提問者：副總統先生，在共和黨的初選辯論時，你說美國的許多無家可歸的人是精神病患者。根據政府的估計，這些無家可歸者在250,0003,000,000人之間，包括無家的工薪族和他們的孩子。你今天晚上承諾要對美國社會中無發言權的這部分人做些什么？

布什：我想讓《麥金尼法》得到全額撥款，那會對無家可歸者提供住房幫助。這位州長的夫人積極參與幫助無家可歸者的活動，但這不是政府行為，這些人只是對此充滿愛心并身體力行。政府有政府的責任，那就是給《麥金尼法》全額撥款。當然，《麥金尼法》也號召在某種情況下把一些閑置的軍營提供給無住房者居住，所以，我認為我們的做法是正確的。順便說一下，我認為這不是個民主黨的觀點，或共和黨的觀點，或自由的觀點，或保守的觀點，我看到了“群星燦爛”（譯者注：布什在競選中用“群星燦爛”贊賞美國社區組織對慈善事業的貢獻。他的原話是：I have spoken of a “thousand points of light” of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the nation, doing good.）在發揮作用。我認為《麥金尼法》需要財政支持，我希望國會給它全額撥款。他們為這個法案傾注了心血并做了大量工作，我們正在著手這項工作。

關于精神病，這個說法有些夸張了，我認為這些無家可歸者中大約有30%是精神病人。我們應回頭來反思一下，讓所有那些精神病人都出來是不是正確的舉措，也許我們需要做一些工作，讓精神病診所為他們提供幫助更好些。他們中間有很多精神病患者，我們必須照顧他們。但是，目前的工作就是為《麥金尼法》提供全額撥款。

杜卡基斯：那么，和美國3,700萬工薪族沒有醫療保險的政策一樣，這又是我和這位副總統的一個根本分歧。問題是，布什先生，你對中低收入家庭的經濟住房計劃削減了90%的經費，你是面對無家可歸的家庭那樣做的。十年前，生活在美國街道或大門旁的無家可歸者可沒有250萬或300萬人，我必須開始重新為美國的中低收入家庭建造、修繕住房，為那些期望某天買房的年輕夫婦家庭提供住房。在美國的一些社區，我們的孩子在自己長大的社區里支付不起房費，這是重大的錯誤。我認為住房合作社已經水到渠成，我們只需要選擇一個擔負住房責任的總統，一個有建設和修繕住房經驗的總統，一個理解為中低收入家庭、年輕夫婦家庭、首次購房者提供經濟住房是美國夢的重要組成部分的總統。

提問者：州長，你提到美國的住房夢，可這個夢對我們國家許多年輕人來說是不可能實現的。現在房價上漲，可聯邦政府的資助有限，你能給這些人一些具體承諾么？是不是我們命里注定是房客一族？

杜卡基斯：好的，我當然不希望這些年輕人永遠是房客，這也是我們優先處理的一個問題。布什先生談到價值觀，我同意他這一點。什么是我們的價值觀？難道不是為中低收入家庭提供住房么？難道不是讓年輕夫婦家庭、首次購房者有一天擁有自己的住房么？這是不是美國夢的組成部分？我認為是。你知道，在第二次世界大戰后，我們有數十萬退伍軍人（譯者注：GI是government issue 的縮寫，指現役軍人或退伍軍人）從戰場歸來，我們沒有袖手旁觀，我們出去為他們建造住房。解決住房問題是政府的責任，是房地產企業的責任，是銀行的責任，是房產律師的責任，是非贏利機構的責任，是州長、市長的責任。

現在，這就是我作為美國總統要展示的領導力，這不是對無住房者的小恩小惠，這是一個組織住房合作社的問題。我和銀行家、建筑商和開發商、房產律師、社區發展機構進行了交談，他們需要來自華盛頓的領導。華盛頓政府自己不能包辦這件事情，我們不應該對此抱有什么期望。但是州長愿意做，市長愿意做，建筑商和社區領導愿意做。它需要一些資金，我們應該準備提供那些資金。

布什先生想把數萬億美元投到“星球大戰”計劃上，這是我們必須做的選擇么？我們是把數萬億美元花到那個武器系統上，還是花在為美國家庭提供舒適的經濟住房上？顯而易見，住房問題和“星球大戰”至少同樣重要，甚至比“星球大戰”更重要，因為這對加強我們的經濟實力和未來發展是非常必要的。那么，我堅信這就是總統的信念，簡而言之，《麥金尼法》想做的事情還沒有做，我們需要一個在該問題上有領導力、有經驗的總統。從1989年1月份開始，我就要把住房問題作為首要工作列入議事議程。

布什：我認為這位州長是在玷污住房政策和無家可歸者，讓我們來談談住房究竟是怎么回事。當你和那些銀行家討論時，他們討論了當民主黨入主白宮后的收益率了么？在我宣誓就職前10天，收益率是21.5%，這么高的收益率如何給你們帶來更多的住房？房價上漲了。我現在為100多萬家庭提供幫助，我們可不做過去民主黨執政時期所做的事情，毫無計劃地生產磚瓦灰泥，你們到圣路易（譯者注：美國密蘇里州東部城市）看看他們那樣做的后果，那是錯誤的。我支持擁有房產，我想看到更多的證據，我想看到對這些項目的控制，我想降低收益率，現在已經降低了一半，可我們入主白宮時的收益率是什么樣子的？按照我控制財政赤字的政策，收益率還會大幅降低。但是，如果我們一味支出，這就會把房產市場炒熱，我們就會回到過去我和里根總統擺脫了的痛苦的日子。（選自《美國歷屆總統競選辯論精選》江西人民出版社，2006年4月）

附原文:
QUESTIONER: Mr. Vice President, in a debate during the Republican primaries, you said most of the nation’s homeless are suffering from mental illness. Estimates of the homeless range from a low of 250,000 by the government, to around three million, including working families and their children. What commitment are you willing to make tonight to this voiceless segment of our society?

