Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file includes transcripts of Ronald Reagan speeches and Meet the Press interviews.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1675757
label
Transcripts (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1675757
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Transcripts (1)
description
This file includes transcripts of Ronald Reagan speeches and Meet the Press interviews.
citationUrl
collections
President Ford Committee Records
Peter Kaye's Subject Files
subjects
Presidential campaign, 1976
Speeches, addresses, etc.
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1675757
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-02-29
month
2
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-09-01
month
9
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
dfed215fa7cefd2e
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box G07, folder "Transcripts (1)" of the President
Ford Committee Campaign Records at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
LET THE PEOPLE RULE
(Remarks by the Honorable Ronald Reagan, former
Governor of California, to the Executive Club of
Chicago, McConnick Place, Chicago, Illinois,
Friday, September 25, 1975.)
In his first Inaugural, nearly a century and three-quarters ago,
President Themas Jefferson defined the aims of his administration: "A
wise and frugal government", he said, "which shall restrain men from
injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
mouth of labor the bread it has earned - - This is the sum of good
government.
11
Jefferson believed the people were the best agents of their own
destinies, and that the task of government was not to direct the people
but to create an environment of ordered freedom in which the people could
pursue those destinies in their own way. But he also knew that from the
very beginning the tendency of government has been to become player as
well as umpire. "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of men in
every government that has ever existed under the sun?" Jefferson asked.
"The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body."
If Jefferson could return today, I doubt that he would be surprised
either at what has happened in America, or at the result. When a nation
loses its desire or ability to restrain the growth and concentration of
power, the floodgates are open and the results are predictable.
Fiscal Year 1976 ends four days before our bicentennial. In this
fiscal year, government at all levels will absorb 37 percent of the
Gross National Product and 44 percent of our total personal income. We
destroy the value of our pensions and savings with an inflation rate that
soars to 12 percent a year, at the same time we suffer unemployment rates
of eight and nine percent.
Every minute I speak to you the Federal Government spends another
$700,000. I'd stop talking if they'd stop spending, but Washington is
spending a billion dollars every day and goes into debt a billion and a
third dollars every week. I don't think it would surprise Jefferson to
learn that real spendable weekly income of the average American worker is
lower than it was a decade ago - - even though in these 10 years that
same worker has increased his productivity 23 percent. AS Jefferson said,
that is taking from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
If government continues to take that bread for the next 25 years
at
the same rate of increase it has in the last 40, the percent of GNP governe
FORD
ment consumes will be 66 percent - - two-thirds of all our output - -
by the and of this century. A single proposal now before Congress, Senator
Kennedy's national health insurance plan, would push the share of GNP
LIBRARY
consumed by government from 37 to more than 45 percent, all by itself.
This absorption of revenue by all levels of government, the alarming
rate of inflation, and the rising toll of unemployment all stem from a
single source: The belief that government, particularly the Federal
Covernment, has the answer to our ills, and that the proper method of
dealing with social problems is to transfer power from the private to the
public sector, and within the public sector from state and local govern-
ments to the ultimate power center in Washington.
This collectivist, centralizing approach, whatever name or party
label it wears, has created our economic problems. By taxing and consuming
an over-greater share of the national wealth, it has imposed an intolerable
burden of taxation on American citizens. By spending above and beyond
even this level of taxation, it has created the horrendous inflation of
the past decade. And by saddling our economy with an ever-greater burden
of controls and regulations, it has generated countless economic problems,
from the raising of consumer prices to the destruction of jobs, to choking
off vital supplies of food and energy.
As if that were not enough, the crushing weight of central government
has distorted our federal system and altered the relationship between the
levels of government, threatening the freedom of -individuals and families.
The states and local communities have been demeaned into little more than
administrative districts, bureaucratic subdivisions of Big Brother govern-
ment in Washington, with programs, spending priorities, and tax policies
badly warped or dictated by federal overseers. Thousands of towns and
neighborhoods have seen their peace disturbed by bureaucrats and social
planners, through busing, questionable education programs, and attacks on
family unity. Even SO liberal an observer as Richard Goodwin could identify
what he correctly called "the most troubling political fact of our age:
that the growth in central power has been accompanied by a swift and con-
tinual diminution in the significance of the individual citizen, transform-
ing him from a wielder into an object of authority."
It isn't good enough to approach this tangle of confusion by saying
we will try to make it more efficient or "responsive," or modify an aspect
here or there, or do a little less of all these objectionable things than
will the Washington bureaucrats and those who support them. This may have
worked in the past, but not any longer. The problem must be attacked at
its source. All Americans must be rallied to preserve the good things that
remain in our society and to restore those good things that have been lost.
We can and we must reverse the flow of power to Washington; not
simply slow it, or paper over the problem with attractive phrases or cos-
metic tinkering. This would give the appearance of change but leave the
basic machinery untouched. In fact, it reminds me of a short fable of
Tolstoy's: "I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me,
and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to
lighten his load by all possible means - - except by getting off his back."
What I propose is nothing less than a 'systematic transfer of author
and resources to the states - - a program of creative federalism for
America's third century.
GERALD
LIBRAPA
3
Federal authority has clearly failed to do the job. Indeed, it has
created more problems in welfare, education, housing, food stamps, Medicaid,
community and regional development, and revenue sharing, to name a few.
The sums involved and the potential savings to the taxpayer are large.
Transfer of authority in whole or part in all these areas would reduce the
outlay of the Federal Covernment by more than $90 billion, using the spend-
ing levels of Fiscal 1976.
With such a savings, it would be possible to balance the Federal
budget, make an initial five-billion-dollar payment on the national debt,
and cut the Federal personal income tax burden of every American by an
average of 23 percent. By taking such a step we could quickly liberate.
much of our economy and political system from the dead hand of Federal
interference, with beneficial impact on every aspect of our daily lives.
Not included in such a transfer would be those functions of govern-
ment which are national rather than local in nature, and others which are
handled through trust arrangements outside the general revenue structure.
In addition to national defénse and space, some of these areas are Social
Security, Medicare, and other old-age programs; enforcement of Federal law;
veterans affairs; some aspects of agriculture, energy, transportation, and
environment; TVA and other multi-state public-works projects; and certain
types of research.
Few would want to end the Federal Government's role as a setter of
national goals and standards. And no one would want to rule cut a role
for Washington in those few areas where its influence has been important
and benign; crash efforts like the Manhattan and Apollo projects, and
massive self-liquidating programs like the Homestead Act and the land-grant
colleges Certainly the Federal Government must take an active role in
assuring this nation an adequate supply of energy.
Turning back these programs would not end the process of reform in
Washington. In the immediate years ahead:
--- In our regulatory agencies dealing with non-monopoly industries,
we must set a date certain for an end to Federal price fixing and
an end to all Federal restrictions on entry.
-- We must take steps to keep the spending and borrowing of off-
budget agencies under control.
-- We must reform our major trust funds to ensure solvency and
accountability. Particularly important is the need to save
Social Security from the colossal debt that threatens the
future well-being of millions of Americans, even while it
overtaxes our workers at a growing and exorbitant rate.
-- We must put a statutory limit on the growth of our money
supply, so that growth does not exceed the gain in productivity.
Only in this way can we be sure of returning to a strong dollar
FORD
-- And we must radically simplify our method of tax collection,
so that every American can fill out his return in a matter of
minutes without legal help. Genuine tax reform would also make
GORALD
LIBRARY
it more rewarding to save than to borrow, and encourage a wider
diffusion of ownership to America's workers.
In the months ahead, T will say more on each of these-major areas of
transfer of Federal programs to the states would mean.
It would be a giant step toward solving the problem of inflation that
is sapping the strength of our economy and cheating American wage-earners
and pensioners. There is no mystery about inflation. It is caused by
spending money that has not yet been earned. Without the enomous pressure
of a 60-to-80-billion-dollar deficit, the Federal Reserve System would have
no mandate to pump too many dollars into the economy - - which is the
ultimate cause of inflation. The Federal deficit provides the chief motive
for the debauching of our dollar.
Add to this the gain in purchasing power that will accrue to all
Americans from a sharp reduction in Federal income taxes - - the biggest
spending burden the average family must absorb. Indeed, taxes of all kinds
are a bigger family expense item than food, shelter and clothing combined.
Last year, according to a study by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress,
income taxes at all levels rose by 26.5 percent -- the largest increase of
any item in the family budget. By far the greatest part of this growing
load of taxation is the Federal personal income tax, whose sharper
as inflation pushes taxpayers into higher surtax brackets. Covernment
doesn't have to raise the tax rate to profit by inflation. The progressive
income tax is based on the number of dollars earned, not their purchasing
power; thus a cost-of-living pay increase results in a tax increase.
An immediate tax cut, some of which might have to be balanced by
tax rises in the states, would be only the beginning of the savings that
could be achieved. When we begin making payments on the national debt,
we will also begin making further reductions in the tax burden. American
taxpayers are currently being billed an average of one billion dollars
every ten days just to pay interest on the debt. As the debt is retired,
we can progressively reduce the level of taxation required for interest
payments. Senator Hubert Humphrey, in excusing government spending, once
said, "A billion here and a billion there -- it adds up. Well, it can
work the other way 'round.
With the spending reduction I propose, the Federal Government will no
longer be crowding capital markets to finance its deficits. That will make
available billions in new capital for private investment, housing starts,
and job creation -- and the interest rates will come down.
The transfer I propose does not mean that the specific programs in
question are not worthwhile. Many are, though in my opinion many others
are not. But the point is that all these programs are losing effectiveness
because of the Federal Government's pre-emption of levels of government
closer to the problems, coupled with Washington's ability to complicate
everything it touches. The decision as to whether programs are or are not
worthwhile -- and whether to continue or cancel -- will be placed where it
rightfully belongs: with the people of our states.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
5
It is theoretically possible that local governments will simply
duplicate programs as they now exist, and if that is what the people in
the states desire, that is exactly what will and should occur. Certainly
the bureaucrats who run them now will be available, for they will have no
further work in Washington.
