have said you are not for star wars, you don't think it's in the national interest. what's the bargaining chip? what's the incentive on the

soviet union to come to the table and make a deal with you as opposed to a president from him they are desperately trying to get something? mr. dukakis: a domestic situation which is very serious. the soviet union is going to be a second or third rate economic power they don't begin shifting resources away from their military. they are already in danger of heading in that direction, and i think what you have is a society in deep trouble and a new soviet leadership that understands that and is desperately trying to dig themselves out of this mess in a way which may or may not succeed. i don't know how you continue with the heavy-handed economic planning that society has and at

the same time, move toward a price system. they will have to decide to take some unemployment and some of the frictions of a free and more open economy. i'm sure you have to put up with, but you have to assume it's going to be part of a much more open economic system. that, i think has been the most powerful incentive to get to the table and stay there. i don't know whether gorbachev believes what he says, but if he says a strategic weapons reduction agreement is in hand, if this united states is prepared to abide i the abm treaty interpretation, then i assume the agreement would be in hand, so what's the need for a bargaining chip? >> a minute ago, you disputed whether the words of liberal and conservative meant anything.

this came out in the south a lot. let me read -- let me try to save a different way. in your administration, with the federal government take on more responsibilities or shed some its current response abilities? mr. dukakis: i think it depends. we showed some responsibilities and take on others. it would be a much more aggressive and activist economic leadership, but i don't think that requires the creation of another 75 bureaucracies in washington. there's a lot of exciting work going on with real private partnerships and people involved in the business community with junior's -- unions, mayors, and it's exciting to see that kind of thing go on all over the country. universities and colleges getting involved in all of this -- what is needed is a president who understands what is going on and who can build on that and provide some resources in congress and a lot of leadership to take advantage of what is a very exciting new era in

economic hardships all over the country. that is a much different attitude than we have today but it is not a heavy-handed leadership. it is a leadership that built on what is going on and places all over the state of texas, places where this is going on and very promising things. they are looking for some federal help and some leadership. >> about whether the government takes on more responsibilities were not? mr. dukakis: it all depends on the particular problem. i have become the first governor in the country to propose a plan for universal health care. is not a plan that is going to involve a state insurance company. it's a plan to use the existing

insurance mechanism and existing health care providers. we will require most employers -- most employers provide health care through the private sector and we will take care of what is already a hidden surtax in everyone's premium. we will take that and buy health insurance or prepaid care for those who are not employed. is that government taking on more responsibility, in some ways. on the other hand it will not mean the creation of vast bureaucracies, a kind of state run insurance fund. i do not know where you put that on the spectrum of more or less responsibility. viewrtainly reflects the , united states

the only onebe with no health care system. >> the other day a fellow democrat said none of you currently running could carry this out against bush or dole. he said in terms of stature or caliber none of you much -- matchup to dole or bush. that does not help the democratic cause in the south. what is your response? mr. dukakis: i think i can change his mind. >> how you do that? mr. dukakis: he and terry sanford were the young southern political leaders that were prepared to step up and support jack kennedy when no one thought he could win. and no one thought he could win at all in the south.

they were prepared to do that and did it, to their great credit. incumbent an republican vice president running it somebody in 1988 we won't persuade them to do the same. what you described sounds to me as regional warfare on the economic front. have theering will you federal government evening out this? if there's one thing that the massachusetts miracle is clearly demonstrated, it is that a combination of public resources and-initiative working together can make an enormous to of turning around depressed and declining regions. there has to be a very strong presidential leadership to make that work. before we end up with one state outbidding another by granting more and more concessions by

companies within this is not going to work. national leadership is required to not only make a sense of community in which we are all in this together, but in providing some federal resources fully to possible for us to health of those states, those regions, and those businesses who are prepared to invest and expand in those regions. in that sense what has happened in my state is quite encouraging. we had exactly the same situation in measure. we have been extremely seriously in helping depressed region of the state come back. >> into that of the disadvantage of another state. it might've been thought that we were doing that at the disadvantage of other regions. one of the test and challenges to a president or a governor is of and a a sense , so thatf community

