The Gutsiest Governor In America: LOWELL WEICKER

Q. In 1991, your first year in office, you established Connecticut’s first income tax, clashed with legislators by vetoing four attempts to overturn the levy, and in the process discovered that many residents hate you. Any regrets?

A. You have regrets when you have failed policies. My policy when I came in was no income tax, but that fell apart on the rocks of fiscal fact. Obviously I would have liked to have ended up the most popular guy in the state of Connecticut. For fiscal year 1993, I have proposed $1.1 billion in cuts from current services. But I think we took a very large step to becoming the most financially credible state in the union by reversing a decade of spend-it-but- don’t-pay-for -it policies as espoused by Presidents of the U.S.

Q. Well, a lot of people were offended by your swift turnaround on the tax issue. You opposed it when you ran for Governor.

A. In the campaign I made one statement over and over: You promise me no new problems, I’ll promise you no new taxes. During the campaign the estimates on the deficit ranged between $50 million and $100 million. When we closed our books in June 1991, the state had a $1 billion deficit. I would suggest to you that is a new problem.

Q. Were you surprised by all the anger about the new taxes?

A. No.

Q. But 40,000 people turned out at an antitax rally. When you ventured into the crowd, you were spat on and the state police had to hustle you away.

A. I was surprised only at the fact that given the facts, people just walk away from them. People said, “Well, I don’t care what we owe.” Some others went way beyond the bounds of polite discourse, but nobody’s knuckling under to them.

Q. But both of Connecticut’s U.S. Senators said they opposed the tax, even though it was a local issue.

A. They were covering their political buns.

Q. In the end, isn’t the electorate responsible for the sorry financial situation on both federal and state levels?

A. Of course they are. But they’ve been subjected to 12 years of the highest authority in the land saying you can spend it and you don’t have to pay for it. We can have wars, and we don’t have to tax for it. But now we have to take a look at the domestic devastation in the U.S. We have no financial credibility at all, and we’re going around the world begging for other nations to accommodate us. Why should they? This nation has turned its back on children, the disabled, the poor; it’s a horrible record out there. I’ve long said that if you want to cut through all the bullshit of politicians, take a look at a budget. It tells you exactly what your priorities are. We spent a lot on the military. Now it shouldn’t come as any mystery as to why we have difficulties given the budgets of the past 12 years.

Q. During the darkest days of the tax battle, did you have the urge to tell the state residents, “Oh, grow up”?

A. Well, I’ve made a couple of pointed remarks about that. But the facts are bad enough; I don’t really need to heap on much rhetoric. But people really ought to start voting in this society and stop grumbling, see the facts as they are.

Q. What should the Federal Government do to help states like yours?

A. Assist with those elements of society that are in need of help way beyond anything the states can deliver. The Federal Government has an important role to play in programs for the disabled, special education, enrichment programs like Head Start. Ronald Reagan and ((former Education Secretary William)) Bennett used to really piss me off when they said they wanted to “get the Federal Government out of education,” as if the Federal Government were in education. Ninety percent of the dollars for education are state and local. But that final 10% is crucial, because some programs have no political constituency.

Q. What other programs should be funded?

A. The same holds true of health care. When a mother gets prenatal care from the community health-care center and has a normal-birth-weight baby, it costs about $4,000, compared with a low-birth-weight baby costing $100,000. The Federal Government created community health-care centers but backed off them.

Q. Is the state truly unable to cope with other problems?

A. There are cities in the U.S. — including a couple in Connecticut — that have infant-mortality rates that exceed those of Third World countries. Our state has as good a record of compassion as any as to how it regards the frail elements of society. And yet the Connecticut department of children and youth services — that’s our children — is under a court order to improve the quality of care for foster children. The department of correction is also under court order on prison overcrowding. . . I can go down the list. We used to exceed what the Federal Government and the Constitution demand. No longer. Why? Because you didn’t want to spend any money on it.

Q. A lot of people think states should severely cut welfare payments.

A. Let me start off with a very simple fact, which everybody seems to miss. The minority population of Connecticut is about 15%, roughly the same as in the U.S. How the hell does 15% of the population create a $1 billion deficit? A budget is us; it’s not “them.”

Q. Nevertheless, lawmakers in New Jersey, Michigan and California are in the process of restricting welfare payments, and have introduced new eligibility restrictions. Connecticut is on the verge of cutting adult general-assistance payments. It is a politically popular notion these days.

A. Everybody says it’s this welfare business that got us into this mess, defining welfare as the problem of blacks and Hispanics. The second biggest item in the Connecticut budget, around $700 million, is nursing-home care as required by Medicaid. When people talk welfare, what they don’t understand is you’re talking Medicaid. My state health commissioner says 80,000 children here are identified as having lead poisoning. This year’s budget includes an additional $500,000 in funds for lead-poisoning detection, prevention and treatment. Is that welfare, or is it 80,000 sick kids who are going to get sicker and cost our society for the rest of their lives because of mental incapacities?

Q. Do you think there’s anyone running for President who can shake the country out of its domestic doldrums?

A. Nope.

Q. How would you rate President Bush’s leadership?

A. A great success as far as foreign policy is concerned. And a total disaster for the rest. We don’t gain our strength from what we achieve worldwide; we get it from the way we build ourselves up as to the best educated, best housed, best in terms of health care. That’s the strength of the nation. And then if called upon to confront a crisis, we’re in a position to do so. Right now we’ve got a big name and a big reputation on what we’ve done in the outside world. But too many people have been left in the gutter, and the U.S. can’t survive that way.