I think it likely, however, that some of the more worthwhile programs
will be retained essentially as they are, many will be dropped, and others
may be modified. But all the surviving programs will be run at much lower
cost than is presently the case.
The present system is geared for maximum expenditure and minimum
responsibility. There is no better way to promote the lavish outlay of
tax money than to transfer program and funding authority away from state
and local governments to the Federal level. This ensures that recipients of
aid will have every reason to spend and none to conserve. They can get
political credit for spending freely, but don't have to take the heat for
imposing the taxes. The French economist Bastiat, 100 years ago, said,
"Public funds seemingly belong to no one and the temptation to-bestow them
on someone is irresistible.
"
So long as the system continues to function on this basis, we are going
to see expenditures at every level of government soar out of sight. The
object is to reverse this: to tie spending and taxing functions together
wherever feasible, SO that those who have the pleasure of giving away tax
dollars will also have the pain of raising them. At the same time we can
sort out which functions of government are best performed at each level.
And that process, I hope, would be going on between each state and its local
governments at the same time.
The transfer of spending authority to Washington blurs the difference
between wasteful states and prudent ones and this too destroys incentives
toward economy. If a state spends itself into bankruptcy on welfare, under
the present system it is bailed out when Washington picks up the tab;
indeed, many Federal programs are geared toward encouraging this kind of
behavior, bestowing greater aid in proportion to spending levels imposed by
the states. The way to get more is to spend more.
By the same token, efforts at state economy are punished under the
present system. A state that keeps its fiscal house in order and, for
example, prevents the welfare problem from getting out of hand will find it
derives no benefits from its action. It will discover, as we did in
California, that efforts to impose some common sense in welfare will run
afoul of Federal bureaucrats and guidelines. Its citizens will be called
upon to pay in Federal taxes and inflation for other states that don't
curb their spending.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
6
Another benefit of localizing these programs is that state and local
governments are more accessible to the local citizen, and in most cases
prevented by statute from going in debt. When tax increases are proposed
in state assemblies and city councils, the average citizen is better able
to resist and to make his influence felt. This, plus the ban on local
deficits, tends to put an effective lid on spending.
Federal financing is the spenders' method of getting around these
restraints. Taxes are imposed at a level where the government is far away
and inaccessible to the average citizen. The connection between big spending
and high taxes is hidden, and the ability to run up deficits and print more
money makes efforts to control the problem through the taxing side alone
almost meaningless.
The proposals I have outlined will bring howls of pain from those who
are benefiting from the present system, and from many more who think they
are. But as another Frenchman, Thiers, said, "For those who govern, the
first thing required is indifference to newspapers." We must turn a deaf
ear to the screams of the outraged if this nation and this way of life are
to survive. The simple fact is the producing class in this nation is being
drained of its substance by the non-producers --- the taxpayers are being
victimized by the tax consumers. We may be sure that those in Washington
and elsewhere whose life style depends on consuming other people's earnings
while working people struggle to make ends meet, will fight to the last
limousine and curpeted anteroom.
But if we ignore the taxers and the centralizers and do the things I
know we can do, we'll de more than survive: we will inaugurate a new era of
American diversity.
Take education. The United States built the greatest system of public
education the world has ever known -- not at the Federal level, not even at
the state level, but at the level of the local school district. Until a
few years ago, the people had direct control over their schools -- how much
to spend, what kind of courses to offer, whom to hire. Is it an accident
that as this local control gave way to funding and control at the Federal
and state level, reading and other test scores have declined? It has
just recently been announced that scores in college entrance exams have been
nose-diving for 10 years and this year took the greatest plunge of all. And
yet, spending on education in that same period has been sky-rocketing. The
truth is, a good education depends far more on local control than on the
amount of money spent.
There is no question but that under local agencies certain abuses took
place and certainly they needed to be cured --- sometimes by Federal inter-
vention. This was certainly true of racial segregation in the South. But
BERALD FORD LIBRAPT
now that according to some estimates the South is the most integrated area
of the country -- now that there is an ongoing enforcement structure in
the Department of Justice --- is there any further reason to deny local
control and funding of our schools?
Or take welfare. For years, the fashionable voices have been calling
for a Federal takeover of welfare. (Well, the old-age portions of welfare
have been taken over -- and in the first 18 months, more than a billion
dollars have been paid out by mistake!) If there is one area of social
policy that should be at the most local level of government possible, it is
welfare. It should not be nationalized -- it should is localized. If
Joe Doaks is using his welfare money to go down to the pool hall and drink
beer and gamble, and the people on his block are paying the bill, Joe is
apt to undergo a change in his life style. This is an example of why our
task force in California found that the smaller and more local government
becomes, the less it costs. The more government is localized, the less
you will see a situation like the one in Massachusetts, where a mother of
six was receiving, through cash and services, the equivalent of a $20,000
earned income. That is twice the average family income of the state.
The truth is that people all over America have been thinking about all
of these problems for years. This country is bursting with ideas and
creativity, but a government run by bureaucrats in Washington has no way to
respond. If we send the power back to the states and localities, we'll
find out how to improve education, because some districts are going to
succeed with same ideas and other districts are going to fail with others,
and the word will spread like wildfire. The more we let the people decide,
the more we'll find out about what policies work and what policies don't
work. Successful programs and good local governments will attract bright
people like magnets, because the genius of federalism is that people can
vote with their feet. If local or state governments grow tyrannical and
costly, the people will move. If the Federal Government is the villain, there
is no escape.
I am calling also for an end to giantism, for a return to the human scale --
the scale that human beings can understand and cope with; the scale of the
local fraternal lodge, the church congregation, the block club, the farm
bureau. It is the locally-owned factory, the small businessran who personally
deals with his customers and stands behind his product, the farm and consumer
cooperative, the town or neighborhood bank that invests in the community,
the union local.
In government, the human scale is the town council, the board of select-
men, and the precinct captain.
It is this activity on a small, human scale that creates the fabric of
community, a framework for the creation of abundance and liberty. The human
scale nurtures standards of right behavior, a prevailing ethic of what is
right and what is wrong, acceptable and unacceptable.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
8
Three and a half centuries ago, peoples from across the sea began
to cross to this great land, searching for freedom and a sense of
community they were losing at home. The trickle became a flood, and we
spread across a vast, virtually unpeopled continent and caused it to bloom
with homesteads, villages, cities, great transportation systems, all the
emblems of prosperity and success. And we did this without urban renewal
or an area redevelopment plan. We became the most productive people in the
history of the world.
Two hundred years ago, when this process was just beginning, we
rebelled when, in our eyes, a mother country turned into a foreign power.
We rebelled not to overturn but to preserve what we had, and to keep alive
the chance of doing more. We established a republic, because the meaning
of a republic is that real leadership comes not from the rulers but from
the people, that more happens in a state where people are the sculptors
and not the clay.
We are losing that chance today, and we know we are losing it. Two
hundred years ago it was London that turned into a foreign power, Today,
and it is a sad thing to say, it is Washington. The coils woven in that
city are entrapping us all, and, as with the Gordian knot, we cannot untie
it, we must cut it with one blow of the sword.
In one reference book, cutting the Gordian knot is defined as follows:
"to solve a perplexing problem by a single bold action." The Cordian knot
of antiquity was in Phrygia, and it was Alexander the Great who cut it,
thereby, according to the legend, assuring the conquest of Persia.
Today, the Gordian knot is in Washington, and the stakes are even
higher. But this is a republic, and we have no king to cut it, only we
the people, and our sword has been beaten into ballot boxes. What applies
to the role of government applies equally to the means of changing that
role: leadership is necessary, but even more necessary is popular choice.
The anonymous sage who defined leadership must have lived in a republic,
for he said, "He is not the best statesman who is the greatest doer, but
he who sets others doing with the greatest success."
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Western States
Reston TAX
Catter
We must reaffirm our major trust funds to insure solvency
and the countability, particularly important is the need
to save social security from the collossal debt that threatens
the future well being of millions of Americans, even while it
overtaxes our workers at a growing and exhorbitant rate. Today
social security itself virtually bankrupt by any insurance
standards, is selling retirement and liability insurance
fifth rate quality at three or four times the cost the
individual could buy it in the open market.
We must put a statutory limit on the growth of the money supply
so that growth does not exceed the gain in productivity. Only
in this way can we be sure to return to a strong dollar.
We must radically simplify our method of tax collection so that
every American can fill out his return in a matter of minutes
without legal help.
General tax reform would make it gennrally more rewarding
to save than to borrow. And encourage wider difusion of
ownership to American workers In the months ahead I will
say more on each one of these subjects including the fact
that I believe the Republican party should come out solidly
for a program which, from here on, there will be a permanent
limit on the percentage of the people's earnings that the
Government can take without the consent of the people.
FORD i LIBRARY 038870
Introduction-introducing young people attending
What party can do and the state we find ourselves in.
I've been getting around the country- let me say when I talk
about attacking the Washington beaurocracy, those that are
here- present company excluded.
joke-
Talking to all groups on the state of the free enterprise system.
joke-about government interference.
Important to change Congress- policies now affecting us are
the result of those in power.
An accounting firm has for the first time in our history
at great cost they have created a balance sheet on the U.S.
Government similiar to corporation. The total financial status
shows we are bankrupt. Cannot continue. Reverse course.
Fitting national convention be held in N.Y.C.
Jefferson defined aims of his administeation- wise and frugal
government- which shall restrain men from injuring one another.
To leave them otherwise free to lead their own pursuit of
industry etc. abd improvement and shall not take from the
mouths of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum
of good government. etc. etc.
Gov't in 1976 will absorb 37% of the GNP
34% of the total personalincome- 34c out of every dollar.
All figures on spending and inflation
Washington spending one billion a day and going into debt
1 1/3 billion every week. Real spendable weekly income is
lower than it was 10 years ago even though in these 10 yrs
has increased his productivity by 23%
One single proposal now before Cong. is Senator Kennedy's
Health insurance would push the share of the GNP from 37% to more
than 45% all by itself. -more than we can afford.