not only massachusetts continues to work together, but there is a national commitment to help beaumont, texas at 14% and the rio grande valley at 21%. the iron range of northern has lost 10,000 jobs in eight years. that is part of what it means to build a strong country brief but is something the president can provide. i think i been able to do that successfully in my state rate and that is the kind of leadership that you provide if there's going to be a sense that special funds, special grants, special incentives have to be provided to encourage the seriously troubled regional economies. i think the president can do that i have seen it work. >> one last question and we will wrap this up. >> with your emphasis on the

massachusetts economy in your campaign, every time i play closes or something in massachusetts, it has the tendency or potential to be a big deal in the campaign. do you think that the massachusetts economy is weakening, and if it did with that here problem for you? mr. dukakis: obviously, one of the things i bring to campaign is a certain amount of experience and unfortunately successful in dealing with some very serious economic albums that can now be said of the parts of the country or dealing with it if you look at the beach i delivered and the other things i have been talking about, obviously dealing with these issues as national international issues, which they are. the same coveting my response abilities of governor very seriously. i'm working very hard to make sure that the kind of economic .uccesses continues

our unemployment rate last month was 2.7%. a serious labor shortage in many parts of the state which they wonderful problem to have. but it is serious and we have thousands and thousands of jobs going back in. my stateal thrust of of the state messages coming in january. we will try to reach out every last is an of the state that is not sharing in our economic success and provide training in day care and all the things required halt then become part of our success and be independent and self-sufficient. country no state in the that is better equipped to do that, i believe. we are going to work very hard to do it. every once in a while there's going to be a layoff or a plant closing. the thing that i think makes massachusetts different, and i hope these are policies which i can bring to the country as well is that we are one of the few states that has a comprehensive

closing law that provides notice to people before you throw them programhe street, and a to help them turn around and come back before they die, and a very strong and effective retraining program, which includes supplemental benefits and training for workers who regrettably in some cases to lose their jobs. most people will tell you is a real model for the country. hardll continue to work and build that economic strength , and that job is something that i and my people work at every day. we also know that and i dynamic economy, from time to time, or maybe not so dynamic economy, buyingugh people will be b chevrolet cars.

they have to sell them. quarter of a billion dollars and that plant, so i assume they intend to use it. there are lots of cars, and they cannot keep producing more. it will probably open in the spring. it is not the first time operations have been suspended. fortunately looking at it i cannot furniture -- as an economic future that is very strong, barring catastrophe. the thing that pleases me the most is that it is not economic success that is limited to boston. is the one just wonderful thing in the world would he go to a region that had 14 percent unemployment five years ago and see help wanted signs. that is not an accident. we worked very hard and turned

it around. a sense of pride in spirit and confidence about the future. it is terrific. i do not see any prospect that will not continue to do well. concerned about what i'm seeing around the country where you have states regions, communities that in some cases are dying. that is why i think it is possible to create this sense of real national community. at least i want to try. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. dukakis: appreciate it. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, wiich is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> this is hillary clinton. i want to thank you for letting me's being with you about an issue that is central to our

children's future and critical in our fight to restore this nation's economy. solving our nation's health-care crisis. >> there is no role model or cookbook for being first lady. every future is created day. it is not something that is out there waiting to happen to us. the future is something that we make. and i believe, that there is a good possibility that sometime in the next 20 years we will have a woman president. >> hillary clinton experienced many first as her role of first lady. she and husband president bill clinton at been political partner since law school. she has endured several scandals, including his impeachment as she considers a second bid for the white house. her story is still being written. hillary clinton tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. influence an image, examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their

influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama. onight at 8:00 p.m. eastern american history tv on c-span3. this year c-span is touring cities across the country, exploring american history. a look at our recent visit to see her use, new york. you're watching c-span three. american history tv. >>