"There's Been a Certain Liberation"

By Strobe Talbott, Michael Duffy, Dan Goodgame, George Bush

Still in his vice-presidential office in the White House West Wing, George Bush met last week with three TIME correspondents to explain how the budget crunch could slow down his "compassionate" initiatives. But Bush told Washington bureau chief Strobe Talbott and White House correspondents Michael Duffy and Dan Goodgame that he is "really looking forward to" spending time on diplomacy, including "the Soviet account." Excerpts:

Q. Are you more aware now of the fiscal constraints you face than you were before the election?

A. Yes. I've started going into the numbers finally, and they're enormous. I've been sitting down with ((Budget Director-designate Richard)) Darman, going over the realities of the budget that we face. There are constrained resources. Those who want to measure your concern or compassion purely by federal money may find some disappointment.

Q. During your campaign, you promised not only no new taxes but also to protect Social Security, major weapons programs, farm subsidies. If you don't break the tax promise, do you feel you may have to give a little on some of those programs?

A. I think we'll maybe stretch out ((payment for programs over several years)), but I'm not going to give up on them. I have to set priorities, though. I'd like to start moving forward on the main ones, even if it's not going to be the total funding that I'd like to bring about.

Q. So some of the kinder, gentler items like the child-care tax credit may have to wait?

A. They may. We're just in the process of sorting all of this out.

Q. Darman has discussed some options for raising revenue short of higher income taxes. Do you construe such changes as breaking your "no new taxes" campaign promise?

A. I'm going to hold the line on taxes.

Q. But how do you define taxes?

A. Go back and do a lot of research on the campaign. Go back and check. You know, Dukakis got on me on ((the Administration's surcharge for)) catastrophic illness, claiming that was a tax. I said, "I don't think it was a tax." That might be a helpful guide ((to what I mean)).

Q. So things like means testing of Social Security benefits for wealthy people might not be a tax?

A. I'm not prepared to say what we're going to do or not going to do. We'll negotiate with Congress. Maybe some members would want to take the lead on this, but I haven't seen one. I don't intend to take the lead on that.

Q. A couple of truisms have been established about George Bush since the election. One is that you've been liberated, that you're no longer the shackled George Bush of the vice presidency who was unable to speak his mind. Is that correct?

A. Yes . . . There's been a certain liberation. I like to think there has been, maybe, an emergence on my part and, maybe, a little more perception on ((the press's part)). You know, when you're calling the shots, it's easier. If I say something ((as Vice President)) that just hurts me, that's one thing. If I say something that might hurt the President, I would be very much concerned about that. That made me very cautious, because I didn't want to do that when I was Vice President.

I think we would all agree I took a lot of shots for not speaking up in Cabinet meetings, for example. Some erroneously concluded that meant I didn't have any ideas or I didn't have any opinions.

Q. Many also see the re-emergence of George Bush as a card-carrying moderate. Is there any truth to that label?

A. No. When Congress sees my budget, they wouldn't accuse me of such a thing.

Q. Is there anything you plan to do to make the vice presidency less constraining for Dan Quayle?

A. No, the same kind of constraint ((long pause)) and the same kind of fulfillment.

Q. How are you going to meet the Gorbachev challenge personally?

A. I don't view it as the Gorbachev challenge. I think if we make the mistake of assessing our relationship with the Soviet Union in terms of a personality, we'll live to regret it. You've got to make a broader assessment of Soviet intention that transcends any individual. I don't think you can shape the foreign policy of the United States based on the leader of the moment.

What I will do is to prudently review everything as I come to an opinion as to where we ought to be going. If Gorbachev remains as strong and in charge and as powerful as he is today, I think there's a tremendous opportunity. We have very good people to do it, experienced people. There's not going to be any foot-dragging mode.

I had an opportunity to speak to ((Gorbachev)) privately on his last visit. And I made clear in the meeting with President Reagan that this mode that some think is a little excessively cautious is a good thing for U.S.-Soviet relations. I want to be able to deliver on what I propose, and I want to propose something that's prudent.