All stems from the source that the belief is that our Federal
Government has the answer to all our ills.
Transfer the power from the private sector to the central power-
This collectivist central approach or whatever name or party label
it wears has imposed an intolerable burden of taxation upon the
citizens. Created inflation. Saddling our economy with unprecented
controls it has generated countless economic problems from raising
consumer prices and destruction of jobs to choking off surplus of
food and /or supplies of food and energy.
Threatening us with freedom of individuals and families. State
and local governments have been demeaned Beaucratic agencies
set up in local cities Thousands of towns and neighborhoods
have seen their peace disturbed by beaucrats, social planners thru
busing, questionable educational prograams, tax on family unity.
It isn't good enough to say we will try to make this situation
more efficient or more responsive to the people or modify an aspect
here or there. Reverse the flow of power to Washington
Systematic transfer of authority to states is what I propose.
Reduce outlay by gov't by more than $90 billion
using spending level of 1976. This would make it possible to balance
budget and make a $5,000,000 payment of the nat'l debt and
reduce the tax burden of individuals by average of 23%.
FORD
We can quickly then liberate much of our economy and political system
from the dead hand of federal interference with beneficial impact
on every aspect of our daily lives
2
Not included in such transfer would be the functions of government
which are national rather than local in nature. and others which
are handled through trust arrangements, outside the general revenue
structure. In addition to the national defense, some of these
areas are national security, medicare and other old age programs
enforcement of federal law, veteran affairs, some aspects of energy,
agriculture, transportation and environment. TVA and other
multistate projects and certain types of research - few would want
to end the Federal government role in setting of national goals and
standards. and no one would want to rule out the role of the federal
government-crash programs like the Manhattan and the Apollo projects
Home stead Acts and -energy In the immediate years ahead in our
regulatory agencies dealing with non-monopoly iddustries set a date to
End to price fixing.
end to all federal restrictions on the entry of new industry and business
in competition with others
We must take steps to keep the spending and borrowing of off-budget
agencies under control.
We must reaffirm our major trust funds to insure solvency ****** and
the countability , particularly important is the need to save
social security from the colassel debt that threatens the future
well being of the millions of Americans, even
while it overtaxes the millions of workers at a growing and
exhorbitant rate is costing thre e or four times the
rate an individual could buy it in the open market.
We must put a statutory limit on the growth of the money supply so that
growth does not exceed the gain in productivity
Only in this way can we be sure to return to a strong dollar.
We must radically simplify our method of tax collection so that
every American can fill out his return without legal help.
Ganeral tax reform would make it more rewarding to save rather than
to borrow.
Republican party should come out with a definite policy on the
percentage of income the government can take.
Inflation is caused by spending money not yet earned.
Income tax increases by 26%- progressive income tax based on numbers
of dollars earned- gov't does not have to increase income taxes.
Immediate tax cuts- some of which may have to be balanced by
tax increases in the States= would be the beginning of the
savings that could be achieved. When we begin making payments
in the national debt we will also start making a reduction in the
tax burden. Govt would not crowd the money market-interest
rates would come down
Programs may be good-some are and some are not- but the point
is that they are losing their effectiveness because of the federal
government's preemption of local levels of government.
Decision about whether to continue programs will be placed where
it belongs-with the people of our states. If people want to
duplicate existing programs-that is what the people want and that
is fine. Surving programs would be run at lower cost.
"Public funds seem to belong to noone and the temptation to bestow
them upon someone is irristible.
To tie spending and taxing together so that those who spend tax
dollars will also have the pain of raising them.
If states run themselves into bankruptcy under the present system-
it is bailed out when Washington picks up the tab. Pray every
night "please dont let the Federal government save N.Y.C."
Where states keep their spending under control- **************
spedd citizens may have to pay more in taxes taxkeep for other GERALE
states that do not keep their spending under control
LIBRARY
2X
The Republican Party should come out solidly for a program
in which from here on there will be a permanent limit on the
percentage of the people's earnings that the government can take
without the consent of the people.
Let me tell you what I think the massive transfer of federal
programs to the states would mean. It would be a giant step
of solving the problem of inflation, that is sapping our strength.
of our economy, cheating American wage earners There is no
mystery about inflation. Its caused by spending money that has not yet
been earned. Without the enormous pressure of a 60 to 80 billion
dollar deficit, the Federal Researve system would have no
mandate to pump too many dollars into the economy which is the
ultimate cause of inflation. The Federal deficit provides the
chief motive for devuching our dollar. Add to this the gain
in purchasing power that will accrue to all Americans from a
sharp reduction in Federal income taxes and the biggest spending
burden the average citizenbears. Indeed taxes of all kinds are
the biggest family expense item today than food, shelter and
clothing combined.
Last year, according to a study made by the Joint Economic Comm.
in the Congress , income tax at all levels rose by 26%1/2%
This did not require any change in the tax rates. The largest
increase of any item in the family budget- greater than any
thing that we had to do with inflation- by far the greatest
part of the growing load of taxation is the federal personal
income tax whose bite gets sharper as inflation pushes the tax
payer automatically into higher surtax brackets. Govt
does not have to raise the tax rate to profit by inflation-the
income tax rate is based on the number of dollars earned- not their
purchasing power. Thus, a cost of living pay increase results
in a tax increase. Immediate tax cuts, some of which might have
to be balanced by tax increases in the States , would be only the
beginning in the savings that can be achieved. When we begin
making payments in the national debt we will also begin making
a further reduction in the tax burden. The American taxpayers are
currently being billed an average of one billion dollars every
ten days just to pay the interest on that debt. As the debt
is retired we can progressively reduce the level of taxation
that required for those interest payments. Senator Hubert Humphrey
in excusing government spending said defensively "well-you know
a billion dollars here and there- it adds up-
Well it can work the other way around. With a spending reduction
I just proposed, the Federal government will no longer be crowding
the capital market to finance its deficits and will make available
billions of dollars of new capital forprivate investments , housing
starts and job creations. Interest rates will come down In the
airplane a man was telling me- a businessman- that at a cost to
no dividends to the stockholders they plowed $69,000,000 worth of
earnings back into his own company and he can show you on paper by
actual count those 69 million dollars created instantly 5,000 new
solid jobs with a future.
Now the transfer that I propose does not mean that specific programs
in question are not worthwhile. Many of them are although in my
opinion many are not. But the point of all these programs- they
are losing the effectiveness because of the federal government's
pre-emption of local levels of government. Closer to the problems
coupled with Washington's ability to complicate everything it
touches, One brief example of that kind of complication - there is
a door in the Nation's capital-on that door is printed General
FORD
Services, Administration- Region 3, Public Bldg. Service Bldg
Management, Division Utility Room , Custodian- It is the broom closet
LIBRARY
Now the decision as to whwhether the programs are or are not
3x
worthwhile and whether to continue or cancel them will be placed
where they rightly belong - with the people of our states. It is
theoretically possible that local governments will simply duplicate
the existing programs and if that is what the people in that state
want that is exactly what should happen in that state.
Now beaucrats in the Federal government in Washington - they will
be available for any such programs- therecertainly wont be any
work for them in Washington-
Some more worthwhile programs will be retained essentially as
they are- others will be modified and many will be dropped. But
all the surviving programs will be run at a much lower cost than
is presently the case. The present system is geared to maximum
expenditure and minimum responsibility. There is no better way
to promote a lavish outlay of tax money than to transfer program
and funding authority away from the state and local government
tto the Federal level. Insuring that the recipient of aid
will have every reason to spend and none to conserve.
They can get political credit for spending freely - they dont
have to take any heat for imposing the taxes. A French economist
Bastille (?) years ago said-" Public funds seemingly belong to
no one and the temptationto bestow them on someone is irresistable.
So long as the system continues on this basis, we are going to
see expenditures on every level of govt soar out of sight. The
object is to reverse this. To tie spending and taxing functions
together wherever feasible SO that those who have the pleasure
of giving away tax dollars will also have the pain of raising
them.
At the same time we can sort out which functions of government
are best performed at each level and that process I hope will
be going on between each state at its local levels of govt at the
same time. A transfer of spending authority to Washington blows
the difference between wasteful states and prudent ones., and this
too destroys incentives towzard economy. If a state spends itself
into bankruptcy under the present system, it is bailed out when
Washington picks up the tab and in my evening prayers I ask
each time - please dont let the Federal government try to save NYC
The trouble is that many federal governmentprograms are geared
toward encouraging this kind of behavor. The way to get more is
to spend more. By the same token efforts of State economies are
punished under the present system. A state that keeps its fiscal
house in order, for example, prevents its welfare problem from
getting out of hand, will find it derives no benefits from its
activities, it will discover as we did in California that efforts
to impose some common sense in welfare will run afoul of Federal
bureaucrats and guidelines. Its citizens will be called upon
to pay in Federal taxes and inflation for other states that dont
curb their spending. Benefit of localizing these programs is that
state and local governments are more accessible to the local citizen
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
3
State and local governments are more accessible to the local
citizens and in most cases prevented by statute from going into
debt.
Proposals I have outlined will bring howls of pain from those
who are benefitting and from many more who think they are.
Producing class of this nation is being drained of its
substance by the non-producing. The tax payers are being victimized
byxthextaxx by the tax consumers. 711/2 million of us being
employed in the private sector. Sum total from which govt
must get every dime, it needs. Today 80 million are receiving
checks from govt
Education- greatest system ever known-not at the state level
or the federal level but at the level of the local school district
Until a few years ago the people had direct control over their
schodls-how much to spend- what kind of courses to offer- who to
hire. Is it an accident that at this level of control gave way
to funding by state and federal level, test results have been
nosediving- for ten years but this year the greatest plunge.
Spending has during the same period- been sky rocketing. Good
education depends far more on local control than it does on the
amount of money spent. Certain abuses did need to be cured-
integrationg for instances-in the South- Now that these problems
have been relatively cured- is there any reason why we cant
go back to local control.
