Bush Pledges Minimal Controls on the Private-Sector Economy

Vice President George Bush says he has little respect for those who enter the business world with a single-minded quest for wealth. “Fast-buck stuff,” he calls it derisively.

But feeling this way, and feeling that a President must step in and do something about it, are different things, Bush says. And he feels likewise about other areas of the economy.

In an interview with The Times, the vice president and GOP presidential nominee-apparent said he would resist impulses or demands to bring to bear the weight of the presidency to manage any number of hot spots in the private-sector economy--whether ethical misbehavior on Wall Street, corporate “merger mania,” or the increasing tide of foreign investment in the United States.

‘Hands-On Style’

As he has before, Bush again pledged to personally sit at the table with congressional leaders and negotiate details of a deficit-reduction plan if he is elected. This is part of what he describes as his “hands-on” style.

But when it comes to managing the private sector, Bush promised the loosest of hands on the tiller.

He summed up his approach to a healthy economy this way: “Letting individuals have as much leeway and flexibility as possible . . . as free a market as possible.”

Such views are not wholly surprising for a Republican with eight years on the ticket with Ronald Reagan. But they are certain to be lively elements of a general election campaign.

Through the primaries, even as news headlines and the attention of commentators dwelt on “merger mania” and “greed on Wall Street,” Republican candidates found little ground for disagreement among themselves, and their views on such subjects thus went largely unexplored.

Now that Bush’s nomination seems just a matter of time, he is preparing to debate how the next President should--or should not--tackle these economic controversies.

Relaxed in a large upholstered chair aboard Air Force Two, chewing grapes, Bush agreed that some of the best young talents from American universities enter the business world with only one thing on their mind.

“This fast-buck stuff. . . . I don’t have great respect for just going out and stacking up money in life. But this doesn’t mean I should intervene if I was President and try to draw a line,” he said.

At another point, he added: “I don’t know what federal role there is in determining whether you should go in and aggressively seek to pile up a lot of money. People are motivated by what motivates them. The government, it doesn’t seem to me, should find a legislative way to channel a person’s energies into something that could be more productive.”

Wall Street Controversy

Corporate takeovers, corporate reorganizations to protect against takeover, arbitragers who speculate on takeovers, golden parachutes to protect management--all had become the celebrated and controversial focus of Wall Street economic activity in recent years. Until last year’s Oct. 19 crash.

But already there are signs of a resurgence of the corporate raider.

Bush said this is evidence that some people made too much of the crash in the first place.

“In some quarters there was an overreaction to the market decline and I think we would agree many were saying it symbolized a total lack of confidence in the U.S. economy--that it was going to get worse before it gets better . . . and people were out there saying the President ought to do more in the market now.”

Bush said he was satisfied the President proved the contrary.

The vice president said he saw some merit to arguments that corporate raiders were distracting businesses from more productive enterprise. But even so, he said, he was extremely leery of federal intrusion.

“I worry about the takeover that is so expensive that a company in a fundamental resources business can no longer do its business because it has to pay off debt, newly acquired debt,” he explained.

“But having said that,” he continued, “I’d still be very wary of regulations because I want the markets as free as possible.”

Bush said the argument advanced by raiders that they keep business management lean, efficient and on its toes “has some validity to me.”

Perhaps because he is coming from an Administration where several top figures have been either convicted, indicted or investigated, Bush has taken to emphasizing his own personal commitment to “ethics” as he campaigns. He frequently, and in general terms, derides the ethics of Wall Street.

Setting Example

Asked what federal role he envisioned to respond, however, Bush demurred and said it was a matter of setting an example.

“You’ve got all sorts of ethics boards. Corporate America is getting a lot more ethics-conscious. So I don’t think the President has to start telling these corporations and individuals on Wall Street laws are going to be passed to control the ethics at the stock market or in corporate America.

“It almost bears comparison with the drug message: The President is not going to be able to solve all aspects of narcotics. But in exhorting the highest possible standards--urging them--you’re doing something important. And that’s what I would do.”

Increasing foreign investment in the United States is another of those areas that is generating controversy. Foreigners and foreign governments, taking advantage of favorable exchange rates and seeking entry into domestic markets, are investing as never before. According to some estimates, foreigners now control 40% of the pharmaceutical industry and have more than doubled their investments in manufacturing in general since 1980.

“The only place it would worry me is if it got into national security areas. Because you need foreign investment. You’ve got a tremendous economy, several trillion dollars. You’ve got a big debt. We need foreign investments in this country. . . . I’d like to break down the barriers to foreign investment.”

New Tax Figures

During the interview, Bush made crystal clear, however, that he does not intend to play a defensive game on the economy during the campaign. He reached into his pocket for some new IRS figures that he said “I can’t wait to use” against the Democrats.

The preliminary report on tax collections shows that wealthy Americans are paying an increasing share of the tax burden and lower-income persons a declining share. The figures show that the top 1% of taxpayers accounted for 26% of the payments in 1986, up from 18% in 1981. At the same time, taxes on the lower one-half of the taxpayers fell from 7.5% to 6.4%

“It kind of flies in the face of the argument that tax reductions have benefited the wealthy and hurt the poor. . . . I can’t wait to unleash these at the debates (with Democrats).”