BUSH: I want to see the McKinney Act fully funded. I believe that that would help in terms of shelter. The governor’s wife has been very active in the homeless. This isn’t government. These are people that care, that are trying to give of themselves. The government has a role. It is to fully fund the McKinney Act. There are certain army bases that the act calls for that can be used in certain cases to shelter people. And so I think that we’re on the right track. I don’t see this, incidentally, as a Democrat or a Republican or a liberal or conservative idea. I see an involvement by a “thousand points of light”. I see the funding that is required, and I hope the Congress will fully fund this bill. They gave it a great deal of conscience and a great deal of work. And we’re on the track on this one.

But look, mental, that was a little overstated it. I’d say around 30 percent. And I think maybe we could look back over our shoulders and wonder whether it was right to let all those mental patients out. Maybe we need to do a better job in mental clinics to help them. A lot of them are mentally sick. And we’ve got to attend to them. But my short range answer is fully fund that McKinney Act.

DUKAKIS: Well, this is another fundamental difference that I have with the vice president, just as I do in the case of health care for 37 million members of working families in this country who don’t have health insurance. The problem, Mr. Bush, is that you’ve cut back by 90 percent on our commitment to affordable housing for families of low and moderate income. And when you do that, you’ve had homeless families. We didn’t have two and a half million, or three million homeless people living on streets and in doorways in this country ten years ago. We’ve got to begin to get back to the business of building and rehabilitating housing for families of low and moderate income in this country; housing for young families that they can look forward some day to buy. We’ve got communities in this country increasingly where our own kids can’t afford to live in the communities that they grew up in. That’s an essential commitment. And I think the housing community is ready. But it’s going to take a president who’s committed to housing, who’s had experience in building and rehabilitating housing who understands that affordable housing for families of low and moderate income, for young families, first time home buyers, is an essential part of the American dream.

QUESTIONER: Governor, you’ve mentioned the American dream of home ownership, and it’s certainly become an impossible one for many of the young people of our nation. And yet in spite of your answer just a few minutes ago, what promise can you realistically hold out to these people that with the costs of housing going up, and with limited help available from Washington, are we destined to become a nation of renters?

DUKAKIS: Well, I certainly hope not. And it’s all a question of what our priorities are. Mr. Bush talked about values. I agree with him. What are our values? Isn’t providing housing for families of low and moderate income, isn’t it making possible for young families, first time home buyers to own their own home some day something that’s part of the American dream? I think so. You know, back after World War II when we had hundreds of thousands of GIs who came back from the war, we didn’t sit around. We went out and built housing. The government was very much involved; so was the housing industry; so was the banking industry; so were housing advocates; so were non-profit agencies; so were governors and mayors.

Now, that’s the kind of leadership that I want to provide as president of the United States. This isn’t a question of a little charity for the homeless. This is a question of organizing the housing community. I’ve talked to bankers and builders and developers, the housing advocates, community development agencies, and they want leadership from Washington. Washington, by itself, can’t do it all. We shouldn’t expect that. But governors are ready; mayors are ready; builders and community leaders are ready. It will require some funds. And we ought to be prepared to provide those funds.

Mr. Bush wants to spend billions and trillions on Star Wars. Well, that’s a choice we have to make, isn’t it? Do we spend money on that weapon system in the billions and trillions, or is providing some decent and affordable housing for families of this country something that is at least as important and probably more so. Because it’s so essential to our economic strength and to our future. Now, that’s the kind of presidency I believe in. And simply to say, well, the McKinney bill will do it just doesn’t do. We need a president who will lead on this issue, who has had experience on this issue. It’s the kind of priority that will be at the top of our list beginning in January of 1989.

BUSH: I think the governor is blurring housing and the homeless. Let’s talk about housing which the question was. When you talk to those bankers, did they discuss where interest rates were when your party controlled the White House? Ten days before I took the oath of office as president they were 21 and a half percent. Now, how does that grab you for increasing housing? Housing is up. We are serving a million more families now. But we’re not going to do it in that old Democratic, liberal way of trying to build more bricks and mortars. Go out and take a look at St. Louis at some of that effort. It is wrong. I favor home ownership. I want to see more vouchers. I want to see control of some of these projects, and I want to keep the interest rates down. They’re half, now of what they were when we came into office, and with my policy of getting this deficit under control, they’ll be a lot less. But if we spend and spend and spend, that is going to wrap up the housing market, and we’ll go right back to the days of the misery index and malaise that President Reagan and I have overcome.