Welfare- old age welfare has been taken over by Federal govt
During the last 18 mo nearly one billion dollars has been paid out
by mistake. This area definitely should be at the local level.
The more local control- the less the cost of programs
Govt run by beaucrats in Washington has no way to respond to
ideas and creativity of its people. If we send the power back
to the local level- WXX
End to giantism. The locally owned factory-the small businessman
Real leadership comes from the people.
Need to cut the cord from Washington. Leadership is necessary
but more necessary is popular choice.
People want control of their destiny returned to them.
Old rules of politics no longer acceptable to people. If we had
the courage to offer not a banday or a me-too-ism the drastic
reversal of the suicidal course this nakuxe nation has beenon
We offer the way-open the door- to these people can make their
desires and dreams come true. We can give the majority once
again the opportunity to control their own destiny We
stand for what they themselves farxwhatxthexx are hoping
and praying for- we can restore the American dream.
BERALD FORD LIBRAPA
Citizens for Reagan
For President
Sen. Paul Laxalt
CONTACT: LYN NOFZIGER
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL
Chairman
202-223-8560
9:30 a.m., Nov. 20, 1975
John P. Sears
Exec. Vice Ch.
STATEMENT BY THE HON. RONALD REAGAN
George Cook
NOVEMBER 20, 1975
H.R. Gross
Louie B. Nunn
Thank you for coming.
Mrs. Stanhope C. Ring
Henry Buchanan
I have called this press conference to announce that I am a
Treasurer
candidate for the Presidency and to ask for the support of all Americans who
share my belief that our nation needs to embark on a new, constructive course.
I believe my candidacy will be healthy for the nation and my party.
I am running because I have grown increasingly concerned about the course
of events in the United States and in the world.
In just a few years, three vital measures of economic decay--inflation,
unemployment, and interest rates--have more than doubled, at times reaching
10 percent and even more.
Government at all levels now absorbs more than 44 percent of our personal
income. It has become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome and less
effective.
Our access to cheap and abundant energy has been interrupted, and our
dependence on foreign sources is growing.
A decade ago we had military superiority. Today we are in danger of being
surpassed by a nation that has never made any effort to hide its hostility to
everything we stand for.
Through detente we have sought peace with our adversaries. We should
continue to do so but must make it plain that we expect a stronger indication
that they also seek a lasting peace with us.
(MORE)
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
2021 L St., N.W., Suite 340, Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: / 223-8560
page 2
In my opinion, the root of these problems lies right here- in Washington, D.C.
Our nation's capital has become the seat of a "buddy" system that functions for
its own benefit- increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker
who supports it with his taxes.
Today it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces
that have brought us our problems- the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists,
big business and big labor.
If America is to survive and go forward, this must change. It will only
change when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them,
relies on them and seeks to return government to them. We need a government
that is confident not of what it can do, but of what the people can do.
For eight years in California, we labored to make government responsive.
We worked against high odds--an opposition legislature for most of those years
and an obstructive Washington bureaucracy for all of them. We did not always
succeed. Nevertheless, we found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that
the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the
Federal level.
In the coming months I will take this message to the American people. I
will talk in detail about responsible, responsive government. I will tell the
people it is they who should decide how much government they want.
I don't believe for one moment that four more years of business-as-usual in
Washington is the answer to our problems, and I don't think the American people
believe it either.
We, as a people, aren't happy if we are not moving forward. A nation that
is growing and thriving is one which will solve its problems. We must offer
progress instead of stagnation; the truth instead of promises; hope and faith
instead of defeatism and despair. Then, I am sure, the people will make those
decisions which will restore confidence in our way of life and release that
energy that is the American spirit.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
###
PRESS CONFERENCE BY RONALD REAGAN
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANDIDACY
November 20, 1975
TEXT OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
REAGAN: And now, for whatever questions you may have. Yes?
Q: Governor Reagan, Senator Goldwater said here at the Press
Club last week that he didn't think your policies would be
much different than those of President Ford. I wonder what
specific differences you could cite there with Mr. Ford, and
how specifically you could do a better job than the President
in translating your philosophies into action?
REAGAN: I have already said, and have pledged to the people in my
party and to others, that I am going to abide by the "11th
Commandment", which was given birth in California, and which
says, "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican". I
have made no difference of, or list of the differences be-
tween us. I'll campaign on what I think should be done, the
proposals that I would make, what I believe the philosophy of
government should be; I'm sure the President will campaign
in the same way, and then it will be up to you, and the American
people to draw the distinction where there are differences,
and to make their decision.
Q: Governor Reagan, would you accept the $40 billion deficit
for next year, and if not, what programs or what areas would
you cut?
REAGAN: I believe that there are areas where the Federal government
has been involved where it should properly be returned to
local governments and to the states. I think that this could
reduce the Federal budget as some of those things are replaced
and administered by the State, obviously would have to result in
local increases in taxes, but I believe that it would be run more
effectively, more economically at the local and State levels,
in those particular areas, than the Federal government can
do it, and whatever the exact deficit might be or the attempt
to change it, I believe that we have no choice. This govern-
ment must get back as quickly as possible to a balanced budget.
We're I think the only difference between the national
government at the moment and New York City is the national
government has a printing press.
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
Q: Governor, in light of your statement about fiscal responsi-
bilities, I wonder whether it is true that during your term
as Governor, the California State budget went up by a higher
percentage than did the Federal government budget during the same
time period?
REAGAN: The California budget did increase during the eight years that
I was Governor. But I think you have to understand that
every State has its own system and its own way of doing things
with regard to budgeting. Some states don't show in their
budget the same things that others do. Now the truth of the
matter is, in California, I've heard this information around,
that California's budget increased in spite of all our talk
of economy. It did increase, but a great part of California's
budget consists of money that must show in the budget as
income and outgo, because it is collected by the State. But
it is then, this great coercion of the budget, returned direc-
tly in subventions, to school districts, to local government.
In the case of California, when we began, nine years ago,
only half the California budget was in subvention to local
government. When we finished, more than two-thirds of the
California budget was going back to local government and to
the school districts. The actual portion of the budget which
runs the State of California, and over which we had adminis-
trative control or legislation control, for that matter, that
portion of the budget over a period of eight years only in-
creased thirty percent. Inflation alone over that period was
40%, and you add to that the fact that California was one of
the fastest-growing states in the Union, and you have the
situation that in constant dollars, the actual administration
of the State of California was costing less at the end of
eight years than it did eight years before.
Q: Governor, what makes you think that you could knock-off an
incumbent President?
REAGAN: Makes me think I could "knock-off" an incumbent President?
Well, that's going to be something that the voters and our
Party will decide after they've heard both of us and we
have run our campaign in a gentlemanly manner, and they will
make their decision as to who they think should carry the
Party standard.
(more)
FORD LIBRARY
-3-
Q: Governor, supposing you do "knock-off" an incumbent President,
supposing you do defeat an incumbent President, isn't the
Party going to be so badly divided because of the passions of
the supporters on each side, no matter what you say, that it's
going to be very difficult for you, or the Republican nominee
to win in November?
REAGAN: Well, I think, Lou, that you have to face one thing, that even
if the most united Republican Party that we can muster goes
forward on the behalf of any candidate, you're talking about
20% of the voters. And there's about 40% of the voters out
there of the other Party, many of them disaffected, but the
key to the election, and no Party is going to win without that
other 40% of the voters that are now disenchanted with both
Parties and decline to state. And so I think what has to
happen, is the candidate has to offer a program that is going
to bring back into the political process, those Americans who
are disallusioned and who are not voting. Actually, there's
no need for a Party to be divided. Practicing our "11th Com-
mandment" in 1966 in California, we had a Republican Party that
for two years had been more divided than any Party has ever
been anyplace in this country, and they came together, and the
simple idea is that you campaign on what you believe -- all the
candidates do -- and I'm not convinced that there will only be
two candidates in this race in the Republican Party, and then
you all rally behind the choice of the Party, and go forward
with that choice.
Q: Governor, you're asking your Party to choose between you and
President Ford. Your "11th Commandment" aside, what's wrong
with President Ford?
REAGAN: Well you have made the answer to your question impossible by
your one line, 'the "11th Commandment" aside.' I will not put
aside the "11th Commandment" for anyone.
Q: Governor Reagan, in addition to your California delegation, one
of the biggest of the Republican convention will be that from
the State of New York. Do you plan to make any determined ef-
fort to pick up delegates in New York, particularly considering
that's it's the home state of the Vice President, who says he's
supporting Mr. Ford?
(more)
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
-4-
REAGAN: Well, I'm sure that I will be represented, and whether I
actively campaign or not in all of them, or whether anyone
could actively campaign in all of the primaries, I'm sure
that I will be represented in all of them, and I'm going to
try to take my message as far and wide as I can, and appeal
to as many people as possible.
Q: Governor Reagan, the President will soon have on his desk
legislation which would, on this energy bill, which would
roll back domestic oil prices, and also, common situs picket
legislation. Would you sign either of these bills, putting
yourself in office a little bit early?
REAGAN: I hope the President will veto both of them. I believe the
energy bill goes backwards as to what we should be doing; it
not only discourages conservation of scarce energy supplies,
it makes it less advantageous for anyone to try and find
new energy supplies, it increases our dependency. on outside
sources, rather than domestic. And the common situs bill,
I think is nothing more than the United States Government
putting itself in the position of forcing compulsory unionism
in an entire industry.
Q: Governor, I hope as a Veteran leader, that you never, that
you don't intend to vote against tax and increases for the
Veterans of the United States, do you?
REAGAN: Well, you're asking about something that I haven't had an
opportunity to look into at all, so I can't answer your question
as yet.
Q: Governor Reagan, Sir, how do you think you can capture the
40% of the people that were dissatisfied to vote Party, given
the fact that some of them have traditions that are considerably
to the left of yours?
REAGAN: Well, some of them may be considerably to the left -- I, as
you know, have never really believed in that "left" or "right"
distinction. I have to believe that, and from going around
the country as much as I have in the last ten months, that the
American people are in a time of discontent. They believe that
government is too big and too intrusive in their lives. They
believe it's too costly, they finally have discovered who is
paying for all of the Federal programs, or all of the govern-
ment programs for that matter, and I think the people are waiting
for some of the things and willing to go forward with some of
the things that will reduce that power and size of government
(more)
BERALD FORD LIBRAP.
-5-
and make it more responsive to them, and if the polls are
any indication, the people believe the government should
be returned, in a greater extent, to the local level. They
have a greater faith in government at the local level than
they do at the national level.
Q: Governor, when did you finally decide to run?
REAGAN: Well, to put my finger on the exact moment would be rather
difficult, but I can tell you, not very long ago. I haven't
been playing any games; it is a decision that, as I've said
so many times, to so many of you, not an easy decision to
make, not a decision that the average person thinks he would
ever be called upon to make. I wanted all the information
I could get -- I wanted to be as sure as I possibly could be,
and answers to a number of questions, and it has only been
extremely recently that, in my own mind, I felt that I was coming
to this particular moment.
Q: Governor, do you respond to President Ford's challenge and
enter all the primaries?
REAGAN: Well, as I say, I will be represented in all of them. Yes?
Q: Governor, if you can win the New Hampshire primary, will you
satisfied to come close to President Ford?
REAGAN: Whatever primary I enter, and that decision has been made,
I will enter and campaign in the New Hampshire primary and in
the Florida primary, the first two primaries, and in the
New Hampshire primary, I'm just going to do my best to win.
Q: Governor, Senator Percy doesn't seem to have heard about the
"11th Commandment". He's put out a press release that says
that your nomination would be "foolhardy", and lead to a
crushing defeat for the Republicans, just as George McGovern's
nomination was disastrous for the Democrats. Do you have --
he also says you're too far out of the centrist mainstream.
Do you have a reaction to Senator Percy's remarks?
REAGAN: Well, yes, and, I also have his personal assurance that he too
will abide by the "11th Commandment" while he is not in support
of my candidacy, he will campaign in the same way.
Q: Does this then, comply with the "11th Commandment"?
REAGAN: Well, I don't know which came first, his pledge to me, or that.
Maybe he's reformed. I will say this, however. When he says
that I'm not in the centrist position in the Party, I do have
a record, for anyone's inspection, of what we did in the State
of California, and anyone who could point to that record and
(more)
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
-6-
suggest that there was anything extreme about any of the posi-
tions that we took, I'm very proud of the record, and will hold
it up for inspection for anyone that wants to see, and I think
it will indicate that it is pretty much in the mainstream of
the thinking of the people of this country, because it was
approved heartily by a State in which Republicans are out-
numbered three-two by Democrats.
Q: Governor Reagan, what are you going to do for Women?
REAGAN: Well, I'm going to continue to support Nancy to the best of
my ability -- I believe I think I understand the point of your
question. You know Will Rogers once said, and I have to do
this, I have to quote him, Will Rogers once said that women
were going to try to become more and more equal to men until
pretty soon, they weren't going to know any more than the men
do. And, I believe that if there are any injustices, if there
are still any inequities with regard to difference in treatment
of men and women, they should be corrected by statute. I think
that they have a place in government, I think they can make a
great contribution to government.
Q: Governor Reagan, your opening remarks in regard to reduction in
Federal spending in every area except military. Yesterday,
the Senate passed a military spending bill of $90 billion.
How much is enough in your view -- are you calling for a massive
increase to achieve what you call the military superiority over
the Soviets?
REAGAN: Well, I think when you get to the defense budget, you have
something different than you have with most other areas of
government. It isn't a case of what you decide to spend in
military. That is based on what you have to spend -- what is
necessary if you are to remain equal in power to any potential
enemies in the world. An so, military spending is virtually
forced on you as a necessity. Now, this does not mean that
we should not continue to look at the military budget, not from
the standpoint of whether we need or do not need the weapons, but
mainly from the standpoint of are we running it efficiently, and
getting the best buys for our dollars. And I think any adminis-
tration should continue to do that. But the military budget as
I say, is forced upon us. It is not something in which you can
just decide whether you want to spend it or not.
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRANA
-7-
Q: Mr. Reagan, $150 billion, $200 billion, what do you want
to spend?
REAGAN: I didn't say what I wanted to spend. There you have me
in a position in which the answer is very difficult. Because
I think only when you are in that position of command, do you
have access to all the information that is necessary for making
that decision, and obviously, I'm not in that position, and do
not have that information at this moment.
Q: Governor, how do you stand on gun control?
REAGAN: On gun control, I am against the kind of gun control that is
being proposed so much in Congress, that would make it dif-
ficult for the legitimate citizen to own a gun and that which
I feel would do nothing whatsoever to take the gun away from
the criminal. I think that we embarked on a program in Cali-
fornia that is the proper kind of gun control. It has nothing
to do with taking the weapons away from legitimate citizens.
What we did do, is pass a law for one thing that any criminal
convicted of committing a crime, who had a gun in his possession
carried with him at the time of the crime, whether he used it
or not, add five to fifteen years to the sentence. We now have
a law also in California, that says that no judge can take a
criminal convicted of a crime and turn him out on probation
if he carried a gun in connection with the crime, he must go
to prison -- he must serve a mandatory prison sentence. I
think these are the kind of gun controls that we need. It is
naive and foolish to believe that there is anything you could
do in the nature of gun control that would prevent the criminal
from having a weapon. He would simply disarm the citizenry.
Q: Governor Reagan, if the choice were yours to make, whom would
you name to replace Justice Douglas on the Supreme Court, and
also would you tell us what kind of a judicial philosophy you
might have in naming Justices to the Supreme Court? Do you
share former President Nixon's view that so-called "strict
constructionists" should be named to the court?
REAGAN: I don't have any name in mind, at the moment, because it's not
my decision to make, with regard to the appointment that is now
open in the Supreme Court. I do believe that yes, you should
have someone who is a constitutionalist, whose philosophy and
belief is to interpret the Constitution, and not to legislate.
I think there has been too much legislation by the courts, not
only there, but in other areas of the country and in other levels
(more)
GERALD R. FORD LIBRAPI
-8-
of the court, but I would look for the best person I could
find with understanding of the Constitution, and as I say, who
would interpret that Constitution.
Q: Governor, what is your stand on the Equal Rights Amendment?
REAGAN: On the Equal Rights Amendment. I should have quit with the
first answer over there. I originally started out, it sounded
like a very simple thing, and why not? I have to say that as
we progressed, and as I found myself with a position where I
had to know more about it than that, like many others, I do
not believe that a simple amendment, the Equal Rights Amend-
ment, is the answer to the problem. I think that it opens a
Pandora's Box, and could in fact militate against the very
things that women are asking for. I believe the answer is
by statute, that the Constitutional amendment, once in the
Constitution, can be by strict interpretation, used to deny
women many of the advantages they now have. I would prefer
to resolve things by statute.
Q: What advantages?
REAGAN: Well, I think you open up the question then of special pro-
visions in say factory work, industrial work, for employees
that take cognizance of the fact that there are physical
differences between men and women; I think you open up the
whole role of individuals in time of emergency being able to
challenge their own call to duty on the basis that now it
was their Constitutional rights that were being denied be-
others were not being called, and I don't care how some women
may feel about it, but I would hate to see a nation that's
going to rely on women in the combat forces.
Q: Governor Reagan, do you see in the anti-bus movement a special
constituency for yourself?
REAGAN: See in what?
Q: Anti-bus -- school busing of children, forced school busing
of children, a special constituency for yourself?
REAGAN: No, but I have to say this, that I think forced busing has
failed signally in its purpose; it has added to the bitterness
that it was supposed to cure, and has solved none of the prob-
lems of prejudice or bigotry, and when you find that evidently
Coretta King and I are on the same side, that she too is op-
posed to busing, I think we find that it must be pretty wide-
spread among the people -- their objection to it. I think
(more)
GERALD R. FORD LIBRAPT
-9-
the greatest definition that I've heard of the evil of forced
busing was made by the very highly respected Superintendent
of Education of the State of California, Wilson Riles, who
himself is black, and Wilson Riles said that he considered
it insulting and demeaning, and I do also, to tell a Negro
child that the only way he can learn something is if you put
him in school between two white kids.
Q: Governor, if the President next week should decide to support
a policy of some aid to New York City, of any kind, would that
become an issue between you and him and the campaign?
REAGAN: This would depend on what kind of program we're talking about.
I don't think anyone wants to see the people, the hard-working,
tax-paying people of New York, who have been victimized by
their own political leaders, back over the years, in a way
that lead to this situation, to see them penalized. But any
situation for help to New York must be predicated on a reorgan-
ization that stops the process that has lead to this situation.
We see in New York a very simple situation, that for many years
back, politicians wanting to never say no, but always say yes
to everyone, have been increasing spending in New York City
almost twice as much as the increase in their revenues each
year. They have been creating independent authorities with
bonding power, in which they did not have to ask the consent
of the voters, but then the bonding power was distorted and
abused in that bonds sold to create one-time capital improve-
ments, the borrowed money was used instead on top of the tax reve-
nue to pay for ongoing government expenses. And so we find that
New York City today, in providing the basic services, has a
per capita. cost of $1446, all the other major cities in the
United States of a million population or over average less than
half of that -- $670. That has to be corrected as a premise
for any program for helping the New York citizens.
Q: If you should bomb-out in the early primaries, contrary to
your plans, would you withdraw?
REAGAN: If I should "bomb-out" in the early primaries, that's a
hypothetical question, and it's a hypothesis that very frankly
I ruled out in my own mind before I ever stood up here, and
I don't bother to think about that.
(more)
FORD ORRALD LIBRARY GERALD
-10-
Q: If we can go back to the New York City question -- what
specific plan do you advocate concerning the New York City
fiscal problem, at what point would you recommend federal
assistance, and in what form?
REAGAN: Well, I can't answer that again, because I have to say that
this is a little bit like the defense question, that until
you have access to all of the information, which I don't
have, I don't think that you can come up with a specific plan.
All I can give you is the generalization, that you do not want
to see distress imposed upon the hard-working people of New York
City who are not to blame for this, but you do want to see that
before anything else is done, that New York City has adopted
a plan that they will not find themselves down the road doing
the same thing over again.
Q: Mindful of the generalization again, what you're saying is that
if New York City did meet these requirements, move toward a
balanced budget, whatever the requirements are, that federal
dollars moving into help New York City would then be alright?
As far as you know?
REAGAN: It may not necessarily be Federal dollars. As I understand
it, there's consideration of nothing but assurance and a
backing by the Federal government of loans that might be made
whatever the solution is, but I would want to look at that
very carefully, and I don't have one in mind myself right now.
Q: Governor, you said that this issue was difficult and compared
it to the defense budget. But certainly nothing about New York
City's finances is very, has a classification stamp on it. You're
running for President, this is a large national issue, why don't
you have the specifics and the details at your command?
REAGAN: Well, because, I don't think that when you are not a candidate
and you're as busy as I have been going around the country,
you have an opportunity to get as deeply into every single
subject that might confront you in the days ahead as you'd
like. And I don't have that answer.
Q: Governor, on the same point, do you intend to go through the
whole primary campaign taking the position that you cannot
make recommendations on the defense budget because you don't
have access to information?
REAGAN: Well, now wait a minute. When you specify defense, let me say
I will have positions, of course, and will be speaking in detail
on those in the months ahead. I must say, however, in that
particular area, one always has to face the fact that there are
facts not known to you and which cannot be known to you because
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-11-
of classification, and this is always, must be kept in mind as
a reservation about any opinion that you might render. No,
I will be taking positions. First of all, as I've said before,
I'll take one flat position -- I don't believe that the United
States can afford to be second to anyone in the world militarily.
There is no such thing as second -- if you're second, you're
last.
Q: Governor, you say "second, you're last" -- would this also
apply to you if you took the Vice Presidential slot?
REAGAN: I have given no consideration to that -- I'm not interested
in that.
Q: Governor, will you support whoever the Party's nominee is,
and if your candidacy is as healthy as you say, would it also
be healthy if some other people would enter the primaries
against President Ford?
REAGAN: Well, as I said, I would not be surprised if others did, now
that someone has broken the ice. This is a part of the "11th
Commandment", that you submit yourself to your Party's voters
and then you'll abide by their decision and rally behind the
winner.
Q: Governor, what is your reaction to the recent disclosures that
the FBI (tape ran out)
REAGAN:
is news, the paper in the news this morning, and I've had
no opportunity to read the paper as yet, all I saw was the
headline, and haven't had a paper in my hand to find out
what those revelations or what that story is
Q: Now you have said that there will probably be other Presidential
candidates
REAGAN: No
Q:
besides Nelson Rockefeller, who do you think it will be?
REAGAN: Well now, I didn't say besides him, and I didn't say probably.
I said that possibly, and I would not be surprised if there
were others. I don't know that there are going to be others,
I don't know whether it's going to be probable, and I'm going
to make no speculation as to who they might be.
Q: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
REAGAN: Gentlemen, the time is up.
#####
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Citizens for Reagan
For President
Sen. Paul Laxalt
Chairman
John P. Sears
Exec. Vice Ch.
George Cook
H.R. Gross
CONTACT: LYN NOFZIGER
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
202-223-8560
Louie B. Nunn
Mrs. Stanhope C. Ring
Henry Buchanan
Treasurer
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESS:
Governor Reagan will vary the attached speech slightly
at each stop to meet the local situation.
attachment
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
2021 L St., N.W., Suite 340, Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202/223-8560
SPEECH BY RONALD REAGAN, NOV. 20-21, 1975
There's a passage in the Bible that says, "If the trumpet gives an uncertain
sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"
Well, just to make sure no one mistook the sound of the trumpet, I took it
to Washington this morning to announce my candidacy for the Presidency.
I chose Washington because it is such an intimate part of our troubles:
inflation, recession, unemployment, bureaucracy and centralized power.
There are times in a nation's history when the people become aware that only
a new and constructive course can solve the problems besetting them. America is
in such a time now.
Ironically, it was in another troubled time more than four decades ago that
we set in motion some of the forces which have brought us to this present time
of decision.
Back in the Depression years there were those who promised to overcome hard
times. Franklin Delano Roosevelt embarked on a course that made bold use of
government to ease the pain of those times. Although some of his measures seemed
to work, he was soon moved to sound a warning. He said, " we have built new
instruments of public power in the hands of the people's government but in the
hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide
shackles for the liberties of our people."
Unfortunately, that warning went unheeded. Today, there is an economic
autocracy, born of government's growing interference in our lives. Yet Washington,
for all its power, seems powerless to solve problems any more.
I am running because I have grown increasingly concerned about the course of
events in the United States and in the world.
In just a few years, three vital measures of economic decay--inflation,
unemployment, and interest rates--have more than doubled, at times reaching
10 percent and even more.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
(MORE)
page 2
Government at all levels now absorbs more than 44 percent of our personal
income. It has become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome and less
effective.
Our access to cheap and abundant energy has been interrupted, and our
dependence on foreign sources is growing.
A decade ago we had military superiority. Today we are in danger of being
surpassed by a nation that has never made any effort to hide its hostility to
everything we stand for.
Through detente we have sought peace with our adversaries. We should
continue to do so but must make it plain that we expect a stronger indication
that they also seek a lasting peace with us.
In my opinion, the root of these problems lies right here- in Washington, D.C.
Our nation's capital has become the seat of a "buddy" system that functions for
its own benefit increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker who
supports it with his taxes.
Today it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces
that have brought us our problems- the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists,
big business and big labor.
If America is to survive and go forward, this must change. It will only
change when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them,
relies on them, and seeks to return government to them. We need a government
that is confident not of what it can do, but of what the people can do.
For eight years in California, we labored to make government responsive.
We worked against high odds- an opposition legislature for most of those years and
an obstructive Washington bureaucracy for all of them. We did not always succeed.
Nevertheless, we found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare
rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the Federal level.
(MORE)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
page 3
I am convinced that under the layer of self-doubt that seems to have settled
like a fog on our country, the true, strong spirit of the American people still
glows, ready to be reignited so that we can once again have a sense of mission;
a pride in our capacity to perform great deeds.
Washington seems to have lost track of the American Dream. But you and
millions more like you across this land have not. You are determined to be free
and independent, to solve your own problems and to help your neighbors solve
theirs. Over the last ten months, visiting nearly every corner of America and
meeting many thousands of people, I have seen this determination in their faces
and I have heard it in their voices.
I have become a candidate because I believe strongly in this American spirit
to move forward; to try the untried; to dream the new dream--knowing that our
energy and our ingenuity can turn them into realities.
In the coming months I will take this message to the American people. I will
talk in detail about responsible, responsive government. I will tell the people
it is they who should decide how much government they want.
I don't believe for one moment that four more years of business-as-usual in
Washington is the answer to our problems, and I don't think the American people
believe it either.
I am here to tell you that I shall be running in your primary. Not just
running, but putting all my energy into it. I cannot reach the goal alone. I
need your help. Together, we can reach it.
We, as a people, aren't happy if we are not moving forward. A nation that
is growing and thriving is one which will solve its problems. As we work toward
our goal, we must offer progress instead of stagnation; the truth instead of
promises; hope and faith instead of defeatism and despair. Then I am sure the
people will make those decisions which will restore confidence in our way of
life and release that energy that is the American spirit.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
###
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS ABC NEWS RADIO
AND TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "ABC NEWS' ISSUES AND ANSWERS. 11
ISSUESANDANSWERS
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1975
GUEST:
RONALD REAGAN - Former Governor of California
and Candidate for the Presidency
INTERVIEWED BY:
BOB CLARK - ABC News Issuea and Answers
Chief Correspondent
FRANDK reynolds - ABC News Correspondent
-
- -
This is a rush transcript for
the press. Any questions re-
garding accuracy should be re-
ferred to ISSUES AND ANSWERS
-
FORD & LIBRARY 038470
2
1
ANNOUNCER: Former Governor of California and candidate
2
for the Republican Presidential nomination, here are the
8
issues:
4
Will your challenge to President Ford destroy Republican
5
chances of holding on to the White House?
6
How do you propose to reduce the power of the federal
7
government without substantially increasing local and state
B
taxes?
9
If you were President, would you go to China to advance
10
detente?
11
* *
12
MR. CLARK: Governor, your challenge to President Ford
13
has been greeted with alarm by some liberals and moderates
14
within your party. Senator Percy says your nomination would
15
wreck the party, and Senator Mathias is talking about starting
16
a third party.
17
Do you have a plan to make peace with the liberals, to
18
keep them under the Republican banner and under your banner
19
if you win the nomination?
20
MR. MEAGAN: Well, Bob, I have always disagreed with
21
those Republicans or those outside of the party who insist
22
on hyphenating Republicans, giving them saliva tests and
28
classifying them into narrow brackets as to where they stand
24
philosophically. I think all of us must have certain basic
25
agreements or we wouldn't be in the Republican Party
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
3
1
I think they are wrong, and I think what they are ignoring
is & record of eight years that stands up there for anyone
3
to look at, the record of my administration in Sacramento,
California.
5
They can look at that record, and I doubt if they can
6
classify that into the narrow categories that they are viewing
7
with alarm. So I hope that by our practice of the 11th
8
Commandment, which was given birth in California, that their
9
fears will be easad.
10
MR. CLARK: Do you mean by this, Governor, that you
don't think it is necessary for you to offer any special olive
11
branch to the liberals? You think they simply have to look
12
13
at your record? Is that your view?
14
MR. REAGAN: I think they barked rather early, and maybe
15
if they will sit down in good faith and have a discussion
16
which I would be very happy to have with them -- they would
find out that their fears are groundless.
17
MR. REYNOLDS: Governor, one of the reasons, I suppose
18
the major reason why liberals express misgivings about you
19
is because of some of the things that you have said
20
and the programs you have offered.
21
For example, your proposal to cut federal spending by
22
consequent
$90 billion, with a / reduction in federal incone taxes
23
of about 23 percent, that you propose to give so many of
24
these programs now funded in part or in whole by the
25
FORD LIBRARY
4
1
federal government back to the states. Is there anybody
2
else that you can think of in the Republican Party that really
3
believes that kind of a program?
A
MR. REAGAN: Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it has been
B
Republican philosophy for quite some years, and many times in
G
the platform, that there was an overcentralization of govern-
7
ment under Democratic regimes and over these last 40 years
8
of Democratic control of the House and Senate, and that the
9
Republican Party was pledged to government at the levels near-
10
est the people. I think that is standard Republican philosophy.
11
Now, my so-called cut of $90 billion with the total based
12
on the '76 budget projection, it was based on the amount of
13
money that is invested in programs that properly, regardless
14
of the money, properly belong at the state and local level,
15
And my own experience in California indicates that this is
16
so, and I think that most people today believe that. I think
17
many of our ills would disappear if some program such as welfare
18
and education were turned back to the states where they properly
19
belong.
20
MR. REYNOLDS: What would that do to the states them-
21
selves in terms of their own financing? For example, take
22
the state of New Hampshire. You will be interested in New
23
Hampshire before very long. New Hampshire now gets, or the
24
subject of welfare you would propose to return all welfare
FORD
25
obligations back to the states. Well, the federal
GERALE cover ment EBRART
5
I
pays 62 percent of the New Hampshire's total welfare expendi-
2
tures. That means New Hampshire has to either assume that or
3
cut it down.
MR. REAGAN: This is true, and I made the point this
5
would not be a net gain, but if these programs were turned
0
back - let me say, also, not an instantaneous
7
cancellation of Federal government, and hopefully somebody
8
picks it up. I think you would have to have an orderly phas-
9
ing of these programs to local government or state government.
10
I think state governments at the same time when this happens
should be reviewing whether they should indeed pass the
11
12
program on to their local communities. Then I think that
13
you would have to have taxes increased at state and local
14
levels to offset this, or to maintain some of these programs.
15
Some programs undoubtedly would be dropped, because the federal
16
government has many programs. You know there is nothing that
17
is closer to eternal life than a government program once started
at the federal level. But the thing is, what we learned in
18
California with our own welfare reforms is, not only can they
19
be better administered, they can be more economically adminis-
20
tered. Now, if the federal government stopped preempting so
21
much of the tax dollar, taking all the sources of taxation
22
at the federal level, leaving local and state governments
23
24
strapped as to where they are to get the money they need,
25
if this was reduced at the federal level there would be Leeway
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
5
for the states and local governments to take these over.
They would also be run at 3 much lower cost. The administra-
3
tive overhead of running any program at the federal level is
much greater than it is at any other level of government.
5
MP. CLARK: Governor Reagan, as 1 am sure you are aware,
New Hampshire is quite proud of the fact it is the only state
7
in the country that has neither state sales mr state income
taxes. Campaigning in New Hampshire on a program to turn
back responsibility for numerous federal programs to the
19
state, in candor wouldn't you have to tell the people of New
11
Hampshire that you are going to have to increase your tax bur-
12
den and that probably means either a sales tax or 7 state
18
income tax?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
pm
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
6
1
for the states and local governments to take these over.
2
They would also be run at a much lower cost. The administra-
3
tive overhead of running any program at the federal level is
4
much greater than it is at any other level of government.
5
MR. CLARK: Governor Reagan, as I am sure you are aware,
6
New Hampshire is quite proud of the fact it is the only state
7
in the country that has neither state sales mr state income
3
taxes. Campaigning in New Hampshire on a program to turn
9
back responsibility for numerous federal programs to the
10
state, in candor wouldn't you have to tell the people of New
11
Hampshire that you are going to have to increase your tax bur-
12
den and that probably means either a sales tax or a state
13
income tax?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FORD & LIBRARY 938670
7
MR. REAGAN: But isn't this a proper decision for the
people of the state to make?
3
MR. CLARK: But isn't this going to be forced on them if
they are forced to take back these federal responsibilities?
MR. REAGAN: Yes, how they were to administer them, whether
they would administer them is properly a decision to be made
7
at the state level in these particular programs.
0
Let's emphasize I made it very plain in the same address
9
in which I outlined this overall plan, I made it very plain
10
that there are functions that are properly federal, properly
11
belong to the national government and should stay there. "This
12
doesn't mean they can't be improved. It doesn't mean they can'
13
be made more efficient. I am sure they can be.
14
But, as you have just said, the federal government is ---
15
your situation with regard to states - now, in California we
18
have an income tax too, but we realize we are limited in that
17
income tax because the federal government is in there first
18
and that is the most elastic tax, that is the one that
19
grows with the economy the most, and the federal government has
20
pre-empted it to such an extent that local and state governments
21
are hard put to find legitimate sources for taxation.
22
MR. CLARK: Governor, that raises an interesting point.
29
You have lost a celebrated item here in California, proposition
24
one where you attempted to put a limit on the amount of state
25
taxes that should be collected and paid the taxes to the todal
GERALD
8
2
1
personal income in the state.
2
If you become President, would you try to do the same
a
thing with federal taxes? Would you think of some outer
limit that might be placed on federal income taxes?
5
MR. REAGAN: As a matter of fact, it is not just income
taxes; it is all taxes. The permantage of the earned dollar
6
7
that government takes is too high. That all governments take
is too high.
8
9
It is one of the things that is holding down our economy.
We lost in California on that. We would take more than a
so
half hour if I tried to explain it in full. Frankly, we. were
11
just out-muscled. The big lie defeated us and we didn't have
12
the muscle to overcome it, but 69 per cent of the people who
13
14
voted against that program had been deceived into believing
they were voting against a tax increase.
15
MR. CLARK: If you become President, might you think in
16
terms of a proposition one on the federal level?
17
MR. REAGAN: Well, you take your prdiem to Congress
16
but that is already there. There is legislation that has been
19
introduced in Congress by a group of congressmen who saw this
20
California experiment and believed ---
21
MR. CLARK: Would you support it, though?
22
23
MR. REAGAN: 1 certainly would.
24
MR. REYNOLDS: Governor, before we leave this whole area,
25
BULIBRARY
9
what would your program, if fully implemented, do to the
2
poorer states?
3
All states are not equal. California seems to be in pretty
4
good shape, but what about Arkansas and Mississippi and some
of these other states who don't have ---
5
MR. REAGAN: It is true, there are states that get more
C
from the federal government than they return to the federal
7
government. They are low-taxed states. They are not burdened
8
with heavy taxation, but let me ask you something: One of
9
those high tax-paying states, so-called wealthy states, is New
10
York.
11
Is New York, today, in a position to solve its own prob-
12
lems and at the same time send money to some other states?
13
MR. REYNOLDS: Is New York in a position to assume all
14
of the programs that you would give back to New York, all
15
Welfare costs, all aid to education and everything else?
16
MR. REAGAN: Yes, because many of these programs, you see,
17
are -- the manner in which the federal government insists on
10
their implementation is excessive, and the rules and regula-
18
tions force upon states and cities like New York things that
20
administratively they would not do if they had the leeway to
21
do it.
22
Now, let's point out another thing. If Welfare were
23
returned to the state level, a state could have a limitation,
24
or a residency requirement in order to get welfare,
25
whichothey GERALD CIBREES
10
1
always had, until the federal government was involved to such
2
an extent that the Supreme Court ruled that, no, you could
3
move anywhere in the United States you wanted and instantly be
A
eligible for Welfare in whatever state you chose.
5
Now, states like New York and California that have tried
6
to do more than other states, that had higher Welfare payments,
7
found themselves with an in-migration from these other states.
8
But if you returned this to the states and the federal govern-
$
ment was not involved, a state like New York that was burdened
ID
with this great in-migration could have had a rule that said
11
"Oh, no, you have to live here a year before you are eligible
12
for Welfare."
13
MR. REYNOLDS: Now that you have raised the topic, suppose
14
we ask you, what do you think of the way the President has
15
handled the New York situation? Are you in agreement with him
16
as far as New York's finances are concerned?
17
MR. REAGAN: I am worried about a precedent being establisht-
ed that might be passed on, or that might lead to other cities
10
saying, "Well, we can be careless with our bonding and we can
19
float more bonds than our credit requires and count on the
20
federal government to bail us out."
21
I do recognize that the President has placed this on
22
23
New York, reversing the trend that led to their problem.
24
There is no question but that the victims in New York are the
25
three million working tax-paying citizens, working in the private
sector who must put up all the money that pays for everything
11
:
else; who for some 20-odd years have had their political
2
leaders deceive them as to the practices they were following to
3
the place that New York now has aper capita dost for basic
services that is more than twice that of all the other big
cities in the United States.
MR. CLARK: We would like to get a specific answer on
7
New York. If you were President do you think you would have
made the offer that President Ford has made to make direct
8
federal loans to New York City to help get it out of its
8
financial crisis?
10
MR. REAGAN: I wish I could give you an answer to that.
11
AS I say, I am worried about the precedent.
12
an the other hand, I don't want to see those three million
13
working citizens I have mentioned victimized with creditors
14
holding the bag and with bondholders in the same position.
15
I haven't had an opportunity to study all the ramifica-
16
tions. I heard the President make his statement. It sounded
17
like a practical plan. I have the concern that I have
18
mentioned. I frankly want to give this more study before I
19
tell you that is the solution that I would pick.
20
******
21
MR. CLARK: Governor, as you know, Vice President
22
Rockefeller hasn't quite taken himself out of the 1976 picture
23
He has declined to say flatly thathe will not be a candidate
24
for the Republican nomination.
25
GERALD R. FORD LIBRIES
12
2
Do you view him as a rival for the nomination?
2
MR. REAGAN: No. I am aware of his position and it is
8
similar to a position he has taken in previous national
4
elections and that is a decision for him to make.
5
I have said that I will not be surprised if, now that I
6
have declared, if others do not follow suit and get into the
7
race.
(2)
MR. REYNOLDS: Do you expect John Connally to come in?
D
MR. REAGAIN: I don't know. I think that John Connally
10
certainly is available and would not refuse if there was an
11
indication from enough people that they thought he should make
12
a run for it.
13
MR. REYNOLDS: Governor, what is your strategy, to knock
14
the President out in the early primaries, force him to withdraw?
MR. REAGAN: My strategy is a little more
15
naive than that. My strategy is to take my case to'the people
16
as to what I believe should be done with regard to the problems
17
and what I think the solutions are, what the policy should be,
is
and let the people decide.
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
FORD i LIBRA CERALD
1
1
MR. REYNOLDS: The President has indicated no great wil-
2
lingness to debate you. Would you like to debate Mr. Ford,
3
say up there in Manchester?
4
MR. REAGAN: Well, I have to say this. I know that
5
the challenge and the rejection of debate is kind of a campaign
6
tactic that is used both ways, in politics. I have to say
7
that I believe the people can find out what you believe, what
8
your principles are, without the two of you appearing simul-
9
taneously.
10
MR. REYNOLDS: You don't think it is easier to choose
11
between the two of you, if they could see you side by side
12
discussing these issues, having a free and frank exchange of
13
views?
14
MR. REAGAN: Well, is it any different than seeing each
15
candidate frankly express his views and then someone else
16
and you gentlemen of the press make no -- you leave no stone
17
unturned to pin each one of us down on what the other one
has done and what you would do likewise. I am not sure
18
that it is beneficial.
19
MR. CLARK: Governor, one more question about Vice Presi-
20
dent Rockefeller. He has refused to say that if you win the
21
nomination he would support you. If by some chance he be-
22
23
came the Republican nominee, would you support him?
24
MR. REAGAN: Well, he is not even a candidate yet.
I will wait and answer that when he becomes a candidate
25
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
14
2
1
I think I would be surprised and disappointed if Vice President
2
Rockefeller took that attitude with regard to a Republican
8
nominee. I would be surprised, myself. I believe in the
4
philosophy of the Republican Party. I know that the Vice
5
President and I differ philosophically on a number of points.
6
At the same time, we have a most friendly and cordial rela-
7
tionship.
8
MR. CLARK: Governor, would you say ---- this is a way out
9
of the dilemma we put politicians in on this - would you simply
10
say you would support the nominee
of the Republican Convention, whoever he may be?
11
MR. REAGAN: Well, now, that is a hypothetical question.
12
MR. CLARK: Is that hypothetical? There aren't very many
13
14
candidates.
MR. REAGAN: Wait a minute. You can get into all sorts
15
16
of things. Would I, when I was a Democrat, would I have
stayed with my party in '72 when they chose a man who I thought
17
was so far afield from what the American people wanted, then
18
the answer would be no. So you can't rule that that can't
19
happen to any party as it did to that one. I don't think it
20
could happen to the Republican Party, but you can't make
21
a flat assertion that it won't.
22
MR. REYNOLDS: You are well on your way right now to
23
reviving talk about
a third party with you heading a
24
25
third party possibly?
FORD & ERALO IBR:
GIE
1
MR. REAGAN: No, J rule that out.
2
MR. CLARK: Neither you nor Vice President Rockefeller
3
will say they will support the nominee of the party. Doesn'
4
this inspire the sort of divisiveness that Republican leaders
5
in both the left and right wings, the liberal and conservative
6
wings, are trying to avoid?
7
MR. REAGAN: No. There are two candidates at the moment
8
for the nomination of the Republican Party - myself and Presi-
9
dent Ford. If President Ford wins, I will support him.
10
MR. CLARK: There have been reports when you telephoned
11
President Ford to tell him you were going to challenge him
12
for the nomination he told you, as the report read, that this
13
would cause bitterness and divisiveness within the party and
14
weaken its chances of defeating the Democrats next year. Did
15
the President say this to you?
16
MR. REAGAN: The President expressed a concern. I made
17
my pledge to him about doing nothing divisive. He made the
IS
same pledge to me. He did express a concern that in spite
19
of this, the other people who are involved in campaigns, that
20
the danger was there. Well, I have the experience of a '66
21
campaign in California in which we all did observe the 11th
22
Commandment, and we put the Republican Party back together in
23
this state for the first time in 50 years, that it had been
24
a united party.
25
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
16
8
MR. REYNOLDS: Governor, do you believe the President's
2.
current trip to China -- he is on his way there today -- is
3
worthwhile?
#
MR. REAGAN: Well, he expressed the hope it was to improve
5
chances for peace. In that regard I hope it is successful.
6
Frankly, I have to wonder if it isn't time for China to come
7
visit us.
8
MR. CLARK: Governor, one of the questions that is still
9
h anging over our relations with China is whether we should
10
upgrade our diplomatic relations with China and establish an
11
embassy in Peking. Now, the one could be that this would mean
12
abandoning Taiwan. If you were President, would you take that fux
13
ther step toward closer relationships to China?
14
MR. REAGAN: Not if it in any way reduced our relation-
15
ships with Taiwan. Taiwan is an ally. We have a treaty
16
with Taiwan. I believe Taiwan as a trade partner is an
17
economic force in the world far in excess of Mainland China. But
18
while I want better relations on an honest basis with Red
10
China,
as I am sure everyone else does, that this country
20
not, if it means sacrificing our relationship with Taiwan.
21
MR. CLARK: Would you, as President, place conditions
over further moves toward detente
22
with the Russians? Would you want specific
23
for instance, on the subject of further talks toward mutual
24
reductions of nuclear arms?
25
MR. REAGAN: I have criticized detente because
LERALE don FORD
1.7
1
think detente is as much of a two-way street as it was set
2
out to be, and as it is supposed to be. I believe Russia is
spirit, the
3
violating certainly the/intent of detente, with its help to
4
the rebels in Angola and its involvement in the civil war in
15
Angola. I think that the Soviet Union with its out-spending
6
us in both nuclear and conventional weapons, its rapid build-
7
up trying to atain a superiority, none of this is in the spirit
a
of detente, and I think detente, B worthy idea --- none of
9
us wants confrontation, we want a world that can find areas
10
where we can discuss our problems and talk about them ---- I
11
believe the United States, however, should insist that we not
12
give more than we are getting.
13
MR. REYNOLDS: Is that what has happened, Governor? Have
14
we given more than we have been getting?
15
MR. REAGAN: I think we have. As I say, we are not in-
16
volved in Angola, we are not involved in Portugal as the Soviet
17
U nion is. We have just had the Congress of the United States
18
I think dangerously reduce our defense budget, but we know
19
that the Russians are outspending us, 60 percent in nuclear
20
weapons, 25 percent in conventional weapons They have added
21
2,000 pieces of artillery and 1,000 tanks to the forces in
22
Eastern Europe that are opposed to the NATO line. We have added
23
none. I think this is not detente, as I view it.
24
25
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
18
MR. REYNOLDS: You have said that you believed the
Vladivostok Agreement should be zenegotiated. How would you
persuade the Russians to do this?
MR. REAGAN: I think we gave away too much in Vladivostok.
SALT I started out on a basis of equality. This is all actually
former Secretary Schlesinger was aiming at with the budget he
submitted. It was not a superiority but an equality of arms.
To maintain a status quo. What was left out in Viadivostok
was throw weight. We counted numbers of missiles. Well, if
70
we are going to have "x" number of little rocks and you are
going to have "x" number of great big rocks, it is not going
12
to be an even contest if we have to start throwing them at each
other.
13
14
MR. CLARK: Governor, we wanted to ask you a couple of,
specific questions.
15
President Ford is under pressure from conservatives and
15
the oil industry to veto the compromise oil energy package
17
finally being worked out by Congress. If you were President,
18
would you veto this compromise bill?
19
MR. REAGAN: Yes. In two ways it violates to me everything
20
that we need to do. First of all, it wtakes away any stimulant
21
for the production of new sources of energy in this country,
22
and, second of all, it does away with one important factor in
23
attempting conservation.
24
&
FORD
Now, there is a need for conservation on the part
GERALD
of
the
25
19
2
1
people, but, reducing the price of gasoline, happy as it would
make all of us that have to drive into the gas station
3
and fill up the tank, at the same time we have to recognize it
4
is going to encourage further use of petroleum sources.
5
MR. CLARK: And, Governor, another specific question:
Do you favor a constitutional amendment to prohibit courts
6
from ordering school busing to achieve racial balance or inte-
7
gration?
8
MR. REAGAN: Well, before we
turn to a constitutional
9
amendment - I know it is awful easy to look at that as a
10
simple answer to many things, and I don't think the Constitu-
11
tion should deteriorate into involving itself in what should
12
be done by statute and legislation. If that is a last resort,
13
yes, because I am unalterably opposed to forced busing. I
14
don't think it has solved the problem: It has added to the
15
bitterness we were trying to alleviate.
16
I believe here,
in what we talked about earlier,
17
education is one of the areas where I think the federal govern-
18
ment should get its nose out. Again, if control of schools
19
was turned back to the local level, then those decisions would
20
be made by the people at the local level in the local school
21
districts and forced busing usually has come from decisions
22
at the federal level.
28
MR. REYNOLDS: What is your alternative to busing,
24
Governor?
25
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
3
20
1
MR. REAGAN: I think there are a number of alternatives.
2
I think, for one thing, you start out, if there are schools of
3
unequal quality, if you have schools in a metropolitan area
4
like New York and Los Angeles, where in certain areas they are
E
inferior
in facilities and teaching quality to others, you
E
upgrade that. But I think there are things that you can do --
7
MR. CLARK: Governor, I hate to interrupt you in the
6
middle of an answer as complicated as this one, but we are out
9
of time. Thank you very much for being with us on ISSUES AND
10
ANSWERS.
11
MR. REAGAN: Thank